If you have a particular encounter with another citizen or LEO, post it here.
 #55716  by fdegree
 
Mr.Skellington wrote:
fdegree wrote:
A frantic call that says "There is a MWAG at XYZ store!!!" and ends with an abrupt hang-up, sounds like reasonable suspicion to me.
Reasonable articulable suspicion of what exactly? If you know what RAS means then you know that it must always be linked to the suspicion of a particular crime that the officer specifically suspects you have, are in the process of or about to commit and backed up by more than a hunch (ie articulable).


fdegree wrote:
We don't know what the caller said to the 911 operator, nor what was relayed to the officer by the 911 operator. We know there was no wrongdoing by jslacker, but the officer may not have known that as he was pulling up to the store.
The officer is welcome to observe or ask questions however he at this point, having no RAS, has no power to overstep the 4A. The subject can choose to not participate in the officers 'investigation' as he is not obligated to. The officer can not legally detain him (lack of RAS remember) for that.
I have had a little more time to process what has been posted. I think I understand your point, and the point that Boots has been trying to make as well. I sincerely respect your, and Boots, position and desire to see the constitution be followed by those who seem to abuse it sometimes.

But, I also think some of us are occasionally too quick to vilify the police officers without knowing all of the details behind the situation/accusation. While the officers are occasionally wrong, and some act as though they are above the law, it doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions before we know all of the facts.

I know what I'm about to say may be far fetched, but stranger things have happened. We don't know exactly what the caller said to the 911 operator. Perhaps the caller to 911 exaggerated the actions of jslacker and made it sound as though he was waving the gun around at people. Would the officer have RAS if the caller made the situation sound scary and dangerous? Or, am I somehow confusing things?

I'm trying to understand where the line is between RAS and the abuse of the 4th amendment.
 #55717  by Mr.Skellington
 
fdegree wrote:

I have had a little more time to process what has been posted. I think I understand your point, and the point that Boots has been trying to make as well. I sincerely respect your, and Boots, position and desire to see the constitution be followed by those who seem to abuse it sometimes.

But, I also think some of us are occasionally too quick to vilify the police officers without knowing all of the details behind the situation/accusation. While the officers are occasionally wrong, and some act as though they are above the law, it doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions before we know all of the facts.

I know what I'm about to say may be far fetched, but stranger things have happened. We don't know exactly what the caller said to the 911 operator. Perhaps the caller to 911 exaggerated the actions of jslacker and made it sound as though he was waving the gun around at people.


Would the officer have RAS if the caller made the situation sound scary and dangerous? Or, am I somehow confusing things?

I'm trying to understand where the line is between RAS and the abuse of the 4th amendment.
That depends on what the caller said. I'll entertain this thought for a bit to show some differences.

Caller phones 911 sand says they see a MWAG at ____ who they heard say "If they forget to double-bag my groceries one more time I'm going to go postal up in this bitch". Oops! Now that statement, whether true or not, could provide RAS that the subject is potentially about to commit a crime and thus the officer could legally detain the subject for further investigation.

Next a caller phones 911 and says they see a MWAG at _____ buying groceries and could an officer check him out. No RAS of any crime is given during the call. An officer may show up to investigate but he still needs to establish RAS of a particular crime before he may legally detain the subject. As I said before the officer is welcome to observe or speak with the subject but at this point without establishing RAS the subject can decline to speak with the officer.

The two key components of how this works are that OCing is a lawful activity and not sufficient grounds in itself to warrant detention nor does it provide RAS by itself. The other is the premise in law that people are innocent until proven guilty. That is you may not assume that I'm up to no good without a reason that you are clearly able to articulate. Gut feelings are not admissible as RAS in a court of law.
 #55718  by fdegree
 
Mr.Skellington wrote:That depends on what the caller said. I'll entertain this thought for a bit to show some differences.

Caller phones 911 sand says they see a MWAG at ____ who they heard say "If they forget to double-bag my groceries one more time I'm going to go postal up in this bitch". Oops! Now that statement, whether true or not, could provide RAS that the subject is potentially about to commit a crime and thus the officer could legally detain the subject for further investigation.

Next a caller phones 911 and says they see a MWAG at _____ buying groceries and could an officer check him out. No RAS of any crime is given during the call. An officer may show up to investigate but he still needs to establish RAS of a particular crime before he may legally detain the subject. As I said before the officer is welcome to observe or speak with the subject but at this point without establishing RAS the subject can decline to speak with the officer.

The two key components of how this works are that OCing is a lawful activity and not sufficient grounds in itself to warrant detention nor does it provide RAS by itself. The other is the premise in law that people are innocent until proven guilty. That is you may not assume that I'm up to no good without a reason that you are clearly able to articulate. Gut feelings are not admissible as RAS in a court of law.
Much clearer now...thank you very much.
 #55721  by SugarBoy13
 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 66_ZS.html

The Supreme Court has spoken...
Syllabus

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

529 U.S. 266
FLORIDA v. J.L.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
98-1993 Argued: February 29, 2000 --- Decided: March 28, 2000

After an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, respondent J. L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm or observe any unusual movements. One of the officers frisked J. L. and seized a gun from his pocket. J. L., who was then almost 16, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. The intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment.

Held: An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. An officer, for the protection of himself and others, may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where, inter alia, the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30. Here, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop: It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 327. The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J. L.'s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. This Court also declines to adopt the argument that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception," under which a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. The facts of this case do not require the Court to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great-e.g., a report of a person carrying a bomb-as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability.

727 So. 2d 204, affirmed.

Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., joined.
 #55723  by WPCatfish
 
fdegree wrote: Much clearer now...thank you very much.
You might want to check out the 'Chinese Guy With a Revolver' thread to see example #2 in action.
 #55725  by fdegree
 
WPCatfish wrote:You might want to check out the 'Chinese Guy With a Revolver' thread to see example #2 in action.
Thanks for pointing out that thread, it did help.

Sounds like the Middletown police understand the law and constitution, and they seem to have some common sense when assessing a situation. :applause:
 #55726  by jslacker
 
"If they forget to double-bag my groceries one more time I'm going to go postal up in this bitch".
...And I've never had a problem since... :lol: In all seriousness though I have not had any similar incidents since being back numerous times.
 #55727  by WPCatfish
 
fdegree wrote:
WPCatfish wrote:You might want to check out the 'Chinese Guy With a Revolver' thread to see example #2 in action.
Thanks for pointing out that thread, it did help.

Sounds like the Middletown police understand the law and constitution, and they seem to have some common sense when assessing a situation. :applause:

That hasn't always been the case with Middletown though. We figure either they learned from past indiscretions or they left because they were outnumbered. :mrgreen: