• 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.

An Important Analysis for Any Practitioner

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
This is an important analysis for any practitioner.
Those are the words of John Wesley Hall.

I've been reading this fella's search-and-seizure blog for years. When Mr. Hall makes that kind of comment, I sit up and take notice.

Want a fast breakdown of your rights during a police encounter? Want to know where the boundaries are? Want to get a feel for how the courts are going to analyze the facts? Then, read this court opinion out of Kansas.

As Mr. Hall said, "This is an important analysis for any practitioner." Of course, he's talking about criminal defense lawyers. But, the value of the information still holds, even for open-carriers.

http://fourthamendment.com/?p=25007#more-25007
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Never exit your vehicle, articulate to the officer that you wish to remain in your vehicle for YOUR OWN SAFETY and The SAFETY OF THE OFFICER...

We must use there own BS against them.. Object to all searches or pat downs, request counsel and remain silent.

Do not present any documents without counsel on scene,, ... make the leo realize that they are dealing with a savvy citizen that simply wants to exercise his/her rights or be on their way.. It is their job to control the stop, it is our job to exercise rights, not make their job easier..

Put them to the test, be respectful, but know your rights. And have the video recorder running.

My .02
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Never exit your vehicle, articulate to the officer that you wish to remain in your vehicle for YOUR OWN SAFETY and The SAFETY OF THE OFFICER...
Officer Friendly doesn't care how eloquently you articulate your desire to remain safely within your vehicle. If he tells you 'Get outta the car' you get out of the car. If you don't, he's well within his authority to gently urge you to exit with hugs and kisses, electrical weapons, impact weapons or even the assistance of a half-dozen other officers.

The Supreme Court (see Pennsylvania v Mimms) has ruled that 'officer safety' overrides your desires. Or see Wikipedia for the abridged version.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Officer Friendly doesn't care how eloquently you articulate your desire to remain safely within your vehicle. If he tells you 'Get outta the car' you get out of the car. If you don't, he's well within his authority to gently urge you to exit with hugs and kisses, electrical weapons, impact weapons or even the assistance of a half-dozen other officers.

The Supreme Court (see Pennsylvania v Mimms) has ruled that 'officer safety' overrides your desires. Or see Wikipedia for the abridged version.
Hence the reason for the video recorded. Their display of violence for no apparent reason other than a citizen exercising their rights and acting for their own safety will strengthen the citizens 42@1983 case.. Having a window broken and being forcible removed from the vehicle for simply exercising a right, is well worth the action.. The suit will cover all misdeeds by the over zealous rights violators..

My .02
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Officer Friendly doesn't care how eloquently you articulate your desire to remain safely within your vehicle. If he tells you 'Get outta the car' you get out of the car. If you don't, he's well within his authority to gently urge you to exit with hugs and kisses, electrical weapons, impact weapons or even the assistance of a half-dozen other officers.

The Supreme Court (see Pennsylvania v Mimms) has ruled that 'officer safety' overrides your desires. Or see Wikipedia for the abridged version.
I agree.

As you mentioned, the court case is Pennsylvania vs Mimms. In short, the US Supreme Court has ratified, agreed, and entered into law the principle that a cop, during a traffic stop, can legally order the occupants of the vehicle out of the car. For any reason or no reason. The courts will simply assume the cop was doing it for a good reason and basing his reason on good judgment. Just about the only way you could beat this in court is if the cop voiced a totally discriminatory reason and you captured it on audio or video.

Separate point. This is for the veterans who focus on distinguishing fine, subtle differences. No, no. I'm not saying this is pedantic or boring or too much for some to understand. I am saying there is a very subtle shift here where the US Supreme Court pulled a fast one.

You see, in a court case called Terry v Ohio, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) said in so many words that if a cop reasonably suspected someone he was detaining might be armed and dangerous, he could search that person for a weapon. Being armed does not automatically equate with dangerousness. In Terry v Ohio, SCOTUS says "armed and dangerous"--two prongs. That is to say that in Terry v Ohio, SCOTUS said if a cop had reason to believe a person was not merely armed, but armed and dangerous, then the cop could legally search him for weapons and at least temporarily seize and weapons discovered.

In PA v Mimms, SCOTUS changed the rules without expressly stating they were changing the rules. They just slipped it in. In PA vs Mimms, SCOTUS equates armed with dangerous.

See the oh-so subtle shift? Under Terry, being merely armed was still a right. The right was not subject to suspicion. Under Terry, the cop had to have reason to suspect you were not only armed, but also dangerous. Later, under Mimms, being armed became in and of itself "dangerous."
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Joe... Please tell us all how Officer Friendly, acting within the scope of his duties and not in violation of the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment (as determined by the US Supreme Court) is going to be subject to a civil suit. I'm dieing to hear.

The video will show that Officer Friendly (again, acting within the legal scope of his authority) asked/cajoled/requested/ordered you to exit the vehicle and that you refused. A smart defense counsel would erase it and deny it ever existing.

You don't have the right to exercise any 'right' that places an officer in what he reasonably believes is physical jeopardy. If you have any court case that supports your decision and reverses the Supreme Court, sure, go on and cite it.

Citizen... the case (from my cursory reading) didn't state that one had to be armed or even suspected of being armed, did it? Mimms had already been removed from his car before officers even saw the 'suspicious bulge' beneath his clothing.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Please tell us all how Officer Friendly, acting within the scope of his duties and not in violation of the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment (as determined by the US Supreme Court) is going to be subject to a civil suit. I'm dieing to hear.

The video will show that Officer Friendly (again, acting within the legal scope of his authority) asked/cajoled/requested/ordered you to exit the vehicle and that you refused. The county/state solicitor general is just going to laugh and submit his copy as "State's Evidence, Item-A".

You don't have the right to exercise any 'right' that places an officer in what he reasonably believes is physical jeopardy. If you have any court case that supports your decision and reverses the Supreme Court, sure, go on and cite it.
Are you opining that a Leo has more rights to safety than a citizen? I feel safe in my vehicle.. I think a jury will also feel safe in their vehicle..

Officer safety with three other armed officers and lights flashing on scene.. against one lonely motorist simply exercising his/her right to remain calm and protected inside their vehicle... Ill take my chances with a reasonable minded jury.. Stay in the vehicle, plead the fifth and ask for an attorney.. If the bully leo's break your window and pull you from the vehicle with the video rolling, your 1983 case and the amount awarded is going higher and higher..
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Are you opining that a Leo has more rights to safety than a citizen? I feel safe in my vehicle.. I think a jury will also feel safe in their vehicle..
Am I? Heaven's no, I would never be so presumptions. However, I would point out that the USSC said, "The Court stated “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizens personal security.” “The reasonableness depends” ... “on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s rights to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Unlike Terry v. Ohio, the initial “violation” of freedom was permissible because the driver was driving with an expired license plate in violation of the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles Code. The only thing to decide, besides the “pat down,” is whether the initial authorization by the officer to tell the respondent to exit the vehicle was allowed under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court must focus on the violation resulting from the officer telling the respondent to exit the vehicle once it was legally stopped."
The question before the court was whether there was an intrusion in the personal liberty of the driver after the order to get out of the vehicle. The conclusion was that it was “de minimis” (low level of risk). You might get wet, or snowed upon, or if it's an especially sunny day you might get a bit sun burnt if the stop was prolonged. On the other hand, the safety of the officer in being able to see a person actions and remove him from within 'lunge reach' of hidden weaponry outweighed any 'inconvenience' of the citizen.


Officer safety with three other armed officers and lights flashing on scene.. against one lonely motorist simply exercising his/her right to remain calm and protected inside their vehicle... Ill take my chances with a reasonable minded jury.. Stay in the vehicle, plead the fifth and ask for an attorney.. If the bully leo's break your window and pull you from the vehicle with the video rolling, your 1983 case and the amount awarded is going higher and higher..
I don't think 'pleading the Fifth' will help much, you weren't asked any probative questions, you were given a command that you refused to comply with. Luckily there's an audio recording of said refusal.

Lastly, what makes you think it would go before a jury? Summary dismissal of your case is almost beyond a doubt as you'd have no standing to raise a complaint for something the USSC had already ruled was not unconstitutional, and there were no material facts in dispute thanks to your video recording of the officer's actions.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Am I? Heaven's no, I would never be so presumptions. However, I would point out that the USSC said, "The Court stated “the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizens personal security.” “The reasonableness depends” ... “on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s rights to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Unlike Terry v. Ohio, the initial “violation” of freedom was permissible because the driver was driving with an expired license plate in violation of the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles Code. The only thing to decide, besides the “pat down,” is whether the initial authorization by the officer to tell the respondent to exit the vehicle was allowed under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the court must focus on the violation resulting from the officer telling the respondent to exit the vehicle once it was legally stopped."
The question before the court was whether there was an intrusion in the personal liberty of the driver after the order to get out of the vehicle. The conclusion was that it was “de minimis” (low level of risk). You might get wet, or snowed upon, or if it's an especially sunny day you might get a bit sun burnt if the stop was prolonged. On the other hand, the safety of the officer in being able to see a person actions and remove him from within 'lunge reach' of hidden weaponry outweighed any 'inconvenience' of the citizen.




I don't think 'pleading the Fifth' will help much, you weren't asked any probative questions, you were given a command that you refused to comply with. Luckily there's an audio recording of said refusal.

Lastly, what makes you think it would go before a jury? Summary dismissal of your case is almost beyond a doubt as you'd have no standing to raise a complaint for something the USSC had already ruled was not unconstitutional, and there were no material facts in dispute thanks to your video recording of the officer's actions.
If officer breaks your window and destroys your property and inflicts violence upon a motorist simply because a motorist is in violation of some quasi tag requirement, than said officer is a bully and an a coward.. And any attorney worth his/her weight in salt will win the civil rights and constitutional rights case.. All these encounters with LEOS are won in court and not on the side of the road. A motorist has the right to stay in their vehicle until an attorney arrives on the scene.. Safety goes both ways and we can agree to disagree.. LEOS safety does not trump citizens safety..
If Leo is in fear of every motorist they detain on a traffic stop, said Leo should seek other employment.. I understand that Leos enjoy stealing the fruits of a citizens labor and finding a real job could be a problem for said leo, however that is their PROBLEM.. Officer safety does not trump citizen safety..
The term " officer safety" is simply another term for, we are going to violate your rights, if you fail to exercise those rights.. You shall be violated..
Keep the video rolling and let the bully's be themselves.. Justice shall prevail..

My .02

My .02
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
If officer breaks your window and destroys your property and inflicts violence upon a motorist simply because a motorist is in violation of some quasi tag requirement, than said officer is a bully and an a coward.. And any attorney worth his/her weight in salt will win the civil rights and constitutional rights case.. All these encounters with LEOS are won in court and not on the side of the road. A motorist has the right to stay in their vehicle until an attorney arrives on the scene.. Safety goes both ways and we can agree to disagree.. LEOS safety does not trump citizens safety..
No, Officer Friendly broke your window because he lawfully ordered you to exit the vehicle and you refused. The courts will agree with his actions, your attorney will thank you for helping to put his kids through college and your insurance company will laugh when you ask them to replace the window that was broken through your own misconduct.

That is, unless he walks up and just decides to break your window just for the hell of it, without your failing to obey his lawful commands. Hey, it could happen... somewhere... maybe.

A motorist has the right to stay in their vehicle until an attorney arrives on the scene.. Safety goes both ways and we can agree to disagree.
Citation, or did you pull another one out of thin air?
Got a court case we can discuss on that supposed right?
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
If officer breaks your window and destroys your property and inflicts violence upon a motorist simply because a motorist is in violation of some quasi tag requirement, than said officer is a bully and an a coward.. And any attorney worth his/her weight in salt will win the civil rights and constitutional rights case.. All these encounters with LEOS are won in court and not on the side of the road. A motorist has the right to stay in their vehicle until an attorney arrives on the scene.. Safety goes both ways and we can agree to disagree.. LEOS safety does not trump citizens safety..
If Leo is in fear of every motorist they detain on a traffic stop, said Leo should seek other employment.. I understand that Leos enjoy stealing the fruits of a citizens labor and finding a real job could be a problem for said leo, however that is their PROBLEM.. Officer safety does not trump citizen safety..
The term " officer safety" is simply another term for, we are going to violate your rights, if you fail to exercise those rights.. You shall be violated..
Keep the video rolling and let the bully's be themselves.. Justice shall prevail..

My .02

My .02
While you and I are definitely on the same principled side, I'm not talking about principle.

I am talking about the law (as defined by government--and we all know what that is worth in the big picture).

Can a cop order you out of your car during a traffic stop for any reason or no reason? Yep. See PA v Mimms. Can a cop assume you are dangerous just because you might have a weapon? Yep. See PA v Mimms. Can a cop search the car "within the wingspan of the driver" if he reasonably suspects a weapon might be within reach of the driver? Yep. See Michigan v Long.

The point here isn't that government has usurped these things and arrogated to themselves the righteous ability to conduct these searches for "officer safety." While you and I are massively indignant that government would even try such shenanigans, that isn't the point. The point is suppression of evidence. While you and I are manfully hot-under-the-collar at some equal pulling such a stunt, while we were busy being hugely annoyed at the chutzpah of such court rulings, government was actually busy justifying admitting into evidence something found during the search arising from the justification.

You see, nobody ever went to prison because they violated Michigan v Long (cop can search the wing-span of the driver). They went to prison because of something else the cop found while searching for the possible weapon. Terry didn't go to prison to conspiracy to rob a jewelry store. Terry went to prison for illegally carrying a concealed handgun--discovered when Detective McFadden searched him on suspicion of planning a jewelry store robbery.

So, this is what this is really about legally: the cop decides to search someone. Lets say he finds a little weed. He arrests the searchee. The legal question becomes, did the cop have legal justification to search the detainee in the first place? If not, the court can suppress the evidence.

And, from the civil rights angle, there is a legal standard whether the right in question was clearly established in law. If a court decides the right in question was not clearly established in law, then the cop gets something called qualified immunity and walks. I'm not at all saying I agree with this legal so-called principle.* I am saying it exists. It adds up to this: if a cop orders you out of your car, and you refuse--for entirely manly and totally justified freedom-based principles--when the cop breaks your window and causes you forty stitches dragging you through the broken glass, the courts will rule that PA v Mimms was clearly established law and grant the cop immunity from your lawsuit.



*This is one of the clearer examples of how bad things have gotten. Think about it for a moment. You cannot successfully sue a cop for a rights violation unless that right was clearly established in law. Excuse me!?!? This turns our form of government on its head! Under every "rational" explanation of how our government works, we the so-called people, delegate powers to government. Reversely, if a power has not been delegated to government--then government ain't got no dammed power to exercise it!! That is to say, if the power is not clearly delegated, then the cop is out-of-bounds. No, no, no. Government wants you to believe that if a right is not clearly established in law--which is another way of saying, if a power is not expressly refused by law--then the cop is free from lawsuit to do as he wants (read: assume whichever powers he wants). This is just plain nucking futts. It totally turns the whole system of delegated powers on its head. The cop can only be held legally accountable, not for exercising powers not delegated to him, but only for exercising powers expressly refused him (rights). And, refused by other members of government, at that. As Joe Danby said in the movie Support Your Local Sheriff, "This is just plain dumb and stupid."
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
While you and I are definitely on the same principled side, I'm not talking about principle.

I am talking about the law (as defined by government--and we all know what that is worth in the big picture).

Can a cop order you out of your car during a traffic stop for any reason or no reason? Yep. See PA v Mimms. Can a cop assume you are dangerous just because you might have a weapon? Yep. See PA v Mimms. Can a cop search the car "within the wingspan of the driver" if he reasonably suspects a weapon might be within reach of the driver? Yep. See Michigan v Long.

The point here isn't that government has usurped these things and arrogated to themselves the righteous ability to conduct these searches for "officer safety." While you and I are massively indignant that government would even try such shenanigans, that isn't the point. The point is suppression of evidence. While you and I are manfully hot-under-the-collar at some equal pulling such a stunt, while we were busy being hugely annoyed at the chutzpah of such court rulings, government was actually busy justifying admitting into evidence something found during the search arising from the justification.

You see, nobody ever went to prison because they violated Michigan v Long (cop can search the wing-span of the driver). They went to prison because of something else the cop found while searching for the possible weapon. Terry didn't go to prison to conspiracy to rob a jewelry store. Terry went to prison for illegally carrying a concealed handgun--discovered when Detective McFadden searched him on suspicion of planning a jewelry store robbery.

So, this is what this is really about legally: the cop decides to search someone. Lets say he finds a little weed. He arrests the searchee. The legal question becomes, did the cop have legal justification to search the detainee in the first place? If not, the court can suppress the evidence.

And, from the civil rights angle, there is a legal standard whether the right in question was clearly established in law. If a court decides the right in question was not clearly established in law, then the cop gets something called qualified immunity and walks. I'm not at all saying I agree with this legal so-called principle.* I am saying it exists. It adds up to this: if a cop orders you out of your car, and you refuse--for entirely manly and totally justified freedom-based principles--when the cop breaks your window and causes you forty stitches dragging you through the broken glass, the courts will rule that PA v Mimms was clearly established law and grant the cop immunity from your lawsuit.



*This is one of the clearer examples of how bad things have gotten. Think about it for a moment. You cannot successfully sue a cop for a rights violation unless that right was clearly established in law. Excuse me!?!? This turns our form of government on its head! Under every "rational" explanation of how our government works, we the so-called people, delegate powers to government. Reversely, if a power has not been delegated to government--then government ain't got no dammed power to exercise it!! That is to say, if the power is not clearly delegated, then the cop is out-of-bounds. No, no, no. Government wants you to believe that if a right is not clearly established in law--which is another way of saying, if a power is not expressly refused by law--then the cop is free from lawsuit to do as he wants (read: assume whichever powers he wants). This is just plain nucking futts. It totally turns the whole system of delegated powers on its head. The cop can only be held legally accountable, not for exercising powers not delegated to him, but only for exercising powers expressly refused him (rights). And, refused by other members of government, at that. As Joe Danby said in the movie Support Your Local Sheriff, "This is just plain dumb and stupid."
That case is only prevalent when a motorist exit the vehicle and is found in possession of a weapon.. If there was no weapon, Minns would have won a huge civil case..

I say never leave the vehicle.. For your own safety.. Force the LEOS to induce violence, they are good at the practice of violence..

If you are a law abiding citizen and not a criminal, a mere traffic violation does not give some over zealous leo any additional power over said law abiding citizen..

Regards
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Won a civil lawsuit based on what legal theory, pray tell?

Someone needs to go shopping

For the record: I don't agree with the Court's decision for the same reason Justice Thurgood Marshall had. There is no reason to suspect that a bulge is a hidden handgun any more than it might be a wallet, cellphone, pager, or even a comb.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Won a civil lawsuit based on what legal theory, pray tell?

Someone needs to go shopping

For the record: I don't agree with the Court's decision for the same reason Justice Thurgood Marshall had. There is no reason to suspect that a bulge is a hidden handgun any more than it might be a wallet, cellphone, pager, or even a comb.
I like the shirt however I am not fond of the color red, blue may be..

Regards
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I like the shirt however I am not fond of the color red, blue may be..
Still on the whole "I'll just deflect the answer by changing the subject" kick, I see.

I subscribe to the rule of debate that any statement not defended is counted as a win for the opposing side. That would mean.. mmm... I'm batting a thousand in countering all your arguments that I've even bothered to respond to. (Not that there's anything personal; on the contrary, I appreciate your posts as an opportunity to correct erroneous information.)
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Still on the whole "I'll just deflect the answer by changing the subject" kick, I see.

I subscribe to the rule of debate that any statement not defended is counted as a win for the opposing side. That would mean.. mmm... I'm batting a thousand in countering all your arguments that I've even bothered to respond to. (Not that there's anything personal; on the contrary, I appreciate your posts as an opportunity to correct erroneous information.)

Before you start pounding your chest in victory... The above reference case, is not significant to my analogy...
In my scenario we are dealing with a law abiding citizen that knows his/her rights.. Said citizen would not exit their vehicle without invoking certain rights.. Clearly there is a difference from voluntarily exiting the vehicle and being extracted from said vehicle by an over zealous LEO.

Keep in mind, I am always presenting the side of a law abiding citizen that knows his/her rights.. I am not advocating for a criminal..

Law abiding citizen when confronted with an unconstitutional command from a leo, need only to invoke all his/her rights.

Stay in the vehicle, demand an attorney, remain silent.. What part do you not understand?

I enjoy our debating on all rights, not just the 2nd.. While you seem to look from the governments position, I look from the individual rights/natural rights position...

Lets continue in civility sir, I appreciate your thoughts and opinions, hence we all win from learning.

Regards

CCJ
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Stay in the vehicle, demand an attorney, remain silent.. What part do you not understand?
Well, I admit I'm a bit hazy how refusing to obey the lawful orders of an officer acting within the scope of his authority (see Penn. v Mimms) is "law abiding" when it's been adjudicated as being otherwise.

Clearly there is a difference from voluntarily exiting the vehicle and being extracted from said vehicle by an over zealous LEO.
If you voluntarily exit the vehicle on his demand/request there is no reason for him to have to 'extract' someone, is there?
If you 'voluntarily exit the vehicle' when the officer has lawfully instructed you to remain in it, you are in the same legal boat, so to speak, and the courts will see it in the same light as refusing to exit upon his command.

BTW.... you have no 'right to an attorney' until After you have been charged with a crime (see the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution if you're confused on the subject). A roadside detention is not an arrest and Officer Friendly has all the authority he needs to order you not to make any telephone calls or even to remove the ability to call someone with force if he thinks it's reasonable. And since he doesn't know if you're actually calling an attorney or calling Billy Bob to come a' runnin' with his shotgun, he isn't required to take that chance. The courts will back him up on the decision without even a second thought.


Thank you for providing yet another 'teachable moment' I don't know what I'd do without bad examples to correct.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Well, I admit I'm a bit hazy how refusing to obey the lawful orders of an officer acting within the scope of his authority (see Penn. v Mimms) is "law abiding" when it's been adjudicated as being otherwise.


If you voluntarily exit the vehicle on his demand/request there is no reason for him to have to 'extract' someone, is there?
If you 'voluntarily exit the vehicle' when the officer has lawfully instructed you to remain in it, you are in the same legal boat, so to speak, and the courts will see it in the same light as refusing to exit upon his command.

Thank you for providing yet another 'teachable moment' I don't know what I'd do without bad examples to correct.
Quasi commands from an over zealous leo does not trump constitutional rights.. A gun and badge does not give standing...
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP
I say never leave the vehicle.. For your own safety.. Force the LEOS to induce violence, they are good at the practice of violence..

If you are a law abiding citizen and not a criminal, a mere traffic violation does not give some over zealous leo any additional power over said law abiding citizen..

Regards
I get it. No, really, I do.

But, we can't all afford to do that. There are husbands here who cannot afford to get wrapped up into such a legal case even if they ultimately win.

On YouTube, there used to be videos of a young fella who was tasered and dragged through the broken window of his car for refusing to exit on orders of the Border Patrol at an immigration roadblock. He got a good number of shallow cuts to his face. Unfortunately for the Border Patrol this handsome, telegenic young man was an ordained minister. By the time his lawyers got done with the Border Patrol in court, the officers made themselves look like idiots. (I vaguely recall a BP agent testifying, in the face of contradictory evidence and common-sense questions, that his drug dog never ever made a mistake.)

But, we can't all play that game. That pastor was supremely miffed--and rightfully so. But, he had the resources, the connections, to make mincemeat out of the BP in court. We don't all have that. We're not all handsome, telegenic, nearly beyond reproof, and able or willing to risk losing in court. Because, lets be honest, that's what it was for that pastor--a risk. We cannot say that because we know he won that in hindsight he could know he would win.

Lots of readers here cannot afford to take that risk. I'm saying here is the data. Here is the way the deck is stacked. If you want to go up against government on this point, go for it. But, just know that government will not hand you a win based on your mere refusal and claim of rights. Government has already said--repeatedly--that a cop can order you out of your car for any reason or no reason. If you are going to win, you need more than your mere stand on rights. You need the cop to do something really egregious--that you can also prove with a recording or something. You need the cop to say something of a magnitude of, "I'm ordering you out of your car because you're black." Or, some other point so massive that it unmistakably outweighs socially office safety.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I get it. No, really, I do.

But, we can't all afford to do that. There are husbands here who cannot afford to get wrapped up into such a legal case even if they ultimately win.

On YouTube, there used to be videos of a young fella who was tasered and dragged through the broken window of his car for refusing to exit on orders of the Border Patrol at an immigration roadblock. He got a good number of shallow cuts to his face. Unfortunately for the Border Patrol this handsome, telegenic young man was an ordained minister. By the time his lawyers got done with the Border Patrol in court, the officers made themselves look like idiots. (I vaguely recall a BP agent testifying, in the face of contradictory evidence and common-sense questions, that his drug dog never ever made a mistake.)

But, we can't all play that game. That pastor was supremely miffed--and rightfully so. But, he had the resources, the connections, to make mincemeat out of the BP in court. We don't all have that. We're not all handsome, telegenic, nearly beyond reproof, and able or willing to risk losing in court. Because, lets be honest, that's what it was for that pastor--a risk. We cannot say that because we know he won that in hindsight he could know he would win.

Lots of readers here cannot afford to take that risk. I'm saying here is the data. Here is the way the deck is stacked. If you want to go up against government on this point, go for it. But, just know that government will not hand you a win based on your mere refusal and claim of rights. Government has already said--repeatedly--that a cop can order you out of your car for any reason or no reason. If you are going to win, you need more than your mere stand on rights. You need the cop to do something really egregious--that you can also prove with a recording or something. You need the cop to say something of a magnitude of, "I'm ordering you out of your car because you're black." Or, some other point so massive that it unmistakably outweighs socially office safety.
Also data does not clearly articulate if officers are safer or less safe when a motorist remains in their vehicle.
And random request to exist said vehicle could be construed as " racial profiling".. ..
Again, Officer safety does not trump our rights.. Unless we surrender them without a fight... I always fight and I WIN, whether on the side of the road or in court, I WIN... I have the legal capacity and the financial capacity to resist tyranny...

Regards
CCJ
 
Top