imported post
SO I guess seeing someone get into a car and drive is RAS to stop them and ask for a DL? WTF is wrong with these people, haven't they at least studies the principles of law.
The driving example has already been upheld as unlawful by the US Supreme Court as has stating that RAS OR PC in not meet for the mere presence of a firearm. This judge should really do a bit of research before he trample peoples rights.
My argument would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police
can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS[/u][/b] or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.
The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not
RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)
U.S. Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE
[/b]
Syllabus
A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
AND
Where simply carrying a handgun is not in itself illegal and does not constitute probable cause to arrest,[suP]2[/suP] it follows that carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The same applies to persons in motor vehicles. An investigatory stop is only justified when the police have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences there from," that the subject "had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime."[suP]3[/suP]
See, for example, Com. v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 552 N.E.2d 538 (1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S. Ct. 372, 112 L.Ed.2d 334 (1990).
[suP]2[/suP] Id.
[suP]3[/suP] See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
[suP]4[/suP] Com. v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 277, 667 N.E.2d 856 (1998).
[suP]5[/suP] Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2. 301 (1990).
[suP]6[/suP] Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
[suP]7[/suP] Pennsylvania v. D.M., U.S. 120 S. Ct. 203, 146 L.Ed.2d 953 (2000).
God damn nothing.
