Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
imported post
There were no signs that I saw...
So I just handled it as normal... I went and sat down :?
There were no signs that I saw...
So I just handled it as normal... I went and sat down :?
-
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.
Encounter with Mackinac Island PD
- Thread starter Evil Creamsicle
- Start date
lapeer20m
Regular Member
imported post
Bailenforcer wrote
I cannot find any information that indicates that any ferry's in the state of michigan operate under the authority or rules of the TSA.
Google did provide information that TSA has partnered with some ferry's in places like new york and san fran to help detect explosives.
Bailenforcer wrote
cite?
I cannot find any information that indicates that any ferry's in the state of michigan operate under the authority or rules of the TSA.
Google did provide information that TSA has partnered with some ferry's in places like new york and san fran to help detect explosives.
mikestilly
Regular Member
imported post
Evil Creamsicle wrote:
FTP directions are sent.
Evil Creamsicle wrote:
FTP directions are sent.
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
imported post
mikestilly wrote:
Here, its about friggin time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MuevMpDU24
And for fun heres some other vids of my vacation:
AK, 75rd Drum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbhqjWWwmmw
S12, 20rd Drum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVcMsDF3tvw
Driving where I shouldn't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvmrt8_n4Hw
Fort Mackinac Museum [part of it]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IYlQb3eAhM
Mackinac Island Viewpoint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo1bBhal3K4
Cannon Demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG4klmFRl8Q
View down through the grates on the Mackinac Bridge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WuDcxUnoWo
Rallying in my Grand Am:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNuc-LzlLGE
10 Slugs out of the S12 [Killing my Printer]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJ247HtwK4
Tahquamenon Lower Falls [Partial]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyiBm8zc4tk
Tahquamenon Lower Falls [Rowboat]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QusxitWCOqk
Tahquamenon Upper Falls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-S9uNVp55k
Girlfriend shooting the S12:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnirpKIDhwY
Seul Choix Lighthouse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmzFElzZY7g
Kich-Iti-Kipi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tryV1JclwWU
mikestilly wrote:
lol well I uploaded it , but I can FTP it too so you can have it in the Michigan OC channel.
Here, its about friggin time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MuevMpDU24
And for fun heres some other vids of my vacation:
AK, 75rd Drum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbhqjWWwmmw
S12, 20rd Drum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVcMsDF3tvw
Driving where I shouldn't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvmrt8_n4Hw
Fort Mackinac Museum [part of it]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IYlQb3eAhM
Mackinac Island Viewpoint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo1bBhal3K4
Cannon Demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG4klmFRl8Q
View down through the grates on the Mackinac Bridge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WuDcxUnoWo
Rallying in my Grand Am:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNuc-LzlLGE
10 Slugs out of the S12 [Killing my Printer]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJ247HtwK4
Tahquamenon Lower Falls [Partial]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyiBm8zc4tk
Tahquamenon Lower Falls [Rowboat]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QusxitWCOqk
Tahquamenon Upper Falls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-S9uNVp55k
Girlfriend shooting the S12:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnirpKIDhwY
Seul Choix Lighthouse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmzFElzZY7g
Kich-Iti-Kipi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tryV1JclwWU
mikestilly
Regular Member
imported post
Please only give me the encounter. I dont need your vacation videos lol. Eh she went back in the middle to film the demonstration. Can barely hear what's doing on an cannot see either :|
Please only give me the encounter. I dont need your vacation videos lol. Eh she went back in the middle to film the demonstration. Can barely hear what's doing on an cannot see either :|
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
imported post
I know, they're just fun.
I know, they're just fun.
lapeer20m
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks for posting.
I wonder how they would have reacted if you had chosen to not answer questions and or not give ID since you were under no obligation to do either.
Thanks for posting.
I wonder how they would have reacted if you had chosen to not answer questions and or not give ID since you were under no obligation to do either.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
bsf wrote:
[/quote]
Like most statutes there are often gray areas. If you are unsure whether it is a stop or notit may be better to disclose and be "safe". There is a legal definition of what a stop is. My opinion is the statute is referring to a legal stop. That is if you are not free to leave it's a stop. If you are free to leave the officer wouldn't discover whether you are concealing or not. So if the officer will not let me leave then I would disclose. Keep in mind this is for a contact not incident to driving.
If you are pulled over while driving you are being "stopped" and the US Supreme Court has ruled that so are any passengers in the car. So you would have to disclose if you have a loaded pistol anywhere in the vehicle. You would not have to disclose if your pistol (or for that matter long guns) is/are unloaded and properly secured.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk
The situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.
One of the most controversial police procedures is the stop and frisk search. This type of limited search occurs when police confront a suspicious person in an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person.
A stop is different from an arrest. An arrest is a lengthy process in which the suspect is taken to the police station and booked, whereas a stop involves only a temporary interference with a person's liberty. If the officer uncovers further evidence during the frisk, the stop may lead to an actual arrest, but if no further evidence is found, the person is released.
A stop is different from an arrest. An arrest is a lengthy process in which the suspect is taken to the police station and booked, whereas a stop involves only a temporary interference with a person's liberty. If the officer uncovers further evidence during the frisk, the stop may lead to an actual arrest, but if no further evidence is found, the person is released.
Unlike a full search, a frisk is generally limited to a patting down of the outer clothing. If the officer feels what seems to be a weapon, the officer may then reach inside the person's clothing. If no weapon is felt, the search may not intrude further than the outer clothing.
Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.
In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.
The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.
The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.
Investigatory detention became an important law enforcement technique in the 1980s as police sought to curtail the trafficking of illegal drugs. In United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that police have the power to detain, question, and investigate suspected drug couriers. The case involved a Terry stop at an international airport, during which the defendant aroused suspicion by conforming to a controversial "drug courier profile" developed by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Court said that the DEA profile gave the officer reasonable suspicion, "which is more than a mere hunch but less than probable cause."
The Supreme Court has become increasingly permissive regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990), the Court upheld a Terry stop of an automobile based solely on an anonymous tip that described a certain car that would be at a specific location. Police went to the site, found the vehicle, and detained the driver. The police then found marijuana and cocaine in the automobile. The Court observed that it was a "close case" but concluded that the tip and its corroboration were sufficiently reliable to justify the investigatory stop that ultimately led to the arrest of the driver and the seizure of the drugs.
However, the Court retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the tip, stating that a young black male was standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, and carrying a gun, lacked sufficient reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. After announcing its decision in Florida v. J. L., the Court vacated two other state court decisions with similar fact patterns, one from Ohio (Morrison v. Ohio, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 [U.S. 2000]) and one from Wisconsin (Williams v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 U.S. [2000]).
In the Ohio case, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld a Terry stop that was based on a phone call to the police from an anonymous informant who stated that there were two males walking westward on a particular avenue in a particular area and that one of the males was carrying a weapon in his pocket. According to the Ohio Court of Appeals, the Terry stop was supported by sufficient reasonable suspicion because significant aspects of the anonymous caller's predictions were verified. In the Wisconsin case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip that individuals were dealing drugs from a vehicle parked within view of the tipster and their confirmation, within four minutes of the tip, of readily observable information offered by the tipster, even though the officers did not independently observe any suspicious activity. In Florida v. J. L., however, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that an accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and attributes does not show that the tipster had knowledge of concealed criminal activity.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
[/quote]
Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from detaining pedestrians and conducting any kind of search of their clothing without first possessing a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the pedestrians are engaged in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 21 L. Ed. 889 (1968). Police may not even compel a pedestrian to produce identification without first meeting this standard. Similarly, police may not stop motorists without first having a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver has violated a traffic law. If a police officer has satisfied this standard in stopping a motorist, the officer may conduct a search of the vehicle's interior, including the glove compartment, but not the trunk, unless the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or the instruments for criminal activity.
Investigatory stops or detentions must be limited and temporary, lasting no longer than necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop or detention. An investigatory stop that lasts too long turns into a de facto arrest that must comply with the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. But no bright line exists for determining when an investigatory stop becomes a de facto arrest, as courts are reluctant to hamstring the flexibility and discretion of police officers by placing artificial time limitations on the fluid and dynamic nature of their investigations. Rather, the test is whether the detention is temporary and whether the police acted with reasonable dispatch to quickly confirm or dispel the suspicions that initially induced the investigative detention.
bsf wrote:
[/quote]
Like most statutes there are often gray areas. If you are unsure whether it is a stop or notit may be better to disclose and be "safe". There is a legal definition of what a stop is. My opinion is the statute is referring to a legal stop. That is if you are not free to leave it's a stop. If you are free to leave the officer wouldn't discover whether you are concealing or not. So if the officer will not let me leave then I would disclose. Keep in mind this is for a contact not incident to driving.
If you are pulled over while driving you are being "stopped" and the US Supreme Court has ruled that so are any passengers in the car. So you would have to disclose if you have a loaded pistol anywhere in the vehicle. You would not have to disclose if your pistol (or for that matter long guns) is/are unloaded and properly secured.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk
The situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.
One of the most controversial police procedures is the stop and frisk search. This type of limited search occurs when police confront a suspicious person in an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person.
A stop is different from an arrest. An arrest is a lengthy process in which the suspect is taken to the police station and booked, whereas a stop involves only a temporary interference with a person's liberty. If the officer uncovers further evidence during the frisk, the stop may lead to an actual arrest, but if no further evidence is found, the person is released.
A stop is different from an arrest. An arrest is a lengthy process in which the suspect is taken to the police station and booked, whereas a stop involves only a temporary interference with a person's liberty. If the officer uncovers further evidence during the frisk, the stop may lead to an actual arrest, but if no further evidence is found, the person is released.
Unlike a full search, a frisk is generally limited to a patting down of the outer clothing. If the officer feels what seems to be a weapon, the officer may then reach inside the person's clothing. If no weapon is felt, the search may not intrude further than the outer clothing.
Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.
In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.
The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.
The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.
Investigatory detention became an important law enforcement technique in the 1980s as police sought to curtail the trafficking of illegal drugs. In United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that police have the power to detain, question, and investigate suspected drug couriers. The case involved a Terry stop at an international airport, during which the defendant aroused suspicion by conforming to a controversial "drug courier profile" developed by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Court said that the DEA profile gave the officer reasonable suspicion, "which is more than a mere hunch but less than probable cause."
The Supreme Court has become increasingly permissive regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990), the Court upheld a Terry stop of an automobile based solely on an anonymous tip that described a certain car that would be at a specific location. Police went to the site, found the vehicle, and detained the driver. The police then found marijuana and cocaine in the automobile. The Court observed that it was a "close case" but concluded that the tip and its corroboration were sufficiently reliable to justify the investigatory stop that ultimately led to the arrest of the driver and the seizure of the drugs.
However, the Court retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the tip, stating that a young black male was standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, and carrying a gun, lacked sufficient reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. After announcing its decision in Florida v. J. L., the Court vacated two other state court decisions with similar fact patterns, one from Ohio (Morrison v. Ohio, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 [U.S. 2000]) and one from Wisconsin (Williams v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 U.S. [2000]).
In the Ohio case, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld a Terry stop that was based on a phone call to the police from an anonymous informant who stated that there were two males walking westward on a particular avenue in a particular area and that one of the males was carrying a weapon in his pocket. According to the Ohio Court of Appeals, the Terry stop was supported by sufficient reasonable suspicion because significant aspects of the anonymous caller's predictions were verified. In the Wisconsin case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip that individuals were dealing drugs from a vehicle parked within view of the tipster and their confirmation, within four minutes of the tip, of readily observable information offered by the tipster, even though the officers did not independently observe any suspicious activity. In Florida v. J. L., however, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that an accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and attributes does not show that the tipster had knowledge of concealed criminal activity.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest
[/quote]
Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from detaining pedestrians and conducting any kind of search of their clothing without first possessing a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the pedestrians are engaged in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 21 L. Ed. 889 (1968). Police may not even compel a pedestrian to produce identification without first meeting this standard. Similarly, police may not stop motorists without first having a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the driver has violated a traffic law. If a police officer has satisfied this standard in stopping a motorist, the officer may conduct a search of the vehicle's interior, including the glove compartment, but not the trunk, unless the officer has probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or the instruments for criminal activity.
Investigatory stops or detentions must be limited and temporary, lasting no longer than necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop or detention. An investigatory stop that lasts too long turns into a de facto arrest that must comply with the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. But no bright line exists for determining when an investigatory stop becomes a de facto arrest, as courts are reluctant to hamstring the flexibility and discretion of police officers by placing artificial time limitations on the fluid and dynamic nature of their investigations. Rather, the test is whether the detention is temporary and whether the police acted with reasonable dispatch to quickly confirm or dispel the suspicions that initially induced the investigative detention.