EEllis wrote:baldeagle wrote:
Why do you insist on repeating this falsehood? Terry [1] says that,
if you have RS,
then you can perform a pat down search for weapons. It does
not say you have the right to search the suspect thoroughly and completely. That is called search incident to an arrest. [2] It does
not say you can seize items that the suspect has in their possession. For those things you
MUST have PC unless something is in plain view. [3] There is a world of difference between a pat down for weapons and searching a suspect's pockets for evidence. A custodial search [4] (removing all items from a suspect's pockets can
only be done
after an arrest has been effected.
[1]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZS.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[2]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[3]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&page=559" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[4]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The office seized his weapons and searched his pockets. He'd better have articulable PC or the case will be thrown out. Given the video, which begins before the officer's physical interactions with CJ, (and I guess I've asked this numerous times now) what is the PC that justifies the search and seizure?
Because it is true you don't need a warrant which is what you claimed repeatedly. Terry shows one set of limited circumstances where you don't need a warrant but there are others. That I keep calling you on that doesn't mean that I think this stop is a Terry stop just that Terry is the most well know thus easily mentionable exemption.
The officer did and does need RS for their stop, which people seem to ignore that I have prob mentioned more than anyone else, but they don't have to tell anyone what their RS is until later. If they did have RS then they can question a person and disarm them while they are stopping them, again if they have reason to do so. After a certain point when a person obstructs officers in an attempt to investigate because of the RS it becomes a crime in and of itself obstruction, and while they may or may not arrest for PC, obstruction I mean, as soon as they believe they have that PC then they can search and seize to their hearts content just like they can after the person has been formally arrested. Given the video starts with what could easily be considered obstruction I don't see the legitimacy of claiming illegal search or seizure. The RS led to the contact his actions lead to PC for an arrest. I'm not saying the deck isn't stacked but ignoring the realities as they stand now is not something I'm interested in doing.
What I can discern in your various arguments is that the police had RS suspicion for a stop where a citizen in full accordance with his statutorily protected right and ability to openly carry a long arm in Texas and then PC to take it away, remove his personal property, and then handcuff and arrest him. I can't wait for open carry in Texas. I can only hope you are a proponent of OC, then do so, if it passes, and are near the Temple Police so you can allow them to exercise on you all the legal magic you've been spouting. I guess we have a new legal standard: pass laws that provoke and provide "RS" and "PC" for illegal police stops when the citizenry abide by them.