-
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.
Was I just Terry Stopped?
- Thread starter AbNo
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
Check the rest of the thread; his responses to my questions.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
US vs Mendenhall: We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.[suP] [n6][/suP] Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio, supra at 19, n. 16; Dunaway v. 442 U.S. 200, 207, and n. 6; 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 53-55 (1978).
(red emphasis Citizen's)
nitrovic wrote:
US vs Mendenhall: We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.[suP] [n6][/suP] Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio, supra at 19, n. 16; Dunaway v. 442 U.S. 200, 207, and n. 6; 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 53-55 (1978).
(red emphasis Citizen's)
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
Please cite to court opinion where an LEO omitting to say a person was not free to leave is the element that determines whether a seizure has occurred for the purposes of the 4th Amendment.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
AbNo wrote:
To make a Terry stop, "the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981). In both Terry and Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972), the police officers were able to articulate a particularized suspicion that the person was engaged in criminal activity. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 6-7; Williams, 407 U.S. at 144-48.
AbNo wrote:
This doesn't fly as the basis for detaing someone. Here is an excerpt from Christian vs Commonwealth 0558-98-1 (2000). (Cornell didn't seem to have US v Cortez on-line so I'm resorting to letting the VA Court of Appeals do the quoting)
To make a Terry stop, "the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981). In both Terry and Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972), the police officers were able to articulate a particularized suspicion that the person was engaged in criminal activity. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 6-7; Williams, 407 U.S. at 144-48.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Big difference in Terry and mendenhall. Every case is different, that is why the Supreme Court hears cases. The Supreme Court reversed Mendenhall, the encounter did not constitute a 4th amendment violation. Furthermore, the case was in 1976 and the defendant stated race played an issue, the SC agreed to a point. You have to look at each case in it's totality. I do appreciate you quoting mendenhall, i completely forgot about it. And it proves my point.
Besides that, the big question over the mendenhall case was weather or not the DEA agents asking her to go to the office was an involuntary seizure. Nothing like that seemed have happened here. Certainly no "authoritative voice" issues.
Citizen wrote:
Big difference in Terry and mendenhall. Every case is different, that is why the Supreme Court hears cases. The Supreme Court reversed Mendenhall, the encounter did not constitute a 4th amendment violation. Furthermore, the case was in 1976 and the defendant stated race played an issue, the SC agreed to a point. You have to look at each case in it's totality. I do appreciate you quoting mendenhall, i completely forgot about it. And it proves my point.
Besides that, the big question over the mendenhall case was weather or not the DEA agents asking her to go to the office was an involuntary seizure. Nothing like that seemed have happened here. Certainly no "authoritative voice" issues.Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
Like I said, read the rest of the thread. Abno clarifies.
Did you really think he would know enough of the intricacies of 4th Amendment case law to be sure to present the relevant facts in detail the first time through the story? Especially given the fact that the title to the thread is "Was I Terry Stopped"?
I asked him the questions needed to clarify. He answered. Itadds up to a detention.
nitrovic wrote:
Like I said, read the rest of the thread. Abno clarifies.
Did you really think he would know enough of the intricacies of 4th Amendment case law to be sure to present the relevant facts in detail the first time through the story? Especially given the fact that the title to the thread is "Was I Terry Stopped"?
I asked him the questions needed to clarify. He answered. Itadds up to a detention.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
It doesn't contributeto anybody'sknowledge if you don't back it up with some explanation.
Or, are you not really interested in contributing to knowledge of the forum?
nitrovic wrote:
Nice declaration.
It doesn't contributeto anybody'sknowledge if you don't back it up with some explanation.
Or, are you not really interested in contributing to knowledge of the forum?
imported post
It seems that in the beginning the officer says "May I" but later according to the OP.... the officer demands the OP's name. So it definitely started out consensual and that later became confrontational.
The officer did cut off the OP several times when he attempted to explain himself. There was no reason that I could see to justify doing that and it would appear that the officer was becoming rude.
The officer had no justification to stop someone OCing just to see if they were allowed to possess a gun. So running his name just because he had a gun was not proper.
Unless the officer knew the OP and was aware that he had a criminal record or restraining orders out on him.... he had no RS to stop him.
I call to his department may be in order.
It seems that in the beginning the officer says "May I" but later according to the OP.... the officer demands the OP's name. So it definitely started out consensual and that later became confrontational.
The officer did cut off the OP several times when he attempted to explain himself. There was no reason that I could see to justify doing that and it would appear that the officer was becoming rude.
The officer had no justification to stop someone OCing just to see if they were allowed to possess a gun. So running his name just because he had a gun was not proper.
Unless the officer knew the OP and was aware that he had a criminal record or restraining orders out on him.... he had no RS to stop him.
I call to his department may be in order.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
The only thing you have contributed has nothing to do with this post. The poster asked if it was a Terry stop, it wasn't. The cases you posted had very little to do with his situation. He can complain or sue all he wants, nothing will happen because the officer did nothing wrong. I too can cut and paste case laws that don't pertain to this situation all day, it doesn't help anything. If the poster is ignorant to the case law they may believe that law pertains to their situation and end up in a tight spot with LE.
Citizen wrote:
The only thing you have contributed has nothing to do with this post. The poster asked if it was a Terry stop, it wasn't. The cases you posted had very little to do with his situation. He can complain or sue all he wants, nothing will happen because the officer did nothing wrong. I too can cut and paste case laws that don't pertain to this situation all day, it doesn't help anything. If the poster is ignorant to the case law they may believe that law pertains to their situation and end up in a tight spot with LE.
imported post
You know what, NEVERMIND. I give up on this site. To the original poster, if you want actual advice see a lawyer or do some research on your own. Don't come on this site and ask anything. You will only get the typical "the police were wrong" and "sue the cops" bs along with a bunch of lies and mistruths. You guys are the biggest bunch of ignorant people I have ever come across. Some of you think you can just reference case law and think people don't actually know what that case is. Unreal. I dont know what is worse, Ami-gi and the other cop haters posting their anti police rhetoric with no proof to their posts or Citizen posting his case laws that don't reference the situation in question. Good luck. Keep the tinfoil on your head and your tape recorders on.:uhoh:
You know what, NEVERMIND. I give up on this site. To the original poster, if you want actual advice see a lawyer or do some research on your own. Don't come on this site and ask anything. You will only get the typical "the police were wrong" and "sue the cops" bs along with a bunch of lies and mistruths. You guys are the biggest bunch of ignorant people I have ever come across. Some of you think you can just reference case law and think people don't actually know what that case is. Unreal. I dont know what is worse, Ami-gi and the other cop haters posting their anti police rhetoric with no proof to their posts or Citizen posting his case laws that don't reference the situation in question. Good luck. Keep the tinfoil on your head and your tape recorders on.:uhoh:
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
ed wrote:
Ordered the 4100PC and got the 4100PC from Amazon. Any ideas on a wave to text program?
ed wrote:
Ordered the 4100PC and got the 4100PC from Amazon. Any ideas on a wave to text program?
imported post
No disrespect meant Leo229. I won't post here anymore, don't worry about it. Between Bobcav and his insane, illegal "investigations" into my non-existent drug use and his and others threats, I won't be back. I will continue to spread the word though, you can be assured of that. Have fun ripping on the police guys.
No disrespect meant Leo229. I won't post here anymore, don't worry about it. Between Bobcav and his insane, illegal "investigations" into my non-existent drug use and his and others threats, I won't be back. I will continue to spread the word though, you can be assured of that. Have fun ripping on the police guys.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
QFT
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
QFT
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
The encounter appears to be consensual and a request/demand for his name. The officer wanted to run his name.
This was not necessary and the officer had no RS to believe the OP was a convicted felon and in possession of a stolen gun.
At best... the officer was rude. But that is subjective based of the OP's take on how things were said.
Remembering.... we are only getting one side of the story here.
But the OP was not searched or cuffed and never asked if he could leave. So I see no violation of his rights.
nitrovic wrote:
In part I would agree with you...
The encounter appears to be consensual and a request/demand for his name. The officer wanted to run his name.
This was not necessary and the officer had no RS to believe the OP was a convicted felon and in possession of a stolen gun.
At best... the officer was rude. But that is subjective based of the OP's take on how things were said.
Remembering.... we are only getting one side of the story here.
But the OP was not searched or cuffed and never asked if he could leave. So I see no violation of his rights.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nitrovic wrote:
Well, lets take a look a that.
Abnoindifferentposts on thisthread (all emphasis mine):
His voice contained tone that implied he would make my evening as difficult as possible if I didn't comply.
Yes. I was put under the distinct impression that I would be given undue (il)legal consequences if I did not comply with his demands that I "Come on over here, lean on the window" line.
I don't suppose the fact that he repeatedly told me to give him my ID, but settled for my name without argument has any merit?
Well, argument other than me asking repeatedly why he told me to stop walking down the sidewalk and come talk to him.
I don't suppose tone, demeanor, and attitude that made me feel as though he'd make sure it was not in my best interests to leave counts?
If you will go back in the thread, you will see me trying to find out the precise facts that help nail down whether it was a detention. You will also see me providing the court opinions that help him answer his own question.
Aside from making some personal declarations, you have yet to provide a court opinion to show Abno something useful to help him determine whether he was detained.
Are you willing to contribute something that can help him answer his question?
nitrovic wrote:
Well, lets take a look a that.
Abnoindifferentposts on thisthread (all emphasis mine):
His voice contained tone that implied he would make my evening as difficult as possible if I didn't comply.
Yes. I was put under the distinct impression that I would be given undue (il)legal consequences if I did not comply with his demands that I "Come on over here, lean on the window" line.
I don't suppose the fact that he repeatedly told me to give him my ID, but settled for my name without argument has any merit?
Well, argument other than me asking repeatedly why he told me to stop walking down the sidewalk and come talk to him.
I don't suppose tone, demeanor, and attitude that made me feel as though he'd make sure it was not in my best interests to leave counts?
If you will go back in the thread, you will see me trying to find out the precise facts that help nail down whether it was a detention. You will also see me providing the court opinions that help him answer his own question.
Aside from making some personal declarations, you have yet to provide a court opinion to show Abno something useful to help him determine whether he was detained.
Are you willing to contribute something that can help him answer his question?