swinokur
Activist Member
I don't think case law would support that but IANAL either.
But the 2 elements I listed will would they not?
But the 2 elements I listed will would they not?
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.
OC in my car...
- Thread starter yotetrapper
- Start date
wrightme
Regular Member
What is it that you feel case law would not support? It would help if you would quote the specific bits that you are responding to.
swinokur said:
Huh? It is all up in the air. What is it you are asking?
The metrics are:
"RAS that a crime has been, or is about to be committed by the subject"
"reasonable belief that the subject is both 'armed' AND 'dangerous.'"
So far, what you have listed does not fill those metrics. But, some LE may disagree.
Like I said, we can 'what if' it to death, and frankly, get no further than we currently are.
Last edited:
swinokur
Activist Member
I agree but what I meant was that while I agree a traffic stop is and of itself not reason for a pat down or stop and frisk the other 2 things I listed would be.
wrightme
Regular Member
How do you feel 'the other 2 things' fulfill the "RAS" and the 'armed and dangerous' metrics?
Specifically, 'subject was acting in a strange fashion' or 'I smelled marijuana' do not seem to fulfill either "RAS" or "armed and dangerous."
Last edited:
swinokur
Activist Member
Whre in Terry does the Metric has to be armed and dangerous present itself? It says reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous. I thought RAS of a crime was enough. I thought the reason for the pat down is to find weapons even if none are eveident.
RAS of the the crime situations metric:
if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
That's pretty easy for LE to testify to a Judge whether it is a fact or not.
RAS of the the crime situations metric:
if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
That's pretty easy for LE to testify to a Judge whether it is a fact or not.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
"RAS" of a crime isn't enough. You just cited the correct bits, but it appears that you are not understanding it fully.
"RAS" of a crime is a different part from 'reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous.' The reason for the pat down is to find weapons even if none are evident. But, the Terry ruling does NOT mean that LE can simply assume that all suspects are 'reasonably suspected of being BOTH armed, AND dangerous.'
It is quite likely that LE will assume that someone they have RAS of a crime upon, is also 'reasonably suspected of being armed and dangerous,' but that isn't how the Terry ruling reads.
swinokur said:
It may be easy, but perjury IS a crime.
as further example using one of your cases, specifically the 'subject was acting in a strange fashion.'
Where is the "RAS" element, and where is the 'reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous' element?
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
Now, in an attempt to make this clear, I am speaking directly to the construction of the Terry standard as decided by SCOTUS, and am NOT speaking about how LE may falsely claim to see crimes and danger. You appear to be speaking to BOTH of those.
First, lets parse out the Terry. THEN, if you really want to play the 'what if' game about what cops can do, then proceed AFTER we ensure that Terry is fully understood.
"RAS" does not automatically create "reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous."
First, lets parse out the Terry. THEN, if you really want to play the 'what if' game about what cops can do, then proceed AFTER we ensure that Terry is fully understood.
"RAS" does not automatically create "reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous."
swinokur
Activist Member
I understand that. It has 2 parts.
1. RAS
2. Reasonable suspicion of the suspect being armed.
I guess my point is this certainly favors LE in a he said he said situation
1. RAS
2. Reasonable suspicion of the suspect being armed.
I guess my point is this certainly favors LE in a he said he said situation
wrightme
Regular Member
Yet your posts show that you do not.
swinokur said:
Why do you believe that? Given your scenario, where is either the RAS, or the 'reasonable suspicion of the suspect being armed AND DANGEROUS?'
NOTE: You left out a VERY IMPORTANT part in the (2.) above. It isn't a suspicion that the subject is armed alone.
Last edited:
swinokur
Activist Member
Well the smell of Marijuana or erratic behavior could make the officer think the suspect MIGHT be armed and dangerous. How much PC is required? Kind of subjective isn't it?
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
What part of 'smell of marijuana' or 'erratic behavoir' do you feel would 'make the officer think the suspect might be armed and dangerous?'
That is the question you keep refusing to answer.
So far, it is about as valid as if you were saying "He has on a red shirt, thus he must be hiding a bleeding wound."
BOTH leaps to conclusion are equally valid.
Last edited:
swinokur
Activist Member
It appears to be subjective. Your example is hyperbole.
Is there case law on my examples? I'd bet there might be.
Is there case law on my examples? I'd bet there might be.
wrightme
Regular Member
Like I said, my example and yours are equally valid, as to the conclusions reached.
As to 'case law examples,' Terry v Ohio comes to mind.........
You can also refer to Hiibel. Then, respond to the question asked, as to what RAS and 'suspicion of armed and dangerous' are available in your examples. You haven't connected those dots yet.
Last edited:
swinokur
Activist Member
It's not that I refuse to answer. I don't know what the actual answer is. Case law would clarify the issue, rather than opinions.
wrightme
Regular Member
How so? You keep failing to explain the logic you use to come to that conclusion.
What is it about the two items you mention that leads you to believe that there is:
1) RAS,
and
2) reasonable suspicion that the subject is Armed, AND Dangerous?
I see nothing in 'smell of marijuana' and 'acting strangely' that would lead to either RAS or the 'armed and dangerous' suspicion. How do YOU get to that?
wrightme
Regular Member
So, the reality is that you do NOT know that 'smell of marijuana' and/or 'subject was acting in a strange fashion'would lead to a Terry frisk? Then why do you keep on insisting that it does?
Last edited:
swinokur
Activist Member
I'm not insisting it does. But I also think it does not either. That's my point.
Are the 2 circumstances enough to satisfy Terry?. I don't know. Guess a Judge will decide. Your answer is no more correct than mine IMO
What would be grounds for a Terry Stop in your mind?
IANAL
Are the 2 circumstances enough to satisfy Terry?. I don't know. Guess a Judge will decide. Your answer is no more correct than mine IMO
What would be grounds for a Terry Stop in your mind?
IANAL
Last edited:
swinokur
Activist Member
Drug users aren't sometimes armed? Or folks acting strangely?
swinokur
Activist Member
Would a case using the 2 conditions I mentioned be thrown out of court if weapons or drugs be found based on fruit of the poisonous tree?
Probably not IMO.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
I haven't made any claim either way. You were the one assuming that the two items you present did indicate RAS + reasonable suspicion that the subject was armed and dangerous.