Some Police Interactions in NEPA

[Citizen]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Tell us, Citizen, what does a rooster say when the sun comes up?

"Thank, god. Now maybe that paltry-jabbing Grapeshot will leave me alone"?

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Maybe that paltry-jabbing Grapeshot will leave me alone?

That'd be leaving you exactly as we found you.

Yata hey

 

[Thundar]

imported post

jahwarrior72 wrote:

"You got a permit for that?"

I carry my pocket constitution with the 2nd A earmarked. Just waiting for the permit question so I can hand it to the PoPo.

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Mike wrote:

Very good - one negative - they forgot the finding of likely to be "armed and presently dangerous" requirement in Terry before the frinsk - this can be important if an officer thinks they can frisk all those armed, e.g., open carriers.

I've been telling people that for some time now, and most just don't seem to get it. It can be a good tool for one's lawyer to use. Ask the officer if he thinks of me as dangereous. Being armed does not equate to being dangereous according to Terry, and being dangereous is a requirement of a Terry frisk.

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

brboyer wrote:

PT111 wrote:

Mike wrote:

Very good - one negative - they forgot the finding of likely to be "armed and presently dangerous" requirement in Terry before the frinsk - this can be important if an officer thinks they can frisk all those armed, e.g., open carriers.

LOL - I constantly read on this board that to get correct advice you need to consult an attorney. Yet it seemswhen one attorney says something there is always another waiting to correct him. So just who are we supposed to believe. At a recent gun show I was talking with the fellows that had written a book on thestate gun laws. While talking to them I pointed out some things that even they did not realize and supposedly they had "written the bookn on it". It just gose to show that no matter how careful you are someone is going to find something wrong with what you did.

On the point of "presently dangerous" requirement are you saying that the LEO must feel that his life is in danger before performing the "Frisk"? From the presentation it only said that he must have reason to suspect that there is a weapon involved.

“Reasonable Suspicion to Frisk” When an officer, in light of experience and training, is aware of articulable facts or circumstances, which could lead a reasonably-prudent person to believe that the person may be armed with a weapon.

"So just who are we supposed to believe' - The one you are paying for his/her opinion.

"are you saying that the LEO must feel that his life is in danger before performing the "Frisk"? " No, we are saying that the LEO must have PC (or RS) to believe that the person is armed and dangerous.

Yep it's great that you pay a lawyer $1,500 to handle the closing on your house and when you get though signing all the papers he looks at you and says I need a check for $80,000 from you when you are supposed to be getting a check for $40,000. After 10 minutesof explaining to the lawyer how he drew up the entire salebackwards you finally convince him ofwhat you had been telling him the entire time.

Or after paying a lawyer $4,000 to handle the sale of a business you take a lawsuit filed against you to him and he says looks like I scewed up. I don't handle those types of cases but will be glad to recommend someone to you. The fact is that I put about as much faith in an attorney's opinion on most dealings as the opinion's onthis board. At least here I don't have to pay for bad advice with no recourse.


Remember that even an Attorney General's published opinion or a published State Document such as a Drivers Handbook is not a legal defense for a violation of the law. They can also be wrong.

Mike cited the case law where he got his info from. The UUSC ruled that an officer may do a brief frisk of the outer garments if he has RAS to believe tha a crime is afoot, and the suspect is believed to be armed and dangereous.

So many times we read on this board of officers going way beyond what Terry allows. Seizing a voice recorder is in no way allowed under Terry unless the officer can articulat that that it is contraband used in a crime. Turning off the voice recorder (or otherwise destroying the recording in other ways) is tampering with evidence, and again is not allowed under Terry. There are exceptions (one would be if someone reported a stolen voice recorder on that paticular one's description.) Searching someone just because, "your armed, and I don't know if your dangereous/a felon/...etc" isn't lawful grounds for the Terry search.

 

[Statkowski]

imported post

And if the person is Open Carrying, then why search him at all since you can already see with your own two eyes that he has a weapon?