OC for ME
Regular Member
Pay your parking tickets ASAP.
-
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.
4A is Officially Extinct
- Thread starter OC for ME
- Start date
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
From the opinion:
Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:
Sotomayor made clear that the 4th. Amendment is dead. I agree.
Detained - not meaning a Terry stop.
Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:
Strieff could have turned around and walked away, but he didn't.
Sotomayor made clear that the 4th. Amendment is dead. I agree.
I say it is only dead if you let it die.
you are left with several ways to enforce it despite his "good faith"
he could have asked if he was being detained, at which point if the officer replied no, he could have said, then I do not consent to this encounter. and walked away, at which point the officer would have been forced to act in bad faith to pursue, and we wouldn't be reading this.
EDUCATE THOSE AROUND YOU, let them know that most stops by LEO's require them engaging in conversation back to make the encounter consentual. they can deny this consent by stating such denial.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Detained? Could've walked away? No, Strieff was siezed under the 4A (that don't exist anymore).
Shrieff is guilty of not knowing the case law that permits him to walk away. The cop is guilty of demanding not asking. But, these five anti-liberty anti-c0nstitution judges don't give a rip and desire only that the state be more able to violate our individual liberty.
Now that the 4A is gone the other four of the top five are next.
thanks.. apparently I am the whole of OCDO...
I do not like common core education, it is a sad and pathetic system so as to not "hurt feewings" however there are some really good teachers out there who have been given a crap hand dealt them through this system that they have to comply with to stay employed.
even worse is the text books. for example, it wasn't until I was older I realized Lincoln started the civil war at the expense of state sovereignty and the right of the people to institute a new government, and that it wasn't for slavery, that was just a side effect. I also didn't know he was actually rascist.
but I digress.
however education does exist in plenty of history books and law books for review, and if you want your rights reinforced and not tramped on at every opportunity presented thanks to some dolt. you might want to educate the people around you through friends, relatives ETC, on how stops are sometimes consentual encounters and they can find out by asking if they are detained.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Disagree. Do not ask, simply state that you do not consent to the encounter and then turn and walk away. Let us know what happens.
The court acknowledged that the cop demanded ID, not asked for ID, which implies to a reasonable citizen that he would not be free to go.
In Missouri Strieff would have been under arrest. http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54400001801.html?&me=arrest
OC for ME
Regular Member
I am not inclined to train/educate cops on how not to violate the law. A "consensual encounter" is a construct of the courts at the begging of the cops. Do you always consent to be contacted by a cop.
...consensual...pfft!
I disagree with this, if you are being detained you can ask why, this places the ball in the officers court to explain his "articulable suspicion" if he replies "because i'm a police officer" or something to similar effect you can then say "okay, with all due respect officer, this detainment is, in my opinion, unlawful and i'm going to have to request my/a lawyer be present, either in person or via speakerphone on my/a cell phone, any questions asked or requests can be directed through them. "
of course I also have the number to a lawyer on my cell ... soooooooo
Last edited:
Ezek, as has stated numerous times by lay and kind legal folk ~ KYBMShut...
if you engage you are encouraging and engaging the 'friendly' conversation with the nice LE..."not sure what happened, we were having a friendly conversation and EZEK immediately then demanded an attorney be present so i brought them in for further questioning to see what was going on'....
may i help you officer...am i free to go? repeat until yes is given to the last part of the mantra...
ipse
you can record said conversation, mo is a one party state.
and yeah, like some officer is going to just give a yes here, you're more likely to just be arrested, probably opn grounds of failure to follow a "lawful order".
after requesting lawyer, you invoke your 5th and say nothing. record the conversation as well this way he can't duck out and say it was a "friendly" conversation and you suddenly requested your lawyer.
you may even have your cell out and video record the non consentual encounter. so as to show the degredation of the officer professionalism in a court of law.
I guess I am overcomplicating the dialogue, it would be simpler to ask if detained, if yes, say I don't answer questions without legal counsel and then only ask if your free to go... repeatedly. record encounter from initiation of course if you can.
Last edited:
This is a good point, and why a balanced court helps. It's just so damn frustrating when the civil-rights champions go completely against their own principles on one basic thing. And yes, you can absolutely hate them when they so obviously get it wrong on extremely vital rights, even though they merely do their job on cases like this one.
Whitney
Regular Member
Confused ?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf
Did the detective "demand" or "request" ID?
If you provide ID upon "request" is it considered consensual?
Was the stop unlawful or not? If it was a lawful stop then why argue the exception technicality?
~Whitney
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH
No. 14–1373. Argued February 22, 2016—Decided June 20, 2016
Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf
Did the detective "demand" or "request" ID?
If you provide ID upon "request" is it considered consensual?
Was the stop unlawful or not? If it was a lawful stop then why argue the exception technicality?
~Whitney
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH
No. 14–1373. Argued February 22, 2016—Decided June 20, 2016
Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed.
Last edited by a moderator:
randian
Regular Member
A broken clock still needs fixing even when it's right.
utbagpiper
Banned
I don't know why anyone would conflate members of the leftist educational trade unions and the leftist-controlled "education" establishment (aka government/union or "public" schools) with actual education?
Indeed, I hold union drones and the schools they control in contempt precisely because they are supposed to be providing education and yet utterly fail to do so. Instead the engage in left-wing indoctrination using such programs as No Child Left Behind, Common Core, Discovery Math, and so on. History is presented not as a roadmap of where we came from or cause and effect, but rather as isolated vignettes with no connection to each other nor to today, except to show that our nation is incurably racist, broken, and evil, fixable only through the exercise of ever greater amounts of federal power.
I don't expect the mailman or checkout clerk at the supermarket to provide much education. But the educational union members demand ever more of my tax money on the promise of providing education and then fail to deliver.
Today's union members with teaching degrees are a disgrace to the actual teachers and educators of my youth. These men and women had degrees in the fields they intended to teach--math, history, English--and then obtained teaching certificates. They knew their material. And then they learned how to teach it to others. I never heard the word "pedagogy" from such educators. They focused on the actual material they were teaching. Today, method trumps material. And whereas my teachers all understood that teaching was a part time gig that required a second income to support a family at a middle-class level, today's union members expect to earn 12 months of income for 9 months of work. Worse than that, far too many of them have never left school. K through 12, then to college, then back to K to 12 to teach. My teachers had real world experience working the family farm or ranch, or doing construction, or even providing educational services to businesses in the off season.
I hold the typical union member educational degreed government school employee in contempt precisely BECAUSE I so value education and they so often utterly fail to deliver the service they purport to provide.
Charles
Whitney
Regular Member
Do you mean the approach to conversation can be regarded as tort because it is essentially infringement upon the citizens rights ?
If so, that is an interesting analysis I have never considered.
Where there is no probable cause the approach to conversation is willful, or wrongful assault?
~Whitney
OC for ME
Regular Member
Decline the encounter from the get-go and the ball is in the officer's court. If you are not free to go the cop will make such a statement and, under RSMo, you are under arrest. My recording will have my denial to engage and not another word from me will be heard on the recording.
Soooooooo...you are certainly free to engage the cop in verbal jitsu....
OC for ME
Regular Member
Anyone, including a cop, can ask you anything. Your response is the key. I prefer to decline the encounter and go about my business. The cop has then a very important decision to make.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I don't know about that. I've seen references to maybe two states which require a cop to state his basis for a detention to the detainee if the detainee asks for it. Otherwise, after years of paying attention to this point, I know of nothing that requires a cop to answer.
Spearately, why wait for the cop to give an answer that suggests an illegal detention before requesting a lawyer? For illustrative purposes, I would ask, are you not going to request a lawyer if the cop gives you a genuine reasonable basis to detain you?
OC for ME
Regular Member
Unfortunately, my determination of what is reasonable will likely be far different than the cop's. And, unfortunately again, it will take a member of the judges guild to bless me with is propensity...if it exists.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Or be proactive...file no contact orders with LEO depts. notifying them that you do not consent to any contact from LEOs of the agency.
Then when they contact you they are assaulting you (unless they have RAS or PC or warrant).
I have filed them and they howl when they read them....but none have violated them. They know what would happen. Not good things for them.