• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

E CHECKS

stuckinchico

stuckinchico

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
506
Location
Stevenson, Alabama, United States
imported post

I am still trying to figure out how a CA Appeals court out trumps a us supreme court

US V Ubiles say that a firearm is not enough for a detention under terry v ohio then what the flying pigeons are we getting stopped for !!!! This issue is right on point with it
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

The CA court rules that 12031(e) is not a detainment or a search, but a mere examination.

That is their logic.
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Theseus wrote:
The CA court rules that 12031(e) is not a detainment or a search, but a mere examination.

That is their logic.
Click to expand...

Just try to relax, this exam will only take a moment. :uhoh:



latex.jpg
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Theseus wrote:
The CA court rules that 12031(e) is not a detainment or a search, but a mere examination.

That is their logic.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, flies in the face of the very wording of Terry v Ohio, which clearly defines that any involuntary contact is a "seizure" of the person in the 4A sense.
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Surely there must be a lawyer willing to take this case pro bono. It's a slam dunk once we get it to the right court. Couldn't the state be forced to cover attorney fees if/when we win?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top