davidmcbeth
Banned
sarcasm .... duh
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
1000 foot school zone
- Thread starter snirp88
- Start date
sarcasm .... duh
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Warned him because as a young poster (only 5 posts) he may not have discovered (as most of the rest of us have) how inane your comments are...
Sarcasm is lost in the written word.
Dario
Regular Member
I can not believe that in this day and age, 47 years after Terry v Ohio, people still equate stop and ID with "papers please."
I don't understand your point. Are you speaking of the Colorado Legislature who made the law requiring us to produce the I.D., or are you referring to us?
Jon
since9
Campaign Veteran
This agrees with the exception in the gun free school zones act which allows state exceptions for CC permit holders.
Dario
Regular Member
Maybe I'm mis-reading your intent sir but you seem to be downplaying the RS part of stop and id.
OC is NOT RS or PC
CSR 16-3-103 only apply to illegal activities. If you are not engaged in said acts, you are not required to produce ID and that includes anyone walking down any street at any time, anywhere in the US.
You are correct. I do not disagree with this. I am not downplaying the reasonable suspicion. PC is not required by the statute I don't believe. (probable cause).
I'm not sure what OC is in this context... do you mean open conversation?
So yes, the officer must reasonably suspect you are about to or have committed a crime.
That is a question of fact should you get charged. Question of facts are decided by a jury (or judge in cases where jury trial is waived). Some people like to play that game. Some people don't. I do not judge either school of thought. For me as a individual, I care not if the officer suspects me. I'm likely to produce my I.D. I might not answer questions afterwards, but I don't think I will give officers a very difficult time. I've found all the ones I've dealt with to be polite. All officers are not polite and some want to find evidence, yes. But that point is beyond the scope of this topic. My only goal was to reiterate what was required by the statute and how that could possibly fit into a scene where the AG got information from local police with regards to the gun free school zone act. That was my point. See the thread starter and my responses directly following.
I concede the finer points of law... the C.R.S. is there for you to read as well. The question of you producing your I.D. and if *you* feel the officer has RS or not... that is a decision you will make when he demands the identification. No person can tell you what you should do. (except qualified legal advice, which this is not)
Last edited:
Dario
Regular Member
Sir, take my hand and we will walk thru this together...
The statute does not require probable cause, it requires reasonable suspicion.
PC is probable cause. It is very different from reasonable suspicion. One is stronger than the other. I could find Terry v Ohio and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada for relevant precedent. The supreme court appears silent, I've not found anything.
The statue does not require probable cause. It maintains that the officer has reasonable suspicion.
Here is a primer:
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/
The statue requires that the officer "reasonable suspects". Also... what in the world is "LAC"?
Jon
p.s. I reasonably suspect that you did not read carefully my entire post.
Here is another quote that was important
"So yes, the officer must reasonably suspect you are about to or have committed a crime. "
Last edited:
Dario
Regular Member
LAC=law abiding citizen
I'm not going to sit here and split hairs with you over pc and rs. They are just varying degrees of the same thing and neither allow cops to demand id of someone that's not breaking the law.
Stop and ID does not mean a cop can just stop anyone and demand their papers like n. Korea
So when you imply that cops don't need pc they only need rs it comes off to me as disingenuous.
I'm not going to sit here and split hairs with you over pc and rs. They are just varying degrees of the same thing and neither allow cops to demand id of someone that's not breaking the law.
Stop and ID does not mean a cop can just stop anyone and demand their papers like n. Korea
So when you imply that cops don't need pc they only need rs it comes off to me as disingenuous.
It is not my intent to be insincere. I did not only imply that cops don't need PC... I clearly said they don't. They only need RS. That is the case law, that is the standard, that is the statute. On a site, especially like this one where good people are asking for information; I am going to be damn sure that my information is correct, cited, and relevant. Anything less is a bad thing.
Jon
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
True...
But if we need further confirmation of that concept, we need look no further than the words of contemporary sage Vanilla Ice:
"Anything less than the best is a felony."
;-)
But if we need further confirmation of that concept, we need look no further than the words of contemporary sage Vanilla Ice:
"Anything less than the best is a felony."
;-)
Last edited:
I love this, thank you.
davidmcbeth
Banned
I'm sure that the young poster still has more brain cells working than certain others ...
Primus
Regular Member
That's RAS my friend... Not PC....
Dario
Regular Member
Ok I think I see the error of my ways. Thank you.
heh, nice
JamesB
Regular Member
My understanding on this topic is that Hibel- requires that I verbally identify myself by name to the officer. The Colorado statute requires that I verbally give him my address (not date of birth). And that Terry- and Miranda- allows that I do not have to answer any further questions at all (including date of birth).