terminal.logic
Regular Member
imported post
Reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, is the basis of a temporary detainment.
Reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, is the basis of a temporary detainment.
-
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.
First Police Contact
- Thread starter Jonathon Sometimes
- Start date
terminal.logic
Regular Member
imported post
jaiotu wrote:
jaiotu wrote:
Agreed.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
terminal.logic wrote:
It is unreasonable to demand that an unlawfully detained subject do anything. Since Jonathon was not breaking any laws, the officer had no RAS for the stop. Therefore, if he detained Jonathon, that detention was unlawful. And, furthermore, if he were to try to enforce his request for Jonathon to step outside, that would have been unlawful.
LEOs may not stop LACs willy-nilly and demand that they do anything--at least not with an expectation mandatory compliance.
terminal.logic wrote:
It is not controlling. Lawyers have posted here saying that it is persuasive and may be cited. Applicability is not applicable.
It is unreasonable to demand that an unlawfully detained subject do anything. Since Jonathon was not breaking any laws, the officer had no RAS for the stop. Therefore, if he detained Jonathon, that detention was unlawful. And, furthermore, if he were to try to enforce his request for Jonathon to step outside, that would have been unlawful.
LEOs may not stop LACs willy-nilly and demand that they do anything--at least not with an expectation mandatory compliance.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
jaiotu wrote:
I would say, "Do not look in my car."
jaiotu wrote:
"Do you mind if..." is one of those ambiguous questions. If someone says yes, do they mean, "Yes, you may look," or, "Yes, I mind."
I would say, "Do not look in my car."
terminal.logic
Regular Member
imported post
Similar to the McColley case, if the officer received a report of "man with a holstered sidearm sipping coffee" and he responded and observed same, no R.S. would exist.
However some people are much more creative as they describe things to the police.
Similar to the McColley case, if the officer received a report of "man with a holstered sidearm sipping coffee" and he responded and observed same, no R.S. would exist.
However some people are much more creative as they describe things to the police.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
terminal.logic wrote:
BTW, I know from personal experience that you can get that MWAG 911 call. In my case, my gun was clearly described as being holstered.
terminal.logic wrote:
Let's say someone called and said that there was a man waving a gun around and scaring folks. Once the officer arrives on the scene and sees a man with a properly holstered sidearm sipping coffee and no one freaking out, he would still have no RAS to think that LAC was committing a crime.
BTW, I know from personal experience that you can get that MWAG 911 call. In my case, my gun was clearly described as being holstered.
terminal.logic
Regular Member
imported post
But the call could have come in as....dude pointed a gun at me in the parking lot, last seen entering the store...In which case RS would exist...
The whole issue in McColley is the officer plainly testified he had no RS to detain...
But the call could have come in as....dude pointed a gun at me in the parking lot, last seen entering the store...In which case RS would exist...
The whole issue in McColley is the officer plainly testified he had no RS to detain...
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
terminal.logic wrote:
Barring someone with a grudge willing to break the law to make life rough on someone else, this isn't exactly a real concern. Even so, I would expect RAS to disappear in most cases as soon as the responding officer contacts the "victim."
However, if you have a recorder, and you refuse consent while also avoiding resisting, unlawful actions by the LEO can be handled later.
Anyway, all of this has been an attempt to justify an officer's lawful ability to stop an OCer as a result of a simple MWAG call. The officer has not such lawful ability, and we need to be willing to tell him so.
This is why we constantly discuss how to react to a stop. This is why we learn phrases like, "Am I free to go?" "Am I being detained?" and "I do not consent to [whatever unlawful action the LEO wants to take], but I will not resist."
terminal.logic wrote:
Yeah, the caller could lie. And, when lying calls come in, honest LACs can get rousted without recourse.
Barring someone with a grudge willing to break the law to make life rough on someone else, this isn't exactly a real concern. Even so, I would expect RAS to disappear in most cases as soon as the responding officer contacts the "victim."
However, if you have a recorder, and you refuse consent while also avoiding resisting, unlawful actions by the LEO can be handled later.
Anyway, all of this has been an attempt to justify an officer's lawful ability to stop an OCer as a result of a simple MWAG call. The officer has not such lawful ability, and we need to be willing to tell him so.
This is why we constantly discuss how to react to a stop. This is why we learn phrases like, "Am I free to go?" "Am I being detained?" and "I do not consent to [whatever unlawful action the LEO wants to take], but I will not resist."