Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: PRADO NAVARETTE ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272

    PRADO NAVARETTE ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/ne...ewthread&f=142

    Another chip taken out of the 4A. LE is another step closer to stopping a driver "just to make sure."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272

    PRADO NAVARETTE ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    I'm outta here. Edit post function remains unavailable.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    You'll scream louder at the one that will be coming down the pipe.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ite-out-Scotus

    Cops stop people all the time and detain them due to 911 calls ....

  5. #5
    Regular Member DaveT319's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    283
    I'm sure it's happened before that someone called 911 on an OCer and said they were waving their gun around when they weren't. A 911 call seems to give the police the power to act even if the claim is completely made up.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveT319 View Post
    I'm sure it's happened before that someone called 911 on an OCer and said they were waving their gun around when they weren't. A 911 call seems to give the police the power to act even if the claim is completely made up.
    Judge Black's ruling in St. John v. Alamogordo says otherwise. Bottom of page 9 and top of page 10 are particularly revealing: "...as the Ninth Circuit noted in a somewhat similar case, one would expect someone engaged in shady business to act in a more stealthy fashion than Mr. St. John did here. See Duran v. City of Douglas, Arizona, 904 F.2d 1372, 1377 (9th Cir. 1989).Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention" (page 7).

    I find the case exceptional in that it Judge Black does a thorough job citing cases from a variety other courts.

    Regardless, the circumstances of PRADO NAVARETTE ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA were substantially different, and the first two pages are reasonably clear with respect to the legality of the sequence of events.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You'll scream louder at the one that will be coming down the pipe.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ite-out-Scotus

    Cops stop people all the time and detain them due to 911 calls ....
    I was floored to read: "The Fourth Amendment’s reasonable suspicion standard is not offended by an officer’s objectively reasonable mistake of law."

    For easy reference, here's the Fourth: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    The phrase "shall not be violated" is absolute, and a Warrant isn't a violation. It's a mandatory requirement, a request for permission to conduct a search and/or seizure, one which requires particulars. The Fourth Amendment says if the authorities don't know what they're looking for, they shall not search for it nor seize it. Probable cause was never intended by those who wrote the Fourth Amendment to be an on-the-fly excuse to conduct either a search or a seizure. It was intended as a restraining order against law enforcement interfering with the private affairs of mankind.

    Our Founding Fathers knew very well what they were doing, and their wonderful foundation of law has been seriously perverted by judges both brain-dead and political. I firmly agree with Justice Hudson, who says such exclusions violate the separation of powers doctrine (p 28): "Separation of powers doctrine dictates otherwise: It is the legislature‟s job to write the law and the judiciary‟s job to interpret the law. The job of the police is to enforce the law as it has been written by the legislature and interpreted by the courts. Proper enforcement of the law requires accurate knowledge of the law; as the Eleventh Circuit cogently noted in United States v. Chanthasouxat, to decide otherwise is to endorse “the fundamental unfairness of holding citizens to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse while allowing those entrusted to enforce the law to be ignorant of it.” 342 F.3d at 1280."

    Justice Hudson summed things up well in an earlier statement: "Most troubling is that this decision imports into our jurisprudence a concept we have expressly rejected. Allowing an officer‟s “reasonable mistake of law” to support a warrantless stop is the functional equivalent of a “good faith exception” for stops conducted in contravention of the law—as long as the officer acted in good faith, that is, he is reasonably unaware that his actions are inconsistent with the law, the illegality of the stop will not require suppression of the obtained evidence."
    Last edited by since9; 04-26-2014 at 02:14 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Also look at Commonwealth vs Hawkins. A very well written opinion that flies in the face of this ruling.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •