Yeah...typical ne'er do-wells...
Posted on 06/08/2010 5:41:20 PM PDT by marktwain
From FourthAmendment:
The officer suspected that defendant was carrying a gun in the pocket of his hoodie, but it was based on his experience as an officer and no other facts about the hands or what he might be holding. The Eighth Circuit [surprise!] finds this not enough for reasonable suspicion under Terry and Arvizu. United States v. Jones, 09-1731 (8th Cir. June 8, 2010).
The opinion, to be published. Excerpts:
Given the deference we must accord both Hasiak’s training and experience and the inferences drawn by a resident district judge, this is a close question.
We find it remarkable that nowhere in the district court record did the government identify what criminal activity Officer Hasiak suspected. Rather, the government leaped to the officer safety rationale for a protective frisk for weapons, ignoring the mandate in Terry that there must be reasonable suspicion of on-going criminal activity justifying a stop before a coercive frisk may be constitutionally employed.
We suspect that nearly every person has, at one time or another, walked in public using one hand to “clutch” a perishable or valuable or fragile item being lawfully carried in a jacket or sweatshirt pocket in order to protect it from falling to the ground or suffering other damage. With only this circumstance to support Officer Hasiak’s suspicion, though we are mindful of the need to credit law enforcement officers who draw on their experience and specialized training, we conclude that “too many people fit this description for it to justify a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”
We do not underestimate the importance of ferreting out violent offenders who unlawfully carry firearms in public, and the value of protective frisks in guarding the safety of law enforcement officers and others who may be in harm’s way. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 23-24. But as we noted in Hughes, 517 F.3d at 1018, “Being stopped and frisked on the street is a substantial invasion of an individual’s interest to be free from arbitrary interference by police,” and the police have “less invasive options” for “identifying the perpetrators of crime.” Most obviously, Officer Hasiak could have initiated a consensual encounter, for which no articulable suspicion is required, and which “may both crystallize previously unconfirmed suspicions of criminal activity and give rise to legitimate concerns for officer safety.”
When a court finds the issue to be a "close question" it almost always decides in favor of the government. This is a very rare exception in favor of liberty that benefits all persons, not just American gun owners.
For those interested, please read the whole opinion.
Yeah...typical ne'er do-wells...
“Cop ought to get a medal.”
And you ought to get a pocket constitution but I doubt you could begin to understand it.
And I’m sure you think checking young Muslim males is racial profiling.
And I guess the fact that the officer was correct and that a convicted felon was breaking the law is immaterial to you.
The cop should be sued and lose his pension.
(SNIP) And I guess the fact that the officer was correct and that a convicted felon was breaking the law is immaterial to you.” (/SNIP)
The 4th amendment is worth more than an arrest or a felon with a gun. It is immaterial. The ends never justify the means when they involve trampling basic rights.
maybe doesn’t mean more to the innocent folks he was gonna rob/kill....
In this case, the cops’ instincts were absolutely correct.
The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact...
Well let’s make a suicide pact, you and I. You go first chanting “I was given precious constitutional rights but I failed to recognize them as such, never gaining even a rudimentary understanding of the fourth amendment protections, so in violating my duty to defend the Constitution, I have failed my duty as a citizen and no longer wish to live.”
From the opinion:
The judges, apparently, felt that the officer's experience and knowledge (views a young black male...walking in high crime area...sunny 68° weather wearing a long sleeve hoody....cradling his pocket in a way that has, 10 out of 10 times in the officer's own history, been determined to conceal a weapon) was insufficient.After he was arrested and placed in the police cruiser, Jones volunteered that he was glad Hasiak stopped him because Jones “was about to go do something that he would never get out of jail for.” This admission confirms that Officer Hasiak’s instincts were sound and his action eliminated a serious risk to public safety.
However, that action also violated Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights, and we must enforce the rule excluding the use of evidence that was unconstitutionally obtained. Accordingly, the order of the district court dated March 4, 2009, is affirmed.
I disagree.
Have you even read the facts of the case?
I guess knee-jerk reactions are not exclusive to liberals.
Tell you what, spend a month in jail on an arrest without probable cause and get back to me about how you feel about arrest without probable cause.
Nor does that “thank god you arrested me before I comitted a heinous crime” stuff sway anyone who understands the principal that underlies suppression of evidence/ fruit of the poisoned tree.
I disagree with your disagreement.
If you ascribe to the premise of predestination, then any involvement or lack thereof would change nothing; if, however, you embrace the concept of free will then what someone “is going to do” is immaterial until AFTER they have done it because there is always a chance, up until the action itself, for the person to “get cold feet.”
I am wholly uncomfortable with the idea of legal ‘enforcement’ for what someone “is going to do;” as we have seen the encroachment from specific laws & regulations slipping into vague and ill-defined laws & regulations (to the detriment of the innocent), so also I believe that the “was going to” legal premise would devolve into the “could have” legal premise.
As an example, consider someone who has had a few drinks who goes out to their car to “sleep it off.” Let us also say that it is cold out and this person starts their car and turns the heater on before going to sleep. Has this person committed the crime of DUI/DWI? Could this person be arrested for DUI/DWI?
Using your analogy how can there even be a "crime" of DUI/DWI?
Arresting someone because they might cause an accident?
>>Has this person committed the crime of DUI/DWI? Could this person be arrested for DUI/DWI?
>
>Using your analogy how can there even be a “crime” of DUI/DWI?
By them actually driving; obviously.
>Arresting someone because they might cause an accident?
Is stupid. Generally speaking, you should be arrested for actual crimes committed and because you are the reasonable suspect.
That is a perfectly valid point. A good friend pointed out to me that there is no valid evidence that the DWI laws have done anything to prevent accidents. Accidents were decreasing before the DWI laws were so strictly enforced, and they have continued the trend.
Much of DWI laws have become ridiculously preemptive, such as giving a person a DWI for sleeping drunk in their car, without even turning it on.
I showed up at my son's house one night this past winter wearing a cap like this:
He asked me how many people I'd killed on my way there.
Stereotyping strikes all ages.
I am glad you don’t work for TSA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.