• 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.

Detroit Police search for guns

C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
CoonDog wrote:
Michigander wrote:
But I can't see anything in the article which contradicts the law.
Click to expand...
This may be naive, but I don't see how running from the cops = RAS. Does it? For what crime?
Click to expand...
The crime does not need to be specific...just "criminality" in general.

Running from the police is NOT smart... and can provide RAS.

see Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000)

http://www.aele.org/hot8.html
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that, myself. I've heard cops argue that point, too. Yet, I have never seen a case where the LEOsdid not articulate the particular crime or type of crime of which they suspected the detainee.

Even in Wardlow the court devoted some text to the issue that Wardlow did his flying in a high drug-trafficking area.

How one can have a full suspicion, not an incomplete suspicion or hunch, without having also a particular crime or type of crime in mind is beyond me. Also, to say otherwise is to give the police even broader power than the dissent in Terry warned against. "Oh, hey. We know drug dealers wear loose floral print shirts here in Miami. Bend over Mr. Tourist."
 
C

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
imported post

DrTodd wrote:
The crime does not need to be specific...just "criminality" in general.

Running from the police is NOT smart... and can provide RAS.

see Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000)

http://www.aele.org/hot8.html
Click to expand...
From link:
Such a holding is entirely consistent with our decision in Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), where we held that when an officer, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approaches an individual, the individual has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Id., at 498. And any "refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991). But unprovoked flight is simply not a mere refusal to cooperate. Flight, by its very nature, is not "going about one's business"; in fact, it is just the opposite. Allowing officers confronted with such flight to stop the fugitive and investigate further is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning.
Click to expand...
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

CoonDog wrote:
DrTodd wrote:
The crime does not need to be specific...just "criminality" in general.

Running from the police is NOT smart... and can provide RAS.

see Illinois v. Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673 (2000)

http://www.aele.org/hot8.html
Click to expand...
From link:
Such a holding is entirely consistent with our decision in Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), where we held that when an officer, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approaches an individual, the individual has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Id., at 498. And any "refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991). But unprovoked flight is simply not a mere refusal to cooperate. Flight, by its very nature, is not "going about one's business"; in fact, it is just the opposite. Allowing officers confronted with such flight to stop the fugitive and investigate further is quite consistent with the individual's right to go about his business or to stay put and remain silent in the face of police questioning.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
But it was at that exact moment your honor that I started my daily jog. It was coincident that the officers were approaching me at that exact moment.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

smellslikemichigan wrote:
it looks like running ALONE is not RAS, but with the totality of circumstances can help establish RAS
Click to expand...
That is what I was thinking, but the Wardlow does not say that explicitly. They left it kinda vague--which means cops, prosecutors, and lower courts will find a way to drive a truck through the loophole, if experience serves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top