Glock 19 wrote:
i will ask him to clarify, but i still feel that if it makes life easier...just comply...agian just my opinion thats all not trying to piss any one off, belive me iam for carrying just be smart and safe thats all.
Spoken like a true sheep. What's wrong with obeying the POLICE since they are there to help you. Please! Don't answer or comply because we a FREE, but less free when we kow tow to illegal abuses of power.
Think real hard before you respond to this post. Also for everyone's benefit I offer this.
The Information below is from a Slide Show presented to LEO’s titled.
TERRY STOPS & OPEN CARRY--PREPARING OFFICERS TO SAFELY & LEGALLY CONFRONT CITIZENS
Presenters:
Audrey Forbush, LEAF Legal Advisor, Plunkett Cooney
Gene King, LEAF Coordinator, Michigan Municipal League
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person, even where descriptive detail regarding the subject has been corroborated. 6 Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
An anonymous tip with a physical description and location that a person had a gun was not enough for reasonable suspicion, absent anything else to arouse the officer's suspicion. Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
“Contact” is a face to face communication between an officer and a person under circumstances where the person is free to leave.
“Stop” is a temporary detention of a person for investigation which occurs when officers use their authority either to compel a person to halt, to remain in a certain place, or to perform some act. If a person reasonably believes that he is not free to leave the presence of the officer, a "stop" has occurred.
Champion
Reasonable suspicion entails more then inchoate or unparticularized suspicion or hunch but less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause.
6th Circuit
McCurdy v. Montgomery County, Ohio, 240 F.3d 512 (6th Cir.2001)
When an officer literally has no idea whether a presumptively law-abiding citizen has violated the law, the Fourth Amendment clearly commands that government let the individual be.
government may deprive its citizens of liberty when, and only when, it has a viable claim that an individual has committed a crime, and that claim is supported empirically by concrete and identifiable facts.
U.S. v Campbell, 486 F.3d 949 (2007)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983),
“Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place,
by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions.”
U.S. v Campbell, 486 F.3d 949 (2007)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983),
The Subject:
need not answer any question put to him;
may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way
may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds.
U.S. Supreme Court
Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2510, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1986)
The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers....
The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.
6th Circuit
Greene v Barber, 310 F.3d 899 (2002)
Government officials in general, and officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response
The law is well established that…"an act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper."
__________________
*The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, these are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney.
“The charge of every citizen of a free state is to be ever vigilant of the government’s role as their servant and not allow it to become their master.” Brian Jeffs, 2008
Not all cops are here to help. We had a State Police Officer up here who was RAPING women by the threat of jail or traffic tickets and after a few years finally got busted. I had a run in with him and knew he was a bad seed the second I met him. His bullsh*t traffic ticket he wrote on a friends kid I was taking night driving for his drivers license requirement was a travesty. Some of us who work on that side of the Law know and are honest. There are LE's who have a power fetish, let's be honest and say so. Honesty will create far less stress for everyone.
Being confrontational with an officer just to be so, is dumb, but the proper attitude, with respect and standing for one's rights never was seen as a threat to me or anyone who has had to deal with people in our chosen profession. A Police Officer is a public servant not a tin horn dictator. Caution is demanded, but hostility is not warranted.
I wonder how Bart likes prison life.... Oh the ticket was tore up by his commanding officer and never went to court. I have it framed today still.
and i understand kimbers deal what JPD is doing is BS, they have a real problem and i said earlier they are trying to flex thier punie muscles.And i feel they are harrassing him for kicks. you also carry on my friend!!
