Originally Posted by EthanEdwards
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
Gimme me a bit and I'll put together some links for you, either here or in a PM if this has died by then. Gonna be driving a lot the next few days. And I'd rather take the time to give links to where I got my information and where you can read more than just give you my opinion....which is bound to be at least partially wrong one of these days.
If you get busy it ain't no big deal. More accurate info is always good though. Many thanks one way or the other.


OK, here goes....

I'll try to present this in as logical a method as I can �in print. It's so much easier to get it to all make sense in person.�

The 4th amendment to the US Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If I pull you over on a traffic stop, take you to jail, or kill you I have "seized your person" to a lesser or greater extent. Over time, courts have ruled in cases and more narrowly defined what an "unreasonable" seizure of your person is.�

Before talking about seizure, you have to understand the difference between any kind of seizure and a consensual contact.�A consensual contact is when an officer walks up and just starts talking to you. The officer may be looking for evidence of a crime (if he thinks you are out of place or has a "hunch" that something's not right) or he may just like the old truck in your driveway and want to compliment you on it (I do this all the time, it's nice to get out and stretch your legs). Regardless of the officer's motives, he is allowed start a conversation with anyone he wants. BUT the citizen is also allowed to not participate in the conversation.�

Link
Second, law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. See Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 442 U. S. 210, n. 12; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 31, 392 U. S. 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id. at 392 U. S. 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 446 U. S. 555 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.). The person�Page 460 U. S. 498�approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all, and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id. at 392 U. S. 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. United States v. Mendenhall, supra, at 446 U. S. 556 (opinion of Stewart, J.). If there is no detention -- no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment -- then no constitutional rights have been infringed.

But let's say that I look around and observe specific things that lead me to suspect a crime has been committed. I now have "reasonable suspicion".� Link to definition If I have reasonable suspicion I can seize you long enough to investigate my suspicions. It important to note that RS is based on specific articulable facts, not just a hunch.�

Click HERE and read Terry v. Ohio. Short story is the cop saw Terry casing a store and was able to describe exactly what led him to that belief. He didn't have a reason to arrest Terry, but was justified in stopping him for further investigation. In fact, the SCOTUS said it would have been "poor police work" if the officer had not investigated Terry.�

Here's an excerpt from the SCOTUS ruling...
Applying these principles to this case, we consider first the nature and extent of the governmental interests involved. One general interest is, of course, that of effective crime prevention and detection; it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. It was this legitimate investigative function Officer McFadden was discharging when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. He had observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz go through a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which, taken together, warranted further investigation. There is nothing unusual in two men standing together on a street corner, perhaps waiting for someone. Nor is there anything suspicious about people�Page 392 U. S. 23�in such circumstances strolling up and down the street, singly or in pairs. Store windows, moreover, are made to be looked in. But the story is quite different where, as here, two men hover about a street corner for an extended period of time, at the end of which it becomes apparent that they are not waiting for anyone or anything; where these men pace alternately along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window roughly 24 times; where each completion of this route is followed immediately by a conference between the two men on the corner; where they are joined in one of these conferences by a third man who leaves swiftly, and where the two men finally follow the third and rejoin him a couple of blocks away. It would have been poor police work indeed for an officer of 30 years' experience in the detection of thievery from stores in this same neighborhood to have failed to investigate this behavior further.

After I have investigated my reasonable suspicion and realize I was wrong, I have to immediately let you go. the temporary detention is over.�

But if after my investigation I believe (not just suspect) that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed I have probable cause.� Link to definition With probable cause I can impose an actual arrest and take you to jail. If you'll stop here and re-read the 4A, you'll see that probable cause is what keeps a seizure from being unreasonable.�

But as I said in an earlier post, don't take my word for any of this. I'd recommend that you go� HERE and start reading. Click the links, then click the links for footnotes and read the cases those notes reference. It's not that difficult once you get used to the format it's written in.�

I hope this helps. I'm sure that there are others here who could explain this better than me or who can (most certainly will) correct me in something. But if somebody tells you something different, ask for a source. Make sure they're citing actual law or case law and not opinion or department policy. And make sure the cases they cite are all applicable to where you live. The cases I've used here are SCOTUS cases and work for everywhere.�

Originally Posted by SBTCO
your flippant remarks which you so adeptly sling