Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Looking for a court case

  1. #1
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Angry Looking for a court case

    Im looking for the court case that states that just because it is unusual does not mean that it meets the requirements for suspicious behavior. I know it exists however im having a hard time finding it. I need it to give to a department that keeps stopping me for going for my midnight runs

  2. #2
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    LMAO I would grab my junk and say that this is the only weapon im packing Small but effective haha probably wouldt go over well .......... Thats not the case im looking for ... Im in a state were if you dont give a name they charge you with loitering... its a broad strech but they do it im trying to change that
    Last edited by stuckinchico; 04-01-2011 at 01:40 AM. Reason: incomplete

  3. #3
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinchico View Post
    Im looking for the court case that states that just because it is unusual does not mean that it meets the requirements for suspicious behavior. I know it exists however im having a hard time finding it. I need it to give to a department that keeps stopping me for going for my midnight runs
    Well, in relation to lawfully, openly carried firearms, you could look to United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000) and United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993).

    Both cases deal with lawfully possessed firearms neither justifying a search or seizure, nor creating a sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

    Is this what you are looking for?

  4. #4
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    i was walking with out weapon

  5. #5
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    florida V. J.L.no no nono ,,, ----kolander V.lawson!!!----

    a rastifarian that took walks through white neighborhoods.
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 04-01-2011 at 08:01 AM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Are you looking for state specific or Federal cases shouldn't be too hard to find. I have found several in Washington that there has to be RAS to justify a detention. Don't have the names off the top of my head but if you search California I am pretty sure you will find something similar.

    I even found a prosecutors checklist in one county in a memo to LEO, on what would count as "suspicious" behavior and it is pretty restrictive.

    To me it sounds like they are just fishing, next time just politely ask them to Articulate their Reasonable Suspicion you were engaged in unlawful activity. If they say "blah, blah, blah," and none of it is illegal you simply tell them that isn't illegal and that you'll be on your way.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckinchico View Post
    LMAO I would grab my junk and say that this is the only weapon im packing Small but effective haha probably wouldt go over well .......... Thats not the case im looking for ... Im in a state were if you dont give a name they charge you with loitering... its a broad strech but they do it im trying to change that
    Loitering isn't a crime, SCOTUS has ruled on this.

    Chicago v. Morales, 97-1121
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Loitering isn't a crime, SCOTUS has ruled on this.

    Chicago v. Morales, 97-1121
    Sweeet then that will work too

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA

    Hey StuckinChico,

    Hiibel v. Nevada is a good case. Defendent Hiibel lost his appeal because the police did have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime was afoot. SCOTUS made it clear in Hiibel, that in order for a "Stop and ID" statute to be Constitutional, police must first have a legitimate reason for a "Terry Hot Stop" (Terry v. Ohio).

    Kolender v. Lawson is a very good case because it pretty much requires the cops to have PC or RAS to detain and then require ID from a person who is "loitering or walking". In Kali, PC 148 only requires an ID if the cop has PC for arrest, not RAS for detention.

    From Hiibel v. Nevada:

    "Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. (underline and blue font added by me)"

    From Kolender v. Lawson:

    "Lawson then brought a civil action in the District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that 647(e) is unconstitutional, a mandatory injunction to restrain enforcement of the statute, and compensatory and punitive damages against the various officers who detained him. The District Court found that 647(e) was overbroad because "a person who is stopped on less than probable cause cannot be punished for failing to identify himself." App. to Juris. Statement A-78. The District Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, but held that Lawson could not recover damages because the officers involved acted in the good-faith belief that each detention or arrest was lawful. (Blue font and underline added by me)"

    markm
    Last edited by MarkBofRAdvocate; 04-02-2011 at 10:58 AM. Reason: Added sentence regarding PC 148.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    This site may be of assistance for future reference;
    http://www.plol.org/Pages/Search.aspx

    I entered "unreasonable stop" in to the search bar and after a moment a gazzillion hits came back with plenty of them being good for reference to this particular topic.
    Last edited by Lawful Aim; 04-02-2011 at 07:09 PM.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •