Suspect detained over 'extremist' bumper sticker ?

[brian breuer]

I agree it is a BS stop.

It is pretty much why I thought the Patriot act was a huge infringement on our civil rights.

I don't see much difference in the two. Which is pretty sad that both parties seem bent on limiting our rights.

[zeus3925]

The World Net Daily is not a great font of journalistic integrity. It is a uber-right wing version of the National Inquirer. It is headquartered in Cave Junction, Oregon--not exactly the pivot of the galaxy. The area is known for the fine quality of its "smokin' weed". Perhaps the author of the original piece had sampled some of the local stash.

[road kill]

The World Net Daily is not a great font of journalistic integrity. It is a uber-right wing version of the National Inquirer. It is headquartered in Cave Junction, Oregon--not exactly the pivot of the galaxy. The area is known for the fine quality of its "smokin' weed". Perhaps the author of the original piece had sampled some of the local stash.

I thought part of your party's platform was embracing and legalizing the "Evil Demon Weed!!"

just askin'

[badbullgator]

I thought part of your party's platform was embracing and legalizing the "Evil Demon Weed!!"

just askin'

I am for it.

[brian breuer]

I am for it.

You're an interesting fellow. I enjoy your take on things. I may not always agree but it is usually an interesting opinion.

Brian

[Matt McKenzie]

I am for it.

As am I. I've spent far too much of my life engaged in this ridiculous "war on drugs". Too bad we didn't learn anything from prohibition of alcohol. Oh well.

[JDogger]

Originally Posted by JDogger
Well someone forgot to tell the cop in LA

Huh? Get me close. Not sure which cop you're talking about. There are few thousand out there. Did he/she claim that the arrest was the result of a profile stop? How was it accepted? He/she does have the authority to make arrests in this fashion according to you. Just wondering how the whole thing shook out.

The cop who made the stop in the first post of this thread



Do you really believe that reasonable suspicion and probable cause are "vague" and "nebulous"? These standards transcend all aspects of our criminal justice system. From the most basic criminal case to the most complex, attorneys scrutinize the basis of an arrest and will argue that one or both of these standards were not met and that the case should be thrown out. It happens in virtually every court case that I am aware of. I hope some RTF attorneys/judges chime in. I think your view is a little off the mark JD.(to the left I think )

Danny

Yes I do. I'm not talking about court cases here. I'm talking about traffic stops. Example: An officer believes he sees an impaired driver and pulls him over. The driver performs a field sobriety test and passes, but the officer has 'reasonable suspicion' that the driver is impaired and wants to do a breathalizer but the officer doesn't have one, the nearest is at the station. The driver is arrested, his car towed. At the station he breathes a 0.00 but he has still been arrested and must bond out and appear in court to have the charges dismissed. Total BS

It happens.

JD

[DSO]

Originally Posted by JDogger
Well someone forgot to tell the cop in LA

You threw me with the LA as opposed to the La in the article. I thought you were talking about Los Angeles.




Yes I do. I'm not talking about court cases here. I'm talking about traffic stops. Example: An officer believes he sees an impaired driver and pulls him over. The driver performs a field sobriety test and passes, but the officer has 'reasonable suspicion' that the driver is impaired and wants to do a breathalyzer but the officer doesn't have one, the nearest is at the station. The driver is arrested, his car towed. At the station he breathes a 0.00 but he has still been arrested and must bond out and appear in court to have the charges dismissed. Total BS

It happens.

JD

Where on Gods green earth (hope your not atheist JD) could something like this happen. Not any where near me. There is no reasonable suspicion in the scenario you described let alone probable cause for arrest. You can't just "think" or "believe" that someone is impaired / jerk them into you station house /tow their car / charge them with a crime without any evidence or facts to back up your actions. Every aspect of detaining someone and or arresting them must be explainable. The arrest is not the end but merely the beginning. There will be many eyes scrutinizing the officers actions. Supervisors within the PD / prosecutors/ defense attorneys / judges / possibly the media. If what you describe "happens" it could only happen once where I'm from cuz that guy is going to be unemployed shortly and likely loosing his house in a civil suit. There is so much overtly wrong in your scenario that it must be made up.

Danny

[JDogger]

http://ezinearticles.com/?Probable-C...sts&id=1194801
http://www.ncsu.edu/stud_affairs/leg...aldocs/DWI.htm
http://www.drunkdrivinglaws.org/probablecause.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
http://www.ncdd.com/lop-inst.html

Here's a few examples of the huge number of sites debating this issue. They'll lead you to many more. The fact that it is subject to such intense debate between police, prosecutors, defense attorney's, Judges and civil libitarians indicates to me that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are sometimes interpreted differently.

Many cases are tossed out for lack of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. However the traffic stop was made never the less, based soley on the individual officers assessment. Don't tell me profiling is never a factor. Puh..leeze!

Ever hear of planted evidence? That happens too.

Sure, many stops are good. and justified as well. However, officers are subject to the same errors and prejudices as any other human beings.

[DSO]

Looks like you agree with me more than you disagree JD. Officers stop people all the time based on "individual officers assessment". He/she saw something that looked suspicious and investigated it. That's what he/she is obligated to do. That's not profiling, it's basic law enforcement. The fact that the issue is so hotly debated only enhances my argument. Law enforcement must be able to explain why contact was made with an individual. He/she has to explain their reasonable suspicion. He/she must be able to explain their probable cause for the arrest. If we "have the power to profile" as you stated earlier there should be no debate, right? After looking through the links you provided I noticed 2 reoccurring themes about the detention and/or arrest of individuals:

Take a look. It's what I've been saying all along



1) A reasonable suspicion is what a police officer must have in order
to momentarily detain a person to question them about a crime or to
do a pat down of their clothing should he believe they are armed
with a weapon. This measure of proof is more than a hunch or a guess. It requires "articulate facts", i.e., the officer must state the facts which gave rise to his suspicion in order to make it a reasonable one.

2)Probable cause is what a police officer must have in order to make an arrest or search a person's home or business. It is also the minimum measure of proof in order to allow a judge to issue a search or arrest warrant. Probable cause concerns probabilities and is decided on an objective standard based upon the training and experience of the particular officer making the arrest or search. Said another way, probable cause requires a reasonable person's standard of proof to justify the officer's actions in either arresting or searching, i.e., was it objectively reasonable for the officer to do what he did based upon what he actually knew and based upon his experience? The probable cause standard is necessary for a police officer to do a strip search of a person.

I didn't see much about an officers right to stop and/or arrest someone because they merely "fit the profile". So I guess we don't "have the power to profile" like you stated earlier right?

Danny