The 4th of July weekend

[YoungConserv]

He wasn't detained

The police are allowed to stop people at traffic stops, which is why they are called "traffic stops"

Legal definition of detainedetention occurs whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his or her freedom to walk away, or approaches and questions an individual, or stops an individual suspected of being personally involved in criminal activity. Such a detention is not a formal arrest. Physical restraint is not an essential element of detention.

Was he free to drive away at anytime during this exchange with the Leo's ?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Probably cause for what exactly? And don't respond "Any of it" because you are wrong.

Driving is a state issued privilege not a constitutional right. Is it unreasonble to randomly check to see if the vehicle operator is licensed, insured and sober?

 

[Fisher]

Driving is a state issued privilege not a constitutional right. Is it unreasonble to randomly check to see if the vehicle operator is licensed, insured and sober?

That is part of the equation and part of it has to do with certain circumstances having lead to changes in the law oriented toward protecting police officers in the performance of their duties, and then you fall into the swamp of search and seizure law from which very few make it out alive.

 

[sangha]

What was the probable cause for the stop before that though?

You don't need probable cause for a stop because a stop is not a detention

 

[sangha]

Legal definition of detainedetention occurs whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his or her freedom to walk away, or approaches and questions an individual, or stops an individual suspected of being personally involved in criminal activity. Such a detention is not a formal arrest. Physical restraint is not an essential element of detention.

Was he free to drive away at anytime during this exchange with the Leo's ?

*Yawn*

It's called a Terry Stop

 

[YoungConserv]

You don't need probable cause for a stop because a stop is not a detention

Yes you do need probable cause for a stop in this country also if its not a detention can I just say no thanks and drive off?

 

[sangha]

Yes you do need probable cause for a stop in this country also if its not a detention can I just say no thanks and drive off?

Nope. A Traffic Stop does not require probable cause.

 

[YoungConserv]

*Yawn*

It's called a Terry Stop

A terry stop requires resionable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity how is driving down the road without swerving give you reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

 

[sangha]

A terry stop requires resionable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity how is driving down the road without swerving give you reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

The reason why DUI stops are legal has already been explained to you.

 

[YoungConserv]

Nope. A Traffic Stop does not require probable cause.

Iam not seeing a big difference between probable cause and resionable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity maybe you would like to enlighten me ?

 

[sangha]

Iam not seeing a big difference between probable cause and resionable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity maybe you would like to enlighten me ?

I would like to. I'd also like to win the lottery.

In the latter case, I have a shot.

 

[Deuce]

Iam not seeing a big difference between probable cause and resionable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity maybe you would like to enlighten me ?

There isn't a clear-cut definition of either, because that is inherently very, very situational. Probable cause is a higher standard.

 

[Etoner]

*Yawn*

It's called a Terry Stop

Sobriety checks are NOT a Terry Stop.

A Terry Stop is when police are investigating a previously committed crime or have reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity.

 

[sangha]

Sobriety checks are NOT a Terry Stop.

A Terry Stop is when police are investigating a previously committed crime or have reasonable suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the justification (possible DUI) and level of questioning (ex where they're coming from and going, identification, etc) made DUI stops the same as Terry Stops

 

[Etoner]

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the justification (possible DUI) and level of questioning (ex where they're coming from and going, identification, etc) made DUI stops the same as Terry Stops

That's the big difference between Terry Stops and Sobriety Checkpoints.

Terry Stops investigate previous crimes or have reasonable suspicion of crimina activity.

DUI Stops have no reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity.

They should be illegal.

 

[sangha]

That's the big difference between Terry Stops and Sobriety Checkpoints.

Terry Stops investigate previous crimes or have reasonable suspicion of crimina activity.

DUI Stops have no reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity.

They should be illegal.

Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A traffic stop is, for practical purposes, a Terry stop;

The footnote says:

For the Court in Berkemer v. McCarty, Justice Marshall wrote“most traffic stops resemble, in duration and atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry.” (468 U.S. 420, 439, n. 29)

 

[lawboy]

I guess that "automobile" or "car" would be covered under 'possessions.

I noticed that it says "unreasonable seizures or searches".

I guess that the court determines what's 'unreasonable.

The 4th AM protects PEOPLE, not Places, sounds off the wall, but true.

A search of a stopped (seized) car can generally take place without a warrant if Probable Cause exists it containes contraband, this is the "automobile exception" handed down in 1925. When the 4th AM was made applicable to the states in 1949, such was incorporated into state/subdivision jurisprudence.

 

[lawboy]

Not meaning to be argumentative, since your source is an officer, but as I understand it, they cannot pull someone over, simply for avoiding the stop, there has to be a reason. Driving erratically, illegal turn, tail lights out.

I found in North Carolina, they do pursue and stop for just turning away and there is a ruling, State v. Foreman, to support that. My citation above is from California and I found a similar statement in Ohio. Maybe it's still individual to the states?

Better just to not drink and drive.

Yes, it is individual, just as a warrantless search of a person's garbage can, under California v. Greenwood, it is fair game, however, some states afford greater protection to curbside trash.

 

[lawboy]

Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The footnote says;

For the Court in Berkemer v. McCarty, Justice Marshall wrote“most traffic stops resemble, in duration and atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry.” (468 U.S. 420, 439, n. 29)

Yes, but that is when a car is stopped (seized) when Terry Applies, a checkpoint does not involve the strictures of an initial encounter as in Terry v. Ohio.

 

[lawboy]

My point is, there is no law that requires me to roll down my window for a police officer.

In order to give me a "lawful order or direction" there needs to be some law backing up whatever it is the cop of fireman is asking me to do.

Learn your law before you go around pretending that you're not a lemming.

What you describe is a "fine line" between your not having to obey it because it is not a lawful command in your eyes, and Obstructing official business.

Let's assume, arguendo, you are correct, I guarantee you will be ORDERED out of the car, and that is legal, Pennsylvania v. Mimms. Try not exiting when commanded to do so!!

 

[lawboy]

All it takes is suspicious behavior for law enforcement to be able to detain and investigate. Not complying with reasonable requests like rolling down your window gives rise to the possibility that you're hiding something. Most courts would back that up.

"Suspicious behavior" "in and of itself" is not grounds to detain, the "totality of the circumstances" must be weighed.

 

[grip]

"Suspicious behavior" "in and of itself" is not grounds to detain, the "totality of the circumstances" must be weighed.

You cannot investigate suspicious behavior such as erratic driving without detaining and asking questions. Being loud, out of place, stumbling, a public nuisance or any host of bizarre actions or minor infractions can lead to questioning, which becomes a form of temporary detainment.

 

[lawboy]

You cannot investigate suspicious behavior such as erratic driving without detaining and asking questions. Being loud, out of place, stumbling, a public nuisance or any host of bizarre actions or minor infractions can lead to questioning, which becomes a form of temporary detainment.

The context was that a stop had already happened, and the window scenario was brought up.

 

[soot]

What you describe is a "fine line" between your not having to obey it because it is not a lawful command in your eyes, and Obstructing official business.

Mimms relates to a situation where a motorist is detained and investigated because a LEO has observed a violation (in Mimms' case, expired license plates) of the law.

Are we now pretending that these arbitrary fishing expeditions, err... I mean checkpoints, amount to the same thing as an observed violation of the law?

 

[lawboy]

Mimms relates to a situation where a motorist is detained and investigated because a LEO has observed a violation (in Mimms' case, expired license plates) of the law.

Are we now pretending that these arbitrary fishing expeditions, err... I mean checkpoints, amount to the same thing as an observed violation of the law?

The GRAVAMEN/question presented, was the issue of whether it violated the 4th AM by ordering a person out of a motor vehicle, the fact it was not about checkpoint's does not invalidate Mimms at checkpoints.