Talk about a BS detainment.

[OC for ME]

Blue car/SUV/minivan, white male, 'in the vicinity of'....

This, is not RAS. The LEO must be able to articulate why that blue car, with that white male was singled out for an investigative stop. 'In the vicinity of' is zero RAS, depending on the 'vicinity' of course, small town USA or large urban/suburban area.

The totality of the facts must provide RAS....'hunches', 'gut feelings', and 'experience' carry less weight each day.

 

[Gunslinger]

if there is some aspect of my analysis you disagree with, then challenge it. and like i said, i am commenting on GENERALITIES because the law (and constitutional guidelines ) vary state to state

i am not going to devolve into ad homs and silly stuff. i'll leave that to you. if you claim something i said was incorrect, then say what it is.

I like silly stuff. But I like speaking correctly about the law even more. No cop, in any state, can walk up to you and demand to see your driver's license without RAS or probable cause. If you are stopped for a traffic offense, that is probable cause, even though it is only an infraction or violation, depending on the state's wording. He cannot 'run your license' without detaining you, failing a traffic offense, and he cannot detain you unless he has RAS or PC. He cannot, in simple terms, demand "Papers!" without due process of law. If he does so, he violates the 4th Amendment. He cannot stop someone driving based on a "hunch." He must have RAS. Most cops drum up some BS minor traffic thing, or lie (plate light out, you didn't signal when pulling out of the 7-11, ad nauseum) to establish a framework to stop on a hunch. Unfortuneately, that is allowed by courts. He can then run your license legitimately. If he doesn't announce his reason for stopping you, it is unlawful. Your 'generalities' are too general.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I like silly stuff. But I like speaking correctly about the law even more. No cop, in any state, can walk up to you and demand to see your driver's license without RAS or probable cause. If you are stopped for a traffic offense, that is probable cause, even though it is only an infraction or violation, depending on the state's wording. He cannot 'run your license' without detaining you, failing a traffic offense, and he cannot detain you unless he has RAS or PC. He cannot, in simple terms, demand "Papers!" without due process of law. If he does so, he violates the 4th Amendment. He cannot stop someone driving based on a "hunch." He must have RAS. Most cops drum up some BS minor traffic thing, or lie (plate light out, you didn't signal when pulling out of the 7-11, ad nauseum) to establish a framework to stop on a hunch. Unfortuneately, that is allowed by courts. He can then run your license legitimately. If he doesn't announce his reason for stopping you, it is unlawful. Your 'generalities' are too general.

I stated this in WA forum sometime ago and got jumped all over about it by a cop there, told to cite etc. To me the cite is simple 4th amendment and our states even stricter restriction on the government. That wasn't good enough for them. I find it amusing that the only ones that attack my posts in WA are cops and prison cops.....or as I think of them glorified security guards. Wonder why they don't like my posts....hmmmmmm....

They relied on the "formal charges" read in court as the only thing necessary for arrest and that an officer doesn't have to tell you. I tried to find specific case law to support my premis but was unable. Doesn't change that I feel it is illegal or "extra legal" if you will. And am glad that someone like your self has the same assessment and if I am not mistaken I remember you have studied law.

 

[PALO]

Blue car/SUV/minivan, white male, 'in the vicinity of'....

This, is not RAS. The LEO must be able to articulate why that blue car, with that white male was singled out for an investigative stop. 'In the vicinity of' is zero RAS, depending on the 'vicinity' of course, small town USA or large urban/suburban area.

The totality of the facts must provide RAS....'hunches', 'gut feelings', and 'experience' carry less weight each day.

have you actually READ terry v. ohio? i have. as well as several dozen relevant cases.

terry is ALWAYS a totality of the circs test.

fwiw, i have testifed in several WA state 3.6 hearings (suppression hearings) vis a vis RS. it is SOMETIMES clear cut. it's sometimes not. one judge's RS is another judges - bad stop

that's the roll of the dice

 

[PALO]

I stated this in WA forum sometime ago and got jumped all over about it by a cop there, told to cite etc. To me the cite is simple 4th amendment and our states even stricter restriction on the government. That wasn't good enough for them. I find it amusing that the only ones that attack my posts in WA are cops and prison cops.....or as I think of them glorified security guards. Wonder why they don't like my posts....hmmmmmm....

They relied on the "formal charges" read in court as the only thing necessary for arrest and that an officer doesn't have to tell you. I tried to find specific case law to support my premis but was unable. Doesn't change that I feel it is illegal or "extra legal" if you will. And am glad that someone like your self has the same assessment and if I am not mistaken I remember you have studied law.

jesus crhist, and i'm not responding to you, the ignorance here is astounding

a cop can (and will - frequently) run plates or names without PC or RS.

he cannot STOP/DETAIN (generally speaking ) without RS (some exceptions like Community caretaking, but IN GENERAL that's the standard). but if he KNOWS a license plate or a person's name and DOB, he can run them JUST because to CHECK for warrants./ cops do it ALL the time and it's entirely legal

in WA, cops can also run a plate and usually check the RO for license status via the PIC in WACIC. if the RO comes back suspended and the driver looks similar to the RO's license physicals (gender, etc.) the can CAN make a stop at that point based on RS the driver is in fact the RO

it is absolutely 100% false that cops need some indicia of suspicion to run WACIC checks through dispatch. they don't

cops routinely find "rolling stolens" when they see a plate and they decide to check it for stolen

NO RS or PC needed

an average cop with MDT just driving around during a shift might run 2 or 3 dozen plates JUST BECAUSE

no cause is needed, because a WACIC check is not a 4th amendment triggering search

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I like silly stuff. But I like speaking correctly about the law even more. No cop, in any state, can walk up to you and demand to see your driver's license without RAS or probable cause. If you are stopped for a traffic offense, that is probable cause, even though it is only an infraction or violation, depending on the state's wording. He cannot 'run your license' without detaining you, failing a traffic offense, and he cannot detain you unless he has RAS or PC. He cannot, in simple terms, demand "Papers!" without due process of law. If he does so, he violates the 4th Amendment. He cannot stop someone driving based on a "hunch." He must have RAS. Most cops drum up some BS minor traffic thing, or lie (plate light out, you didn't signal when pulling out of the 7-11, ad nauseum) to establish a framework to stop on a hunch. Unfortuneately, that is allowed by courts. He can then run your license legitimately. If he doesn't announce his reason for stopping you, it is unlawful. Your 'generalities' are too general.

I stated this in WA forum sometime ago and got jumped all over about it by a cop there, told to cite etc. To me the cite is simple 4th amendment and our states even stricter restriction on the government. That wasn't good enough for them. I find it amusing that the only ones that attack my posts in WA are cops and prison cops.....or as I think of them glorified security guards. Wonder why they don't like my posts....hmmmmmm....

They relied on the "formal charges" read in court as the only thing necessary for arrest and that an officer doesn't have to tell you. I tried to find specific case law to support my premis but was unable. Doesn't change that I feel it is illegal or "extra legal" if you will. And am glad that someone like your self has the same assessment and if I am not mistaken I remember you have studied law.

jesus crhist, and i'm not responding to you, the ignorance here is astounding

a cop can (and will - frequently) run plates or names without PC or RS.

Take a deep breath dude, for one who claims not to like ad hominem....etc....you respond with this? And I wasn't responding to you I was talking about Gunslingers post see the above for the order of posts. None of what you have stated below applies to what I am saying. I know they can run plates...blah blah blah, but can they just arrest you without informing you why? easy question.......and you weren't one of the cops or prison guards I was talking about. So don't take offense...you have yet to accuse me of being an anarchist, extremist, confrontational douche bag, thief, criminal....etc....

I would appreciate your opinion on what I actually stated. That would help....


he cannot STOP/DETAIN (generally speaking ) without RS (some exceptions like Community caretaking, but IN GENERAL that's the standard). but if he KNOWS a license plate or a person's name and DOB, he can run them JUST because to CHECK for warrants./ cops do it ALL the time and it's entirely legal

in WA, cops can also run a plate and usually check the RO for license status via the PIC in WACIC. if the RO comes back suspended and the driver looks similar to the RO's license physicals (gender, etc.) the can CAN make a stop at that point based on RS the driver is in fact the RO

it is absolutely 100% false that cops need some indicia of suspicion to run WACIC checks through dispatch. they don't

cops routinely find "rolling stolens" when they see a plate and they decide to check it for stolen

NO RS or PC needed

an average cop with MDT just driving around during a shift might run 2 or 3 dozen plates JUST BECAUSE

no cause is needed, because a WACIC check is not a 4th amendment triggering search

Comments in Blue...

 

[hermannr]

Palo!

There are no blacks where I live, none, zero. Lots of mexicans, lots of Native people, but no blacks. Actually, up on this mountain we don't have any mexicans either, just whites and natives. I have a good reason to use blacks here, as I have black friends from my time in the military, and a black would stand out like a sore thumb up here.

So, now let's say one of my black friends from the military came to visit my wife and me in our little cabin on this mountain...would that be reason for the Sheriff to stop and question (detain) the guy? Hell no. And our Sheriff would not do that anyway.

Well, carrying a weapon openly in WA is just as legal as being black in a non-black neighborhood. There is no reason to question anyone for either, unless there is something specifically happening that is not lawful.

As for your statement that a cop can stop you for whatever reason he wants...not in WA he cannot...not legally...the WA state constitution prohibits stop and identify. (Article 1 section 7)..there is no leaway...stop and identify is 100% against the law here. There must be RAS, or no detention. (anytime a person does not feel that he is free to leave, that is detention as articulated byt the courts) If there is an illegal detention, civil legal action against the governmental unit by the aggrieved party involved is possible.

 

[SavageOne]

jesus crhist, and i'm not responding to you, the ignorance here is astounding

a cop can (and will - frequently) run plates or names without PC or RS.

he cannot STOP/DETAIN (generally speaking ) without RS (some exceptions like Community caretaking, but IN GENERAL that's the standard). but if he KNOWS a license plate or a person's name and DOB, he can run them JUST because to CHECK for warrants./ cops do it ALL the time and it's entirely legal

in WA, cops can also run a plate and usually check the RO for license status via the PIC in WACIC. if the RO comes back suspended and the driver looks similar to the RO's license physicals (gender, etc.) the can CAN make a stop at that point based on RS the driver is in fact the RO

it is absolutely 100% false that cops need some indicia of suspicion to run WACIC checks through dispatch. they don't

cops routinely find "rolling stolens" when they see a plate and they decide to check it for stolen

NO RS or PC needed

an average cop with MDT just driving around during a shift might run 2 or 3 dozen plates JUST BECAUSE

no cause is needed, because a WACIC check is not a 4th amendment triggering search

I don't think PALO is saying he can pull over anyone he likes, I believe he is saying he can run the plate of any vehicle he likes without RAS. I would tend to agree with him. The license plate of a vehicle is clearly in the public view and should require no RAS to run. If that search turns up a stolen vehicle or a suspended license for the owner, then that easily could be held as RAS for a stop.

 

[VW_Factor]

what question?

i am so busy wading through the ad homs, the intellectual dishonesty and the hysterical black helicopter paranoia crap, i'm not sure what question you are referring to

Well, why don't you go back and re-read the thread then, because your avoidance of the question is in fact, so silly.. You remind me of a politician.

 

[PALO]

Well, why don't you go back and re-read the thread then, because your avoidance of the question is in fact, so silly.. You remind me of a politician.

i'm not interested in your childish games.

if you have a question, put it here:


tia

 

[Gunslinger]

jesus crhist, and i'm not responding to you, the ignorance here is astounding

a cop can (and will - frequently) run plates or names without PC or RS.

he cannot STOP/DETAIN (generally speaking ) without RS (some exceptions like Community caretaking, but IN GENERAL that's the standard). but if he KNOWS a license plate or a person's name and DOB, he can run them JUST because to CHECK for warrants./ cops do it ALL the time and it's entirely legal

in WA, cops can also run a plate and usually check the RO for license status via the PIC in WACIC. if the RO comes back suspended and the driver looks similar to the RO's license physicals (gender, etc.) the can CAN make a stop at that point based on RS the driver is in fact the RO

it is absolutely 100% false that cops need some indicia of suspicion to run WACIC checks through dispatch. they don't

cops routinely find "rolling stolens" when they see a plate and they decide to check it for stolen

NO RS or PC needed

an average cop with MDT just driving around during a shift might run 2 or 3 dozen plates JUST BECAUSE

no cause is needed, because a WACIC check is not a 4th amendment triggering search

You were talking about "licenses," and I--as well as others, assumed DLs, not plates. If you mean they can run a plate, then I agree as they do all of the time. If you meant a DL- which would involve a detention to obtain the DL, then you are wrong as I pointed out. While I agree that RAS is a fact of law determined by the judge, a "hunch" or whim will never stand up in court. It is clearly proscribed by a dozen different cases.

 

[Gunslinger]

I don't think PALO is saying he can pull over anyone he likes, I believe he is saying he can run the plate of any vehicle he likes without RAS. I would tend to agree with him. The license plate of a vehicle is clearly in the public view and should require no RAS to run. If that search turns up a stolen vehicle or a suspended license for the owner, then that easily could be held as RAS for a stop.

As I and SVG posted, if that is what he meant, then there is no disagreement. But, his posting lacked necessary clarity on that point. "License" means many things. 'License plates' would have stopped the confusion while making the putative statement a non-issue for rebuttal. Touting "ignorance" on the thread while being guilty of non-clarity in your posts becomes a mirror reflected ad hominem.

 

[buckfynn]

What irks me most about this incident, it was triggered by a report of a random stranger, which amounted to little more than "I don't think that little black girl belongs to that older white man." Perhaps if a family member reported that the child was missing, then of course, the police should have verified the relationship with the mother.

It is frightening a random stranger, basically a busy body, has the impact on a police force to call out 10 police cars, a helicopter, and a K-9 unit against an innocent grandpa talking a walk with his granddaughter.

 

[JoeSparky]

What irks me most about this incident, it was triggered by a report of a random stranger, which amounted to little more than "I don't think that little black girl belongs to that older white man." Perhaps if a family member reported that the child was missing, then of course, the police should have verified the relationship with the mother.

It is frightening a random stranger, basically a busy body, has the impact on a police force to call out 10 police cars, a helicopter, and a K-9 unit against an innocent grandpa talking a walk with his granddaughter.

Given the info reported the ORIGINAL LEO interaction may have been justified.... small girl being "chased" down a somewhat secluded trail by an older man of a different race.
That being said, as soon as the first interaction was over and the officer reported back on radio that there was NO case. "Girl with GRANDFATHER" ... the follow up DETENTION was not justified and the ORIGINAL OFFICER SHOULD have been much more effective in communicating this info to the other officers. (I do recognize that if just one or two minutes passed between contacts that the communication may not have had time to occur.) It is a terrible shame that a grand child and grandpa can't even play a little chase/tag without being harassed/detained/interrogated!

 

[KBCraig]

Grits responds to the APD chief calling him a liar:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2012/02/news-flash-cop-calls-grits-liar.html

 

[OC for ME]

"not only am i not going to sue the police, i doubt anyone even violated apd policies so a complaint wouldn't do much either - they're trained to respond like that, which is my main beef with what happened. this wasn't a bug in the system, it's a feature."

bingo!!!!

 

[OC for ME]

LOL!

http://digitaltexan.net/2012/austin...ogger-scott-henson/article26759/#.T0ICzDtIa9k

Henson's credibility is gone. When you read the e-mail with him begging the Chief not to release the video because he was caught in a lie it becomes obvious what his agenda was.

Lie?....Really? Did you actually notice the dates on the story/blog post of the two links, yours and KBCraig's?

The main point of this OP is this:

By contrast, APD handcuffed first and asked questions later. That's the big difference between the two departments' approaches.

Duh!!...you'd think that a guy like Henson would know this.