MR Redenck
Regular Member
[video=youtube;1SHHW8DwYBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SHHW8DwYBs&feature=player_embedded#![/video]
Last edited:
-
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.
New Mexico stop
- Thread starter MR Redenck
- Start date
PracticalTactical
Regular Member
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV
"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment-is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable againt the States through the Due Process Clause. The knock at the door, whether by day or by night, as a prelude to a search, without authority of law but solely on the authority of the police, did not need the commentary of recent history to be condemned as inconsistent with the conception of human rights enshrined in the history and the basic constitutional documents of English-speaking peoples." Wolf v. Colorado
"Because New Mexico law allows individuals to openly carry weapons in public—and Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion, create tumult or endanger anyone's well-being—there were no articulable facts to indicate either
criminal activity or a threat to safety. Accordingly, Defendants' seizure of Mr. St. John violated his Fourth Amendment rights." 08cv00994 (St. John v. McColley) (District Court)
I'd recommend that everybody read the St. John case here: http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?unique-identifier=0002561429-0000000000
Some more money quotes:
"A seizure under the Fourth Amendment occurs when "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to
leave." Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 (1988)"
"Those factors, which are non-exclusive, see, e.g., United States v.
Griffin, 7 F.3d 1512, 1518 (10th Cir. 1993), require the Court to consider:
1) the threatening presence of several officers; 2) the brandishing of a weapon
by an officer; 3) some physical touching by an officer; 4) use of aggressive
language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with an officer's request is
compulsory; 5) prolonged retention of a person's personal effects . . .; 6) a
request to accompany the officer to the station; 7) interaction in a nonpublic
place or a small, enclosed place; 8) and absence of other members of the
public."
The behavior of the Santa Fe Police would have easily led a reasonable person to believe they weren't free to go. The guy recording the video was one of those unusual right-wing extremist types, and was aware of his rights. Many people are not, and would have been railroaded into giving away rights.
The SF police were lucky to have encountered this man instead of somebody else.
"The security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police-which is at the core of the Fourth Amendment-is basic to a free society. It is therefore implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable againt the States through the Due Process Clause. The knock at the door, whether by day or by night, as a prelude to a search, without authority of law but solely on the authority of the police, did not need the commentary of recent history to be condemned as inconsistent with the conception of human rights enshrined in the history and the basic constitutional documents of English-speaking peoples." Wolf v. Colorado
"Because New Mexico law allows individuals to openly carry weapons in public—and Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion, create tumult or endanger anyone's well-being—there were no articulable facts to indicate either
criminal activity or a threat to safety. Accordingly, Defendants' seizure of Mr. St. John violated his Fourth Amendment rights." 08cv00994 (St. John v. McColley) (District Court)
I'd recommend that everybody read the St. John case here: http://www.nmcourt.fed.us/Drs-Web/view-file?unique-identifier=0002561429-0000000000
Some more money quotes:
"A seizure under the Fourth Amendment occurs when "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to
leave." Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 (1988)"
"Those factors, which are non-exclusive, see, e.g., United States v.
Griffin, 7 F.3d 1512, 1518 (10th Cir. 1993), require the Court to consider:
1) the threatening presence of several officers; 2) the brandishing of a weapon
by an officer; 3) some physical touching by an officer; 4) use of aggressive
language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with an officer's request is
compulsory; 5) prolonged retention of a person's personal effects . . .; 6) a
request to accompany the officer to the station; 7) interaction in a nonpublic
place or a small, enclosed place; 8) and absence of other members of the
public."
The behavior of the Santa Fe Police would have easily led a reasonable person to believe they weren't free to go. The guy recording the video was one of those unusual right-wing extremist types, and was aware of his rights. Many people are not, and would have been railroaded into giving away rights.
The SF police were lucky to have encountered this man instead of somebody else.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I watched this last night, I am glad it did not get out of hand. The police officer made a big error in approaching the man after he initially let him go, or stated he was free to go. After that point there is no claim to officer safety as he had already let him go. IMO the individual did get to close in the traffic stop, and that would have been the time to actually interrogate him for officer safety. A reasonable person would have concluded that the armed subject was within the officers safety zone before he backed up. After he complied and backed up the officer had no concerns and should have left it at that. I hope the supervisors see the second encounter and do some type of retraining of these officers.
Unless the courts have changed their stance since I was a officer, police do not have the right to be offended. I believe by what I saw in the video the officer reacted completely because he was offended by the the man, not having anything to do with officer safety.
Unless the courts have changed their stance since I was a officer, police do not have the right to be offended. I believe by what I saw in the video the officer reacted completely because he was offended by the the man, not having anything to do with officer safety.
At the point that cop #2 started putting his hand on his pistol I'd have started making noises about his assaulting me without cause or provocation. I'd have started saying that he was threatening me with deadly force without cause. And I'd have followed up with a formal complaint about his behavior.
Just as cop #1 seemed to be concerned about someone carrying a gun showing up on his "scene" I'd be worried about some cop trying to force me to do something he has no legal authority to order me to do and excalating his efforts with a display of deadly force.
As a certified graduate-level armchair Monday Morning Quarterback* I offer the following: You wasted too much time discussing things with the cops. When they told you that you needed to produce ID you did very well repeatedly asking them if you were legally required to do so and asking them to cite the law to you. Rather than explaining to them why you were there and what you were doing, you should have kept on asking them if you were being detained or arrested. You had as much right to be there videoing them because it was a sunny day as because your grlfriend called you about being pulled over. Points are awarded for saying that when the cop told you to move away you immediately complied, and extra bonus points are awarded for saying you moved across the street.
When cop #2 told you that they needed to check and see if you were a felon in possession of a firearm you should have asked them directly if they had reason to believe that in fact you were - let them accuse you of a crime based on no reasonable suspicion or articulatable reason and arrest you in order to find out if you are or are not.
Finally, you get bonus points for telling the cops that because they refuse to say you are being detained you are leaving, and then doing so by walking away backwards keeping an eye on them.
stay safe.
*I freely admit that as an armchair Monday Morning Quarterback it is easy to say all that I did. I'm not positive I would do as well as you did if I were in the situation.
Just as cop #1 seemed to be concerned about someone carrying a gun showing up on his "scene" I'd be worried about some cop trying to force me to do something he has no legal authority to order me to do and excalating his efforts with a display of deadly force.
As a certified graduate-level armchair Monday Morning Quarterback* I offer the following: You wasted too much time discussing things with the cops. When they told you that you needed to produce ID you did very well repeatedly asking them if you were legally required to do so and asking them to cite the law to you. Rather than explaining to them why you were there and what you were doing, you should have kept on asking them if you were being detained or arrested. You had as much right to be there videoing them because it was a sunny day as because your grlfriend called you about being pulled over. Points are awarded for saying that when the cop told you to move away you immediately complied, and extra bonus points are awarded for saying you moved across the street.
When cop #2 told you that they needed to check and see if you were a felon in possession of a firearm you should have asked them directly if they had reason to believe that in fact you were - let them accuse you of a crime based on no reasonable suspicion or articulatable reason and arrest you in order to find out if you are or are not.
Finally, you get bonus points for telling the cops that because they refuse to say you are being detained you are leaving, and then doing so by walking away backwards keeping an eye on them.
stay safe.
*I freely admit that as an armchair Monday Morning Quarterback it is easy to say all that I did. I'm not positive I would do as well as you did if I were in the situation.