• 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.

Anniversary Today; Gov't Grabbed More Power

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
My hat is off to the fellow who alerted me to this. I name and link him below.

Today is the anniversary of an incident where government grabbed more power. "Yawn", you say? "Which day of the year is left when government did not grab more power?", you ask? "There are only 365 days in a year, Citizen. We're way past the point when such anniversaries started doubling up."

This one is a little special to OCers. Today is the anniversary of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) inventing out of thin air a power of police to detain you. Today is the anniversary of Terry v Ohio.

Some time ago, it dawned on me that there was a massive internal self-contradiction in the written SCOTUS opinion. That prompted me to recall or re-read the dissenting opinion, which gave even more evidence--the US Supreme Court invented out of thin air the power of police to detain people.

For several years, I've taken pretty much every opportunity to highlight that internal contradiction and the separate evidence in the dissent. And, I've seen little support or validation for my thinking. Oh, no, don't get me wrong. I didn't see much criticism, either. It was almost like nobody was listening. I was saying to myself, "Please, will somebody agree with me!"

And then today I found out that a respected criminal defense attorney felt somewhat similarly about Terry v Ohio. Maybe for different reasons. Maybe with a different perspective. But, man, when I saw the headline on his blog post, I nearly fell out of my chair.

Here, is my take on the case Terry v Ohio, today's anniversary. The short version, because I'm not trying to convince; just whet the interest of new readers:

Early in the written opinion, SCOTUS expressly shoots down a government argument that a stop-and-frisk (focus on the stop part for a moment) was not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure). Expressly. SCOTUS, to support its repudiation of the government argument, quotes a great court case. The gist of that quote is that a government agent can only interfere with someone if he has clear and unquestionable authority of law. Then, in the last paragraphs of the opinion, SCOTUS declares police have a power to detain someone under certain (yet, somehow, fairly broad) circumstances. So, here is the massive contradiction: if the cop had clear and unquestionable authority of law in the first place, how did this case get all the way to the US Supreme Court? You see it? The very fact the case got argued all the way to the US Supreme Court proves the cop did not have clear and unquestionable authority of law at the time he detained that guy.

The second evidence that SCOTUS invented out of thin air a power of police to detain people comes in the dissent. The dissenting judge pointed out that the majority was handing police more power than magistrates. (Magistrates need probable cause to issue a warrant, not mere suspicion.) Oh? The dissenting judge's chosen textual language shows the majority was doing it for the first time.

So, that's part of the reason why I say government invented out of thin air a power of police to detain someone. Their own words prove it.

The criminal defense attorney who alerted me to today's anniversary is John Wesley Hall. He runs a blog called FourthAmendment.com. The word limit on posts on this forum prevents me from fully expressing how much I've learned from reading his blog. He simply posts Fourth Amendment cases he thinks criminal defense attorneys should know about. But, those blog posts across years have told me more than...I don't have the words.

Here is the link to Mr. Hall's blog post about the anniversary:

http://fourthamendment.com/?p=26144
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
My hat is off to the fellow who alerted me to this. I name and link him below.

Today is the anniversary of an incident where government grabbed more power. "Yawn", you say? "Which day of the year is left when government did not grab more power?", you ask? "There are only 365 days in a year, Citizen. We're way past the point when such anniversaries started doubling up."

This one is a little special to OCers. Today is the anniversary of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) inventing out of thin air a power of police to detain you. Today is the anniversary of Terry v Ohio.

Some time ago, it dawned on me that there was a massive internal self-contradiction in the written SCOTUS opinion. That prompted me to recall or re-read the dissenting opinion, which gave even more evidence--the US Supreme Court invented out of thin air the power of police to detain people.

For several years, I've taken pretty much every opportunity to highlight that internal contradiction and the separate evidence in the dissent. And, I've seen little support or validation for my thinking. Oh, no, don't get me wrong. I didn't see much criticism, either. It was almost like nobody was listening. I was saying to myself, "Please, will somebody agree with me!"

And then today I found out that a respected criminal defense attorney felt somewhat similarly about Terry v Ohio. Maybe for different reasons. Maybe with a different perspective. But, man, when I saw the headline on his blog post, I nearly fell out of my chair.

Here, is my take on the case Terry v Ohio, today's anniversary. The short version, because I'm not trying to convince; just whet the interest of new readers:

Early in the written opinion, SCOTUS expressly shoots down a government argument that a stop-and-frisk (focus on the stop part for a moment) was not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure). Expressly. SCOTUS, to support its repudiation of the government argument, quotes a great court case. The gist of that quote is that a government agent can only interfere with someone if he has clear and unquestionable authority of law. Then, in the last paragraphs of the opinion, SCOTUS declares police have a power to detain someone under certain (yet, somehow, fairly broad) circumstances. So, here is the massive contradiction: if the cop had clear and unquestionable authority of law in the first place, how did this case get all the way to the US Supreme Court? You see it? The very fact the case got argued all the way to the US Supreme Court proves the cop did not have clear and unquestionable authority of law at the time he detained that guy.

The second evidence that SCOTUS invented out of thin air a power of police to detain people comes in the dissent. The dissenting judge pointed out that the majority was handing police more power than magistrates. (Magistrates need probable cause to issue a warrant, not mere suspicion.) Oh? The dissenting judge's chosen textual language shows the majority was doing it for the first time.

So, that's part of the reason why I say government invented out of thin air a power of police to detain someone. Their own words prove it.

The criminal defense attorney who alerted me to today's anniversary is John Wesley Hall. He runs a blog called FourthAmendment.com. The word limit on posts on this forum prevents me from fully expressing how much I've learned from reading his blog. He simply posts Fourth Amendment cases he thinks criminal defense attorneys should know about. But, those blog posts across years have told me more than...I don't have the words.

Here is the link to Mr. Hall's blog post about the anniversary:

http://fourthamendment.com/?p=26144
Citizen

Indeed, 49 years ago, the Supremes gave police more police power and more immunity, while jeopardizing the privacy and or the security of the citizen.. The court actually destroyed the concept of " probable cause". Along with given police added discretion with regards to " suspicious persons".

Justice Douglas in his dissent surely had it correct, to wit, for the "unreasonable searches and seizures" condemned in the fourth amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which, in criminal cases, is condemned in the fifth amendment, and compelling a man " in a criminal case to be a witness against himself, " which is condemned in the 5th A, throws light on the question as to what is an " unreasonable search and seizure" within the meaning of the 4th amendment.. This case surely eroded the founders intentions concerning not only the 4th amendment but also the 5th amendment.. I find it interesting that other men, the justices, could so boldly determine what is " unreasonable". where a citizen is involved. To quote one of my favorite heroes John Locke, " to constrain men to ANY inconvenience doth seem UNREASONABLE".

Douglas also opined in his dissent that it was up to the voters via an amendment to amend the 4th A, not the justices, again, I concur with him.

Indeed, a horrible decision for American jurisprudence and the citizens of the United States.

Citizen, always a pleasure Sir, have a pleasant weekend!

Regards
CCJ
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,417
Location
White Oak Plantation
Hunches are verboten...yet McFadden used a hunch. Terry v. Ohio raises no hackles for the vast majority because judges have been reinforcing Terry to the point that plain letter text in a statute is meaningless to the courts. Cops will fight to their last breath to preserve their unconstitutional prerogative. Mainly due to the low cost of doing business where civil suits are concerned for them.

Example:
RSMo 544.180. - Arrest. - An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
There can be no "detainment per Terry in Missouri. But, try getting a judge to agree, let alone a cop.

Terry v. Ohio must be eliminated. Then QI must follow.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,758
Location
Granite State of Mind
What is amusing is watching police officers react angrily to Terry as if it hamstrings them and limits them from doing what they otherwise could do.

They should really try to understand what hoops they would have to jump through if not for Terry.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
What is amusing is watching police officers react angrily to Terry as if it hamstrings them and limits them from doing what they otherwise could do.

They should really try to understand what hoops they would have to jump through if not for Terry.
Smarter folks may understand Terry, however the average IQ of a police officer is 104. see Robert Jordan v City of New London and Keith Harrigan.

Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Hunches are verboten...yet McFadden used a hunch. Terry v. Ohio raises no hackles for the vast majority because judges have been reinforcing Terry to the point that plain letter text in a statute is meaningless to the courts. Cops will fight to their last breath to preserve their unconstitutional prerogative. Mainly due to the low cost of doing business where civil suits are concerned for them.

Example: There can be no "detainment per Terry in Missouri. But, try getting a judge to agree, let alone a cop.

Terry v. Ohio must be eliminated. Then QI must follow.

+100000000
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Smarter folks may understand Terry, however the average IQ of a police officer is 104. see Robert Jordan v City of New London and Keith Harrigan.

Regards
CCJ
Specific cite, please. The Wonderlic cited in the court case is different than an IQ test:
Wonderlic to IQ Conversion

Because the IQ and the Wonderlic are similar but separate tests there is no way to determine your Wonderlic score based on your IQ score, or vice versa. However, using a normal distribution bell curve it’s possible to make approximations. Bellow are IQ to Wonderlic conversions based on standard deviations of both tests.

68 on IQ = 5 on Wonderlic
85 on IQ = 14 on Wonderlic
100 on IQ = 22 on Wonderlic
115 on IQ = 29 on Wonderlic
132 on IQ = 36 on Wonderlic

Regardless, an IQ of 100 is the median value, i.e., normal intelligence, therefore an "average police officer" in your estimation is of slightly higher intelligence than the overall median.

What's your point other than a feeble attempt to bash police?
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Specific cite, please. The Wonderlic cited in the court case is different than an IQ test:
Wonderlic to IQ Conversion

Because the IQ and the Wonderlic are similar but separate tests there is no way to determine your Wonderlic score based on your IQ score, or vice versa. However, using a normal distribution bell curve it’s possible to make approximations. Bellow are IQ to Wonderlic conversions based on standard deviations of both tests.

68 on IQ = 5 on Wonderlic
85 on IQ = 14 on Wonderlic
100 on IQ = 22 on Wonderlic
115 on IQ = 29 on Wonderlic
132 on IQ = 36 on Wonderlic

Regardless, an IQ of 100 is the median value, i.e., normal intelligence, therefore an "average police officer" in your estimation is of slightly higher intelligence than the overall median.

What's your point other than a feeble attempt to bash police?
The point was simply that Mr. Jordan was not hired due in part to his IQ of 125 versus the average IQ of police which the court noted was 104..
Please attempt to read the entire case summary, it is not very long, nor very difficult.
I am not police bashing, I am simply citing a case. You call it bashing, I call it making a point.

My .02
CCJ
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
The point was simply that Mr. Jordan was not hired due in part to his IQ of 125 versus the average IQ of police which the court noted was 104..
Please attempt to read the entire case summary, it is not very long, nor very difficult.
I am not police bashing, I am simply citing a case. You call it bashing, I call it making a point.

My .02
CCJ
I did read the entire case you referenced -- http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html -- and nowhere in that case is a 104 IQ EVER mentioned. Assuming "facts" not in evidence is pretty lame, but typical of progressive liberals.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I did read the entire case you referenced -- http://www.aele.org/apa/jordan-newlondon.html -- and nowhere in that case is a 104 IQ EVER mentioned. Assuming "facts" not in evidence is pretty lame, but typical of progressive liberals.
The court of appeals upheld a lower court's decision that the city did not discriminate against Jordan. The ruling maintains that the same standards were applied to everyone as the city only interviewed candidates who scored 20-27. The average national score for police officers is 21-22 or an IQ of about 104.

Google, Man denied job as police officer due to above average IQ... There, you shall find the information/evidence you seek.

CCJ
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP
Citizen, always a pleasure Sir, have a pleasant weekend!

Regards
CCJ
Thanks. Do read the opinion in my second post. Jeezus Pete, we could make an entire thread just commenting on the oh-so sly and subtle anti-freedom slant in that piece of government propaganda masquerading as an attempt at law.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Hunches are verboten...yet McFadden used a hunch. Terry v. Ohio raises no hackles for the vast majority because judges have been reinforcing Terry to the point that plain letter text in a statute is meaningless to the courts. Cops will fight to their last breath to preserve their unconstitutional prerogative. Mainly due to the low cost of doing business where civil suits are concerned for them.

Example: There can be no "detainment per Terry in Missouri. But, try getting a judge to agree, let alone a cop.

Terry v. Ohio must be eliminated. Then QI must follow.
I think the SCOTUS specious rationalization is even more subtle than that.

When I first read Terry, I was...let me say...vaguely abraded somehow. I didn't like it. I didn't want it. Yet, the facts and the court's conclusion seemed oh-so reasonable. According to the SCOTUS version of the facts*, Detective McFadden watched these guys for some time. Heck, even I would have suspected they were casing the joint for a robbery.

But, that is what made such a police power seem so reasonable.

It wasn't until much later that the massive internal contradiction in the opinion dawned on me. Prompting me to recall something in the dissent that I had just never connected before.

Lesson learned: when government seems oh-so reasonable, watch out!! Terry v Ohio is a perfect example. They cite a case that said no right is held more sacred or carefully guarded than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of their own person unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Then, they carefully explain, with just the right words, how it was oh-so totally reasonable for a cop to seize someone on mere suspicion when it had never before been clear and unquestionable law to do so.

Notice the Terry court never explored McFadden's alternatives. What else could he have done that would have both quelled the robbery, and not seized Terry or Chilton without clear and unquestionable authority of law? Nope. Not a word from SCOTUS on that. And, these boys were lawyers' lawyers. They could again split hairs that had already been split. But, somehow it just never occurred to them to look that direction.

*The facts in the Ohio Court of Appeals case are more revealing--and problematic for government. Now, how on earth did the SCOTUS command to "send us the certified record" when they decided to accept the case, get turned into the facts in their opinion which sound much more reasonable and less open to question that the facts in the Ohio Court of Appeals opinion? How does that happen? Two different certified records of the proceedings? Suuuuuure.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I think the SCOTUS specious rationalization is even more subtle than that.

When I first read Terry, I was...let me say...vaguely abraded somehow. I didn't like it. I didn't want it. Yet, the facts and the court's conclusion seemed oh-so reasonable. According to the SCOTUS version of the facts*, Detective McFadden watched these guys for some time. Heck, even I would have suspected they were casing the joint for a robbery.

But, that is what made the police power seem so reasonable.

It wasn't until much later that the massive internal contradiction in the opinion dawned on me. Prompting me to recall something in the dissent that I had just never connected before.

Lesson learned: when government seems oh-so reasonable, watch out!! Terry v Ohio is a perfect example. They cite a case that said no right is held more sacred or carefully guarded than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of their own person unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Then, they carefully explain, with just the right words, how it was oh-so totally reasonable for a cop to seize someone on mere suspicion when it had never before been clear and unquestionable law to do so.

Notice the Terry court never explored McFadden's alternatives. What else could he have done that would have both quelled the robbery, and not seized Terry or Chilton without clear and unquestionable authority of law? Nope. Not a word from SCOTUS on that. And, these boys were lawyers' lawyers. They could again split hairs that had already been split. But, somehow it just never occurred to them to look that direction.

*The facts in the Ohio Court of Appeals case are more revealing--and problematic. Now, how on earth did the SCOTUS command to "send us the certified record" when they decided to accept the case, get turned into the facts in their opinion which sound much more reasonable and less open to question that the facts in the Ohio Court of Appeals opinion? How does that happen? Two different certified records of the proceedings? Suuuuuure.
Citizen

An interesting caveat to Terry, in my humble opinion.. While Mr. Terry may have been a suspected criminal in the eyes of detective Mc Fadden
It is obvious that Mr.Terry, was not familiar with his constitutional rights, IE, had Terry, when Detective Mc Fadden approached, and queried him, exercised his right to no searches and seizures, and exercise his right to remain silent, this case may have had a different out come.
Whether a criminal or a law-abiding citizen, any encounter with a LEO, one should always articulate their rights, IMMEDIATELY . When a citizen invokes rights, the nice inquiring LEO is now himself handcuffed.. And any "arrest" would in fact not be " ambiguous".

Yes, the courts in this case, created many terms for thought. Arrest, reasonable articulate suspicion, probable cause, or in Terry, lack thereof , officer safety, public safety, unreasonableness. Had Terry invoked his rights from the get go, for lack of a better term, I feel this case would have had a different outcome.. It is paramount, to invoke all rights, when the so called authority of law, is in arms reach.

Also in my humble opinion, Mr. Terry's counsel, from the ACLU, Mr. Louis Stokes, while Mr.Stokes never lost a political election, possibly his legal scholarship did not serve Mr. Terry that well.

While Terry, gives broad latitude to police, we still have the Constitution. Rights must be invoked upon any encounter with government agents.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, " Bind down the public officials with the chains of the Constitution".

My. 02

Citizen, always a pleasure Sir!

Regards
CCJ
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Citizen
SNIP
An interesting caveat to Terry, in my humble opinion.. While Mr. Terry may have been a suspected criminal in the eyes of detective Mc Fadden
It is obvious that Mr.Terry, was not familiar with his constitutional rights, IE, had Terry, when Detective Mc Fadden approached, and queried him, exercised his right to no searches and seizures, and exercise his right to remain silent, this case may have had a different out come.
Omigod!!! I had never thought of that! I've known for some time that bad cases make for bad case law; but, not once ever did I make to myself your observation about how things might have turned out differently had Mr. Terry exercised his rights.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Omigod!!! I had never thought of that! I've known for some time that bad cases make for bad case law; but, not once ever did I make to myself your observation about how things might have turned out differently had Mr. Terry exercised his rights.
Citizen

LOL, Im not as dumb as some folks on here think I am... LOL

Im glad I could put a different spin on the case at bar.. The point, always invoke rights when dealing with the government.

Regards Sir!

CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Bear in mind, when one is open carrying, one is exercising a right. However simply remaining silent, does not convey to the government, your intentions, therefore the reason, I stress, we must INVOKE our rights., We must articulate to the friendly leo, that we INVOKE our right to remain silent, and we object to ANY searches or seizures of our person or our property, INVOKE IS THE KEY WORD!..

My .02

Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Much as it pains me to agree with "Jerky Joe" on anything, there was a case many years ago that was discussed on late night radio KMOX in St. Louis. The host talked about a court case back east somewhere (NY, NJ, ??) where a man was denied placement in a police academy because he was deemed to be "too intelligent". The department that was originally interested in him decided that given his level of intelligence, they couldn't afford the cost of his training, etc., as he would become disillusioned with the job and take that expensively acquired knowledge elsewhere before they could recover their incurred costs. At that time, the host who emphatically stated that he was friends with both St. Louis City and County officers, said that the case described how many police departments look for people with an IQ rating of approximately 105. People at that level were able to learn the rigors of the job yet not be dissuaded by those same rigors, much of which was repetitive.
In essence, the "best and brightest" do NOT make good police officers.
Even a "jerky Joe", like me, can sometimes, make interesting points.. And the more astute amongst us, shall reap the benefits of the wisdom expounded therein.

" When we turn to one another for counsel, we reduce the number of our enemies". Khalil Gibran

What is this world that is hastening me toward, I know not what, viewing me with contempt?

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I remember that case, vaguely.. so I did a little digging.

Jordan v. New London, NY
Can a person actually be “too smart” to be a cop in America?

A federal court’s decision back in 2000 suggests that, yes, you actually can be.

Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, scored a 33 on an intelligence test he took as part of the application process to become a police officer in the town of New London, Connecticut. The score meant Jordan had an IQ of 125.

The average score for police officers was a 21-22, or an IQ of 104. New London would only interview candidates who scored between 20 and 27.

Jordan sued the city alleging discrimination, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld that it wasn’t discrimination. “Why?” you might ask. Because New London Police Department applied the same standard to everyone who applied to be a cop there.
-Global Research.CA
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I remember that case, vaguely.. so I did a little digging.

Jordan v. New London, NY

-Global Research.CA
No sweat buddy, I feel you shall have no problem qualifying for a police persons job.. Indeed, you probably will be smarter then 90% of your fellow colleagues.. Thank you for your service..

Fallschimjager IQ= 109.. Yea, smarter then the rest, the rest, 104 IQ...

Go, Falls, Go.. you surely shall be the smartest person in your department.. The folks of Georgia, should rest peacefully now, Mr.QI 109 is on the job

Now, is that, sophomoric enough for you? Or do you feel to continue with your upbraided comments about me?

Also, do you have anything intelligent, to add regarding the topic?

CCJ
 
Top