• 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.

PRADO NAVARETTE ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
I'm sure it's happened before that someone called 911 on an OCer and said they were waving their gun around when they weren't. A 911 call seems to give the police the power to act even if the claim is completely made up.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I'm sure it's happened before that someone called 911 on an OCer and said they were waving their gun around when they weren't. A 911 call seems to give the police the power to act even if the claim is completely made up.

Judge Black's ruling in St. John v. Alamogordo says otherwise. Bottom of page 9 and top of page 10 are particularly revealing: "...as the Ninth Circuit noted in a somewhat similar case, one would expect someone engaged in shady business to act in a more stealthy fashion than Mr. St. John did here. See Duran v. City of Douglas, Arizona, 904 F.2d 1372, 1377 (9th Cir. 1989).Mr. St. John's lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention" (page 7).

I find the case exceptional in that it Judge Black does a thorough job citing cases from a variety other courts.

Regardless, the circumstances of PRADO NAVARETTE ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA were substantially different, and the first two pages are reasonably clear with respect to the legality of the sequence of events.

You'll scream louder at the one that will be coming down the pipe.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...his-case-4th-amend-case-brake-lite-out-Scotus

Cops stop people all the time and detain them due to 911 calls ....

I was floored to read: "The Fourth Amendment’s reasonable suspicion standard is not offended by an officer’s objectively reasonable mistake of law."

For easy reference, here's the Fourth: "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."

The phrase "shall not be violated" is absolute, and a Warrant isn't a violation. It's a mandatory requirement, a request for permission to conduct a search and/or seizure, one which requires particulars. The Fourth Amendment says if the authorities don't know what they're looking for, they shall not search for it nor seize it. Probable cause was never intended by those who wrote the Fourth Amendment to be an on-the-fly excuse to conduct either a search or a seizure. It was intended as a restraining order against law enforcement interfering with the private affairs of mankind.

Our Founding Fathers knew very well what they were doing, and their wonderful foundation of law has been seriously perverted by judges both brain-dead and political. I firmly agree with Justice Hudson, who says such exclusions violate the separation of powers doctrine (p 28): "Separation of powers doctrine dictates otherwise: It is the legislature‟s job to write the law and the judiciary‟s job to interpret the law. The job of the police is to enforce the law as it has been written by the legislature and interpreted by the courts. Proper enforcement of the law requires accurate knowledge of the law; as the Eleventh Circuit cogently noted in United States v. Chanthasouxat, to decide otherwise is to endorse “the fundamental unfairness of holding citizens to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse while allowing those entrusted to enforce the law to be ignorant of it.” 342 F.3d at 1280."

Justice Hudson summed things up well in an earlier statement: "Most troubling is that this decision imports into our jurisprudence a concept we have expressly rejected. Allowing an officer‟s “reasonable mistake of law” to support a warrantless stop is the functional equivalent of a “good faith exception” for stops conducted in contravention of the law—as long as the officer acted in good faith, that is, he is reasonably unaware that his actions are inconsistent with the law, the illegality of the stop will not require suppression of the obtained evidence."
 
Last edited:

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
Also look at Commonwealth vs Hawkins. A very well written opinion that flies in the face of this ruling.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
Top