• 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.
  • 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.

COMMONWEALTH vs. JASON DOUGLAS Pat Frisk of Vehicle

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
#1
"CYPHER, J. This is an appeal by the Commonwealth after a
single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the
Commonwealth's petition under Mass.R.Crim.P. 15, as appearing in
422 Mass. 1501 (1996). In ruling on the defendants' motions to
suppress, a judge in the Superior Court held that the seizure by
police officers of a firearm found under a passenger's seat
during a "patfrisk" of the interior of a motor vehicle was
impermissible because, although the stop of the vehicle was
justified, the police had exceeded the permissible scope of the
search when they looked under the passenger's seat before the
occupants returned to the vehicle. Specifically, the judge
reasoned that "[a]ny suspicion which might have been prompted by
any movement (or lack thereof) by the car's occupants was
dispelled by the removal and pat frisk of each individual's
person."
3 We reverse the order allowing the motions to suppress."

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/reporter-of-decisions/new-opinions/12p1992.pdf

Basically, 4 gang members are in a vehicle making movements, acting funny. Some of the guys are known to the detectives for either carrying firearms or being involved in violence/drugs. Vehicle is stopped for no blinker. Occupants are ordered to exit and pat frisked. Pat frisk of them reveals nothing. Pat frisk of car finds revolver.

Defense says "wait you can't pat frisk the car if you don't find anything on my client". Negative my friend. The point of a pat frisk is to stop them from sitting back in car and shooting you in face or someone else.

Note: above is very SHORT synopsis. Read the case for a really good example of what RAS is and how it works/ is built. The defendant's motions, what he says, how well he's known, his movements before they got in the car, who was with, what the group was doing prior, there being current rival gang tensions, ALL build RAS needed.

This is not an example of OC, but it's certainly an example of how every little detail can be used to build RAS and extremely fast.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
#2
What terrible after-the-fact justification of an illegal search.
After looking at the criteria for RAS in this case you might as well answer the question of why it was okay to conduct the search with:
F*ck you that's why!
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,450
Location
Valhalla
#3
What terrible after-the-fact justification of an illegal search.
After looking at the criteria for RAS in this case you might as well answer the question of why it was okay to conduct the search with:
F*ck you that's why!
You might want to check your fury at the hatstand and read up on case law about this. Without actually putting my brain in gear: "furtive movements" is RAS to search the car after taking the occupants outside and cuffing them "for your safety and mine".

And since there is so much case law on the subject, "F*ck you that's why" is a fair reason.

Just for the record - I am not a cop supporter and I am never going to be pleased with actions that push the envelope on 4A searches. As far as I'm concerned that boundary is as inflexible as a sheet of cheap plate glass, as opposed to being like a soap bubble that can take quite a bit of prodding into before it breaks.

Which explains why I spend so much time and energy trying to get bad case law fixed through the legislature.

stay safe.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
#6
You might want to check your fury at the hatstand and read up on case law about this. Without actually putting my brain in gear: "furtive movements" is RAS to search the car after taking the occupants outside and cuffing them "for your safety and mine".

And since there is so much case law on the subject, "F*ck you that's why" is a fair reason.

Just for the record - I am not a cop supporter and I am never going to be pleased with actions that push the envelope on 4A searches. As far as I'm concerned that boundary is as inflexible as a sheet of cheap plate glass, as opposed to being like a soap bubble that can take quite a bit of prodding into before it breaks.

Which explains why I spend so much time and energy trying to get bad case law fixed through the legislature.

stay safe.
My fury warms heart. I'll wear it as long as I can thank you. And though "F*ck you that's why" reasoning may be given a smile and nod by a judge it does not make it right IMO.
The 4A is a joke when corrupt authoritarians decide what is an "unreasonable" search.

Just for the record the time and energy you expend to fight bad case law through legislature is honorable. I salute you.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,419
Location
White Oak Plantation
#8
We get a example of the bad guys getting away with it and then there is this.
A Florida woman is free to eat pasta in her car once again after serving a month in jail because cops confused a crusty spoon in her possession with SpaghettiO's residue as being the drug methamphetamine.

Ashley Gabrielle Huff, 23, was arrested on July 2 by the Gainesville police department after they suspected her of having meth residue on a spoon in her car that she hard pressed was SpaghettiO's residue.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...usty-spoon-car-SPAGHETTIO-S-residue-meth.html
Don't know what to say at this point regarding the concocting of RAS.

That too much liberty thing keeps popping into my head every time I read a story where the cop(s) go one way and logic/common sense goes the other way. But hey, no harm no foul if she gets a payday fro nitwit cops...right? I mean, how much can a 23 y/o have lost after a month in jail, she is only 23 with the rest of her life ahead of her.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
#9
We get a example of the bad guys getting away with it and then there is this.Don't know what to say at this point regarding the concocting of RAS.

That too much liberty thing keeps popping into my head every time I read a story where the cop(s) go one way and logic/common sense goes the other way. But hey, no harm no foul if she gets a payday fro nitwit cops...right? I mean, how much can a 23 y/o have lost after a month in jail, she is only 23 with the rest of her life ahead of her.
Cool story bro.

Not gun related. Not in the same state. Not even a detailed example of RAS. Just a news story about cops.

Think that's called.... Trolling?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,419
Location
White Oak Plantation
#10
Cool story bro.

Not gun related. Not in the same state. Not even a detailed example of RAS. Just a news story about cops.

Think that's called.... Trolling?
Your OP was about how RAS is developed.
This is not an example of OC, but it's certainly an example of how every little detail can be used to build RAS and extremely fast.
Tomato sauce residue was all the RAS that cop needed.

By the way, I did agree that the judge got it wrong due to all of the little things. The story I posted only had one little thing.

Keep trying though.
 

Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,827
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
#11
Defense says "wait you can't pat frisk the car if you don't find anything on my client". Negative my friend. The point of a pat frisk is to stop them from sitting back in car and shooting you in face or someone else.
Now allowing them back in the car, or securing them in another car would have done the same thing... except it wouldn't have allowed the nice officers a freebie to do the search they so much wanted to do.

Ain't it a shame when the common folks can see through such transparent lies so easily?
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
#12
Now allowing them back in the car, or securing them in another car would have done the same thing... except it wouldn't have allowed the nice officers a freebie to do the search they so much wanted to do.

Ain't it a shame when the common folks can see through such transparent lies so easily?
Not allowing them? Ever?

This stop is the epitome of the point of a pat frisk.

Violent gang members. Out after/during an incident. Current violence between groups. Check car based on shady actions. Gun found.

You HAVE to let them in car. Preferable as soon as possible. So a quick and limited check of a certain area for safety. That's all, no more no less.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
#13
Now allowing them back in the car, or securing them in another car would have done the same thing... except it wouldn't have allowed the nice officers a freebie to do the search they so much wanted to do.

Ain't it a shame when the common folks can see through such transparent lies so easily?
Not ordering them out of the car in the first place and just giving them a ticket for the illegal turn without signalling was the proper action. Of course that was just an excuse. They were following him fishing for a reason to put him in jail.
The justification for the 4A violation is pathetic. He was sitting at an angle in his seat. He was quieter than I remember him being. He didn't make enough eye contact. It's utter hog wash.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
#14
Not ordering them out of the car in the first place and just giving them a ticket for the illegal turn without signalling was the proper action. Of course that was just an excuse. They were following him fishing for a reason to put him in jail.
The justification for the 4A violation is pathetic. He was sitting at an angle in his seat. He was quieter than I remember him being. He didn't make enough eye contact. It's utter hog wash.
Let's see... They had RAS they had a gun..... And they had a...... Gun.

This is the point of RAS. To make the officer work to do any searches. Its a restriction on them. Well they worked to the standard and found what they thought was there.

You can hate it and complain but its reality. There is restriction on the officers and they stayed within it and still got the job done.
 

Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,827
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
#15
Not allowing them? Ever?
No, you aren't that dumb; so stop playin', Homes.

This stop is the epitome of the point of a pat frisk.

Violent gang members. Out after/during an incident. Current violence between groups. Check car based on shady actions. Gun found.

You HAVE to let them in car. Preferable as soon as possible. So a quick and limited check of a certain area for safety. That's all, no more no less.
Yes, you HAVE to let them in the car... after the purpose of the stop was achieved.

Was the purpose to issue a traffic citation or was the citation merely a pretext to accomplish a search that otherwise could not have been done?



Officers in Commerce, Georgia developed Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a spoon a woman had in her car had meth residue.
Officers developed Probable Cause to arrest her.


Turns out the 'residue' was dried Spaghetti O's. That's what BS police work with BS suspicion leads to.
 

Last edited:
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
#16
Let's see... They had RAS they had a gun..... And they had a...... Gun.

This is the point of RAS. To make the officer work to do any searches. Its a restriction on them. Well they worked to the standard and found what they thought was there.

You can hate it and complain but its reality. There is restriction on the officers and they stayed within it and still got the job done.
They found the gun after a wrongful search.

Why do you keep bringing it up? OH wait as a rationalization for illegal actions by your buddies?

This is why Terry is a horrible decision, people who don't understand liberty or rights and want to infringe upon them use the invented terms by such decisions for the rationalization of their unconstitutional acts.
 

Top