Secret Compartment in auto ILLEGAL - man arrested

[eye95]

There ya go making assumptions to develop PC or RAS. Just cuz someone MIGHT by lying about ownership of the vehicle does not mean he is. Until you KNOW, you cannot use a possibility to develop RAS or PC.

Until you have legitimate RAS (not hunches or possibilities), leave us the **** alone. Until you have PC (not hunches or possibilities), do NOT arrest. Period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[stealthyeliminator]

there ya go making assumptions to develop pc or ras. Just cuz someone might by lying about ownership of the vehicle does not mean he is. Until you know, you cannot use a possibility to develop ras or pc.

Until you have legitimate ras (not hunches or possibilities), leave us the **** alone. Until you have pc (not hunches or possibilities), do not arrest. Period.


Sent from my ipad using tapatalk.

<o>

qft...

IMO (not that it's a matter of opinion) "reasonable suspicion" doesn't mean that it'd be reasonable to believe it's a possibility, it means there is evidence which reasonably suggests that it is the case. If you have evidence that the car was registered for him by another for the purpose of misleading law enforcement, then perhaps you could use that as part of your RAS or PC, but the possibility itself is not an effective or reasonable foundation on which to build a case, or make an arrest, or even detain someone.

 

[Primus]

There ya go making assumptions to develop PC or RAS. Just cuz someone MIGHT by lying about ownership of the vehicle does not mean he is. Until you KNOW, you cannot use a possibility to develop RAS or PC.

Until you have legitimate RAS (not hunches or possibilities), leave us the **** alone. Until you have PC (not hunches or possibilities), do NOT arrest. Period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Eye... RAS isnt knowing for a fact something. Its your assumption or belief but based on articuable facts. A hunch is based on a gut feeling. Ras is only one step up... you don't need to KNOW they are lying... just have to THINK they are lying. But you need to be able to explain why you THOUGHT they were lying....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

There ya go making assumptions to develop PC or RAS. Just cuz someone MIGHT by lying about ownership of the vehicle does not mean he is. Until you KNOW, you cannot use a possibility to develop RAS or PC.

Until you have legitimate RAS (not hunches or possibilities), leave us the **** alone. Until you have PC (not hunches or possibilities), do NOT arrest. Period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

And its in the title... Reasonable Articulable SUSPICION..... its not RA proof... not RA fact..... its suspicion. Again one step up.

Now if your dealing with PC (which you need to arrest) then its a bit more then that. But still not proving the case on the street.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[eye95]

Eye... RAS isnt knowing for a fact something. Its your assumption or belief but based on articuable facts. A hunch is based on a gut feeling. Ras is only one step up... you don't need to KNOW they are lying... just have to THINK they are lying. But you need to be able to explain why you THOUGHT they were lying....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I was mentioning RAS as an addition to PC. The officer needs PC to arrest. The discussion was about the arrest. ASSUMING that the driver is lying about the ownership of the car because others have done so does not create PC.

Moving on.

Deal with what I am actually saying or you will get no respect from me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

And its in the title... Reasonable Articulable SUSPICION..... its not RA proof... not RA fact..... its suspicion. Again one step up.

Now if your dealing with PC (which you need to arrest) then its a bit more then that. But still not proving the case on the street.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Ya know, you can edit a post. You don't have to double post.

Kick it up a notch. We usually get better from you, and I expect better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Primus]

I was mentioning RAS as an addition to PC. The officer needs PC to arrest. The discussion was about the arrest. ASSUMING that the driver is lying about the ownership of the car because others have done so does not create PC.

Moving on.

Deal with what I am actually saying or you will get no respect from me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I am eye... loom at the next post. It was delayed as always but I addressed that you need PC to arrest and its more then just RAS.

Still PC isn't hard to get depending on what charge you have.

It can be as little as a names complainant saying you did something. As long as they meet the Aguilar spinnely test.

Cases like this I agree you need more to build the PC. We just don't know what else the officer saw or heard. We know he said he smelt marijuana (didn't specify fresh or burnt which matters a lot) he searched the car and the persons present. He found fresh marijuana on a passenger and the wires for the compartment. That's all we know for a fact. A lot more happened I'd bet.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[eye95]

Moved on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[color of law]

Try to look at it from the other side. If I am wrong here (and maybe I am!) Then this statute could NEVER be enforced against a silent defendant because a required element concerns knowledge directly and only within the skull/brain of a defendant. We KNOW this isn't the case...circumstances and demeanor can often be used at trial to INFER BRD what a defendant's state of mind is. Each juror's crap-detector will be used to determine whether the state has proven its case.

Ohio law.

2901.22 Degrees of culpability attached to mental states.
(B) A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist.

From the Ohio Jury Instructions.

Knowingly. A person acts knowingly regardless of his purpose when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exists.

Since you cannot look into the mind of another, knowledge is determined from all the facts and circumstances in evidence. You will determine from these facts and circumstances whether there existed at the time in the mind of the Defendant an awareness of the probability existed.

The issue of whether a person charged with ______________ possessed a ______________ is to be determined from all the attendant facts and circumstances available.

 

[OC for ME]

it's about possession, not ownership.

he was driving...he possessed it.

Possessing a vehicle that could very well be legally altered to have a secret compartment in MI does not make for a valid arrest in OH. The PC is based on OH law that does not adress the possibility that the secret compartment is legal elsewhere. It is the same as the FOID card issue in IL.

You may agree with the arrest because the law says so, but a judge would be hard pressed to justify a arrest based on a potentially legal vehicle in MI and then instantaneously illegal in OH, which would become legal again, instantaneously, once it re-entered MI. The arrest is what it is, you can't beat the ride. A judge would be wise to review the FOID card case in IL before he rules on the lawfulness of this arrest.

We are not discussing guns, but vehicles.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Eye... RAS isnt knowing for a fact something. Its your assumption or belief but based on articuable facts. A hunch is based on a gut feeling. Ras is only one step up... you don't need to KNOW they are lying... just have to THINK they are lying. But you need to be able to explain why you THOUGHT they were lying....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Wrong! You have to have articulate fact to back up your suspicion. Have you even read Terry vs Ohio which created this horrible watering down of the fourth? The Oligarchs in black robes specifically said it can't be based on a hunch.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Anyone who thinks this was a justifiable arrest, is part of the problem.

Also in Washington before weed was legal our courts ruled smell of weed wasn't RS or PC.

 

[Primus]

Wrong! You have to have articulate fact to back up your suspicion. Have you even read Terry vs Ohio which created this horrible watering down of the fourth? The Oligarchs in black robes specifically said it can't be based on a hunch.

Lol reread the second line of my post. Then get back to me.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Eye... RAS isnt knowing for a fact something. Its your assumption or belief but based on articuable facts. A hunch is based on a gut feeling. Ras is only one step up... you don't need to KNOW they are lying... just have to THINK they are lying. But you need to be able to explain why you THOUGHT they were lying....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Wrong! You have to have articulate fact to back up your suspicion. Have you even read Terry vs Ohio which created this horrible watering down of the fourth? The Oligarchs in black robes specifically said it can't be based on a hunch.

See the "its your assumption or belief based on ARTICULABLE FACTS" line? Second one down? You basically repeated what I said with then said I was wrong..... smooth.

Less bash more read....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[CT Barfly]

Anyone who thinks this was a justifiable arrest, is part of the problem.

Also in Washington before weed was legal our courts ruled smell of weed wasn't RS or PC.

Part of the problem, here.

While I don't agree with the statute at all (we already have laws prohibiting contraband...we don't need new broad laws prohibiting "things that can hold contraband") This statute literally prohibits a HIDDEN EMPTY SPACE!

I don't think that's necessarily a 4A issue.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

See the "its your assumption or belief based on ARTICULABLE FACTS" line? Second one down? You basically repeated what I said with then said I was wrong..... smooth.

Less bash more read....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You believe physical violence and incarceration are acceptable and even preferable methods to ensure compliance.

You excuse other cops from the same laws citizens are subject to.

You then wonder why we aren't slapping you on the back with atta boys when you play asphalt judge by using personal discretion to give "some" folks a break.

I can certainly see why SVG questions your tactics above, despite your wording. You are the second most dangerous type of cop to encounter; the one who tries to come off as your buddy while fully believing in violence as a resolution tactic, and unequal application of the law.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Part of the problem, here.

While I don't agree with the statute at all (we already have laws prohibiting contraband...we don't need new broad laws prohibiting "things that can hold contraband") This statute literally prohibits a HIDDEN EMPTY SPACE!

I don't think that's necessarily a 4A issue.

Does this tie in to "if you have nothing to hide...."?

If we were actually free people, we could have hidden spaces, empty or not, and it would be no one's business, least of all government, unless that hidden space actively and directly hurt another person.

I say it absolutely is a 4A issue; our lives are investigated, pried into and scrutinized until we are naked before Big Brother.

I say, f_ck that! I am saving up for a Firefly, with all those pesky hidden spaces the Alliance- I mean, the .gov doesn't like.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Wrong! You have to have articulate fact to back up your suspicion. Have you even read Terry vs Ohio which created this horrible watering down of the fourth? The Oligarchs in black robes specifically said it can't be based on a hunch.

Hi sudden valley gunner---

In reading Terry v Ohio, again, I often wonder had Detective McFadden not been a seasoned 35 year veteran would the courts opinion been different?

SVG- I enjoy reading your post thank you.

Best regards

CCJ

 

[CT Barfly]

Does this tie in to "if you have nothing to hide...."?

If we were actually free people, we could have hidden spaces, empty or not, and it would be no one's business, least of all government, unless that hidden space actively and directly hurt another person.

I say it absolutely is a 4A issue; our lives are investigated, pried into and scrutinized until we are naked before Big Brother.

I say, f_ck that! I am saving up for a Firefly, with all those pesky hidden spaces the Alliance- I mean, the .gov doesn't like.

No, it doesn't tie into that.

 

[Citizen]

Hi sudden valley gunner---

In reading Terry v Ohio, again, I often wonder had Detective McFadden not been a seasoned 35 year veteran would the courts opinion been different?

SVG- I enjoy reading your post thank you.

Best regards

CCJ

I don't think so.

The simplest indication that they wouldn't have ruled differently is that Terry does not limit the authority to perpetrate these abominations to cops with 35 years experience. Or, 20 years. Or, 10 years.

The majority opinion in Terry actually hangs out a huge contradiction. I'll explain.

In one part of the opinion, the court quotes an earlier decision. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford. Paraphrase: No right is held more sacred, or more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of their own person unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

Then the court at the end of the opinion validates the seizure of Mr. Terry and the patdown that found him in illegal possession of a concealed handgun.

Wait a minute. The law on stop-and-frisk was not clear and unquestionable. That's the whole reason the case came before the court: because stop-and-frisk was not legalized yet. So, since stop-and-frisk was not yet clearly and unquestionably legal, Mr. Terry had a right to be secure in his person against that seizure and search. The court's own cite said so.

Also, one of the justices gave away that they knew these assaults were being perpetrated by police against black people in cities. I think its in the dissent.

Basically, the court already knew about these assaults and just found a creative way to legalize them. And, hoped nobody would notice or voice the contradiction between Union Pacific Rail Co. and their own finding.


That was bad enough, but pay special attention to the government's argument about stop-and-frisk. Basically, the government attorney's tried to fly the argument that stop-and-frisk was not even a seizure of the person. They claimed it didn't count as a seizure because, according to them, the 4A only protects against arrests. Oh. My. God.