• 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.

K-9 Alert Search Question

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Key word there is 'when', CCJ.
Great point, So WHEN the initial stop, is deemed to lack RAS for said stop, the de facto Terry stop becomes " unreasonable, from start to finish?..

I find it interesting, that the majority of law abiding citizens, most if not all of their encounters with LE is via some type of traffic stop.. And yet, it is during these stops, that our rights seem to be eroded and or worse, clearly violated..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Great point, So WHEN the initial stop, is deemed to lack RAS for said stop, the de facto Terry stop becomes " unreasonable, from start to finish?..

I find it interesting, that the majority of law abiding citizens, most if not all of their encounters with LE is via some type of traffic stop.. And yet, it is during these stops, that our rights seem to be eroded and or worse, clearly violated..
That determination would come long after the stop was concluded. And the consequence is that any evidence produced shouldn't be admitted into testimony.

But judges have been known to see things that aren't there and to turn a blind eye to things that are.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Great point, So WHEN the initial stop, is deemed to lack RAS for said stop, the de facto Terry stop becomes " unreasonable, from start to finish?..

I find it interesting, that the majority of law abiding citizens, most if not all of their encounters with LE is via some type of traffic stop.. And yet, it is during these stops, that our rights seem to be eroded and or worse, clearly violated..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
+1

I've been reading case summaries about cops and the 4A for years.

The government has been taking us on a downhill slide for years.

I was pretty despondent about the subject at one point.

Then I read something (or remembered something I had earlier read, can't recall).

The upshot was that rights exist. They just are. In the context of this conversation, it means, literally, that government cannot take them away. Government can only refuse to recognize them. As a teen, my mom refusing to recognize I am old enough to make my own decisions doesn't mean I don't make my own decisions. Government refusing to recognize rights does not erase them. It merely highlights government's intention to look out for itself at the expense of the those it governs. Rights still exist even if government won't recognize them. Government doesn't recognize certain rights because they don't want to. And, since they gots all the swords, they can get away with that. Mostly. Until....

Lots of angles to this. For example, I mentioned government doesn't recognize certain rights. OK. Ask which rights government does recognize. Then look into why government recognizes those rights. You will too often find it was not out of human decency and a sense of fair play. It was because government was faced with violence from the people. A classic example is the right against self-incrimination. Government today (courts) will intone with deep solemnity that the right to silence is a fighting right. Government claims you have to invoke it. Oh, really? Government doesn't just automatically recognize it? It turns out government's argument that the right to silence is fighting right--must be invoked--is a self-serving argument. The only reason it is a fighting right is because government did not concede one millimeter more than it thought it had to in order to prevent pitchforks and torches. Now, I am not saying you can verify this example in one or two minutes of googling. No, sorry. It is gonna take hours or days. You're going to have to dig into the history of the Court of High Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes, the people burned to death under Queen Mary, Bishop Whitgift, Bishop Laud, James I, and a massively liberty-minded fellow named John Lilburne. But, if you do follow that thread, the point is there: government only recognized--finally--the right to silence because the people were fed the eff up. And, government only recognized the one tiny millimeter it thought it had to. It doesn't recognize fully and completely the right to silence. Oh, no. Government swears up and down, and has lots of oh-so reasonable sounding rationalizations, that the right against self-incrimination only goes so far. Just realize that their arguments, no matter how rational and reasonable they sound, have as their foundation, a key concession which was all government thought it needed to concede in order to avoid pitchforks and torches.

Rights exist. Government can only refuse to recognize them. That doesn't mean a given right does not exist. It means government is out of line, not you.

Don't believe me? Here. I will prove beyond any shadow of a doubt I am on your side. I will tell you something that nobody but nobody who doesn't believe in you and your rights would ever say. You and you alone decide what your rights are. Not government. Not the other voters. You. Take advice from the luminaries like Richard Overton, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson. But, the only rights you've got are the one's you personally decide you have (and by extension belong to everybody else, too.)

Now, really? Would somebody who didn't want you to realize and understand the extent of your rights have told you that? Would somebody who wanted to keep you under his thumb, to keep you under his control, have said that?
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,730
Location
here nc
last i heard the court's accepted total clock time for a 'stop' is 20 minutes, as you have pointed out, most are not aware of the time criteria.

ipse
Are you sure that's not the accepted time limit for an investigative detention to turn into a de facto arrest?

As long as a traffic stop isn't extended unnecessarily I don't think there's a time limit.
i am researching where i poked the info in my hiddy hole...

give me a moment...

ipse
See my post #2-- here

United States v Sharpe (1985)..

Police cannot turn a Terry stop into a de facto arrest..

Regards
CCJ

sorry for the delay but previous engagement prevented earlier response...


thanks CCJ for your post 2 and your reiteration but two books,
a. you and the police, boston t party
b. arrest proof yourself, d.c.carson
b(1) feb 14 news article discussion d.c.carson's statement


all state 20 minutes...unequivocally!


ipse
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,730
Location
here nc
You are simply and dangerously wrong. In order to effect a Terry Stop, an officer must have RAS that the person being stopped has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. If the officer's RAS proves accurate, you damn well betcha that it will result in an arrest. I don't know where you got your law degree, but you ought to get your tuition refunded...
this from the gentleman who pouted over the perception that his pedigree(s), bona fides, cred(s), aka your legitimacy were challenged.

really?

ipse
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
+1

I've been reading case summaries about cops and the 4A for years.

The government has been taking us on a downhill slide for years.

I was pretty despondent about the subject at one point.

Then I read something (or remembered something I had earlier read, can't recall).

The upshot was that rights exist. They just are. In the context of this conversation, it means, literally, that government cannot take them away. Government can only refuse to recognize them. As a teen, my mom refusing to recognize I am old enough to make my own decisions doesn't mean I don't make my own decisions. Government refusing to recognize rights does not erase them. It merely highlights government's intention to look out for itself at the expense of the those it governs. Rights still exist even if government won't recognize them. Government doesn't recognize certain rights because they don't want to. And, since they gots all the swords, they can get away with that. Mostly. Until....

Lots of angles to this. For example, I mentioned government doesn't recognize certain rights. OK. Ask which rights government does recognize. Then look into why government recognizes those rights. You will too often find it was not out of human decency and a sense of fair play. It was because government was faced with violence from the people. A classic example is the right against self-incrimination. Government today (courts) will intone with deep solemnity that the right to silence is a fighting right. Government claims you have to invoke it. Oh, really? Government doesn't just automatically recognize it? It turns out government's argument that the right to silence is fighting right--must be invoked--is a self-serving argument. The only reason it is a fighting right is because government did not concede one millimeter more than it thought it had to in order to prevent pitchforks and torches. Now, I am not saying you can verify this example in one or two minutes of googling. No, sorry. It is gonna take hours or days. You're going to have to dig into the history of the Court of High Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes, the people burned to death under Queen Mary, Bishop Whitgift, Bishop Laud, James I, and a massively liberty-minded fellow named John Lilburne. But, if you do follow that thread, the point is there: government only recognized--finally--the right to silence because the people were fed the eff up. And, government only recognized the one tiny millimeter it thought it had to. It doesn't recognize fully and completely the right to silence. Oh, no. Government swears up and down, and has lots of oh-so reasonable sounding rationalizations, that the right against self-incrimination only goes so far. Just realize that their arguments, no matter how rational and reasonable they sound, have as their foundation, a key concession which was all government thought it needed to concede in order to avoid pitchforks and torches.

Rights exist. Government can only refuse to recognize them. That doesn't mean a given right does not exist. It means government is out of line, not you.

Don't believe me? Here. I will prove beyond any shadow of a doubt I am on your side. I will tell you something that nobody but nobody who doesn't believe in you and your rights would ever say. You and you alone decide what your rights are. Not government. Not the other voters. You. Take advice from the luminaries like Richard Overton, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson. But, the only rights you've got are the one's you personally decide you have (and by extension belong to everybody else, too.)

Now, really? Would somebody who didn't want you to realize and understand the extent of your rights have told you that? Would somebody who wanted to keep you under his thumb, to keep you under his control, have said that?
+100000000000

So, Government cannot take a right, Government can only VIOLATE said right..

Thank you Citizen.

Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
On a positive 4th amendment case.. Read Brown v Texas ( 1979)..

The Supremes in this case ruled that a Texas Penal Code, requiring a detained person, to ID himself/herself violated the 4th Amendment.. It is a good positive read for us liberty minded folks..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Why is the bar set lower for police on traffic stops? RAS is a lower bar than "probable cause".

On traffic stops, police can have a vehicle towed/impounded without probable cause or a warrant..
Hence certain rights are lost/surrendered/stolen on the highway. Officer safety seems to trump rights on the highway. Many rights are violated on the highways of America each and everyday. Citizens need be more cognizant on the highway and exercise their rights diligently..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
sorry for the delay but previous engagement prevented earlier response...


thanks CCJ for your post 2 and your reiteration but two books,
a. you and the police, boston t party
b. arrest proof yourself, d.c.carson
b(1) feb 14 news article discussion d.c.carson's statement


all state 20 minutes...unequivocally!


ipse
In Sharpe, the supremes, rejected the contention that a 20 minute stop is unreasonable when the police have acted diligently and a suspects actions contribute to the added delay about which he complains.

If exercising a right, is construed as contributing to the delay, there lies the problem..

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Back to Rodriguez, please recall that the LEOS asked/demanded ID from the passenger..

In Brown V Texas, the Justices ruled that without reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct, a person is protected under the 4th Amendment and is NOT required to ID himself/herself..

Handing over ID gives the nice leos, the chance to initiate a fishing expedition, while they run your info..

Never, never, hand over ID... One cannot be arrested for not producing ID,, you may be taken in however your civil suit will more than make up for your lost time..

My .02
CCJ
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,278
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Back to Rodriguez, please recall that the LEOS asked/demanded ID from the passenger..

In Brown V Texas, the Justices ruled that without reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct, a person is protected under the 4th Amendment and is NOT required to ID himself/herself..

Handing over ID gives the nice leos, the chance to initiate a fishing expedition, while they run your info..

Never, never, hand over ID... One cannot be arrested for not producing ID,, you may be taken in however your civil suit will more than make up for your lost time..

My .02
CCJ
I hate to contradict such a freedom-minded fellow, but I just gotta.

No offense, CCJ, but the suppressive govern-ers have speciously split hairs, and indeed a fellow can be arrested for not producing ID.

I have read a couple state statutes that require a person to hand over an identity document, if he has one on him, and the cop has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) against the poor fellow from who the identity document is being demanded. I've also read a number of municipal codes where the detainee was required to identify himself to a cop. The penalties were pretty stiff. Here in VA, three jurisdictions have such codes (maybe more, by now). The penalty in all three was maximum misdemeanor penalties--just shy of felony. If I recall, in VA that is up to 364 days in jail, up to a $2500 fine, or a combination of jail and fine.

The crucial point is RAS. You see, way back in Terry v Ohio, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), decreed that the facts of each case will need a court to decide. Which means, it is the courts who decide after the detention whether the cops had RAS during the detention, pointedly not the detainee during the detention.

So, a fella who wants to refuse an identity document, has a pretty tall order he absolutely must be correct about at the exact instant he refuses to provide an identity document. He has to:

  • correctly predict what his judge will rule at the suppression hearing about whether the cop had genuine RAS based on the facts available to the cop at the beginning of the detention.
  • know with certainty whether the 911 call or cop's observations were previously ruled genuine RAS in his locale
  • know whether the cop is lying about his RAS (google permissible deception)
  • know whether the cop gave him only part of his RAS
  • Etc.

The courts and police have rigged this game. Personally, I am not going to check my county government after every monthly Board of Supervisors meeting to see whether they passed a must-identify-yourself ordinance. I am gonna give the cop my ID while acting oh-so compliant and slightly scared. He's gonna learn my name when the formal written complaint or lawsuit hits, anyway. I'll give him rope. Patrick Henry and other founders said we should keep a very close eye on government. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to test that government agent by giving him some rope and seeing whether he'll take it and how far.

And, that is my policy. Every single time a cop approaches me about my OC'd gun, there will be, at a minimum, a formal written complaint. The fact the cop approaches me proves he considers mere possession of the means to defend myself and others suspicious. Nope. Not gonna stand for that.

Whoa! Citizen!!?! Really!?! Isn't that a bit harsh?

No. First, these rights were paid for in blood across centuries. Second, rights are just human decency and fair play; nobody shoulda had to ask for them, much less fight for them. Third, I've read so many reports about police detentions, I've learned that police often screw up even consensual encounters; so, there is a great chance the cop will screw up the encounter anyway, giving me a justification for a formal written complaint at a minimum.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I have read a couple state statutes that require a person to hand over an identity document, if he has one on him, and the cop has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) against the poor fellow from who the identity document is being demanded. I've also read a number of municipal codes where the detainee was required to identify himself to a cop.
Unless it's changed since we discussed this very subject in January of 2016, there are a grand total of ......... two (technically two Is a couple).
I provided those two states in this OpeCarry.Org thread.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Again, please read, Brown v Texas..

Than form your own opinion..
For such an erudite person who's always eager to show off his advanced education with sesquipedalian words, is it just me or does anyone else find it funny that ol' Joe doesn't know the difference between 'than' and 'then', and when it's appropriate to use each.

Brown v Texas is interesting, but I'd have to recommend Joe pick up an elementary grade English grammar book first.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,730
Location
here nc
For such an erudite person who's always eager to show off his advanced education with sesquipedalian words, is it just me or does anyone else find it funny that ol' Joe doesn't know the difference between 'than' and 'then', and when it's appropriate to use each.

Brown v Texas is interesting, but I'd have to recommend Joe pick up an elementary grade English grammer book first.
no, but belittling any individual because they might have a tremor causing them the inability to type or other disability, coupled with a spell checker which sees no difference in the tha/en or two, too, to words is ludicrous & totally out of place!

this is especially true on a public forum where we seek active participation in our discussions yet who may have significant educational level(s) and now they see other members being stigmatized and nit-picked and their intelligence being insulted over a grammatical faux pas.

truly disappointed in this kind of behaviour being exhibited as it defeats any and all candor in our discussions.

now you have called the pot black...might check how to spell grammar!

remembers those stones you just threw...me thinks one has just hit your front plate glass window!

ipes
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,826
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Ya right, ya know. I saw the '-er' and thought I had corrected it to '-ar'.. guess it didn't take.

No spell checker is ever going to differentiate between 'than' and 'then' in a sentence, it's a matter of education, not software.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,730
Location
here nc
Ya right, ya know. I saw the '-er' and thought I had corrected it to '-ar'.. guess it didn't take.

No spell checker is ever going to differentiate between 'than' and 'then' in a sentence, it's a matter of education, not software.
ER....sure it is...

didn't get cut by the front glass shattering did you?

ipse
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The sesquipedalian prose from the nazi grammar cop is just him attempting to make himself look smart, a typical mannerism of a true " quasi-intellectual.. Poor Fallschirmjager, his delicate feeling get hurt, when he realizes he is not the smartest person in the room.. He becomes so hurt, that he resorts to insults as opposed to civil discourse..

The educated Fallschirmjager, all that so-called education, yet NO WISDOM..

I know unlettered peasants, that possess more wisdom THAN Mr. Quasi-intellectual..

CCJ
 
Last edited:
Top