imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
SNIP People here complain that cops are stopping people they suspect are breaking the law not knowing that the law does not even exist.
In our society we have a sense of what is right and wrong without even having to know there is a law against it. Sometimes it is morally wrong but not legally wrong. I am not saying that OCing is morally wrong. Just pointing out that some people will see it as some type of violation such as a concealed weapon laws are widely known.
The courts have ruled that you can be stopped for a brief period of time in order for the officer to determine if you are breaking any laws.
This gives the police a little time to check without allowing you to simply walk off. If this was not allowed you could commit a crime in front of the police and escape before they had a chance to check on it. Then they have to go look for you.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3843/is_200310/ai_n9241529
BS!!!!!!
Cite, please. Cite demanded, actually.
There are reams and reams and reams of case law dealing with RAS, indicia of reliability of tips, inferences drawn from observations, whether observations are to be weighed by what a reasonable person might think or what a police might based on his experience, etc, etc, etc.
The words was/is/will be...a crime appear in one manner or another, in one phrasing or another, repeatedly.
To such an extent that it can be taken as common knowledge on this forum.
Ergo, there must be a specific crime or crimes suspected.
Even the case BSer229 cited doesn't speak to his assertion. The article writer did, but the case didn't. The case is about indicia of reliability--an anonymous tip about erratic driving. Erratic driving would be composed, in this case, of violations of the law, no? Crossing lanes without signalling, following too close, etc? Thus, besides any possibility of driving impaired, the caller allegedviolations. Nevermind that "the public danger" would translate intocrimes--vehicular homicide, manslaughter, property damage, etc.
That the federal court in this casebroadened the scope of unreliable indicia-anonymous tips--is no support for the assertion.The very article 229 cites says itsthe first federal court to rule. Meaning we're years away froma circuitsplit and a Supreme Court ruling.
There is just no way the article 229 cited and linkedsupports his assertion.