Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
I'm not sure exactly how I stumbled across this piece, but I am sure that I find it an interesting and surprisingly well written read.
I know most, here, won't heed my plea, but I think it would be really helpful to READ THE WHOLE POST before weighing in with the usual puking of Pablum©.
Also, I understand it's a long piece, but it really does do a good job of explaining the issue.
I'm interested in thoughtful comments; not the usual ad hominem bullshit.
Thank you.
Michael
the whole fucking case hinges on a totally shit decsision in a totally shit case, terry v ohio which the road nazis use to inflict gestapo actions to violate the rights of US citizens.
This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Lionel Alexander, who was arrested for resisting a search after a police officer observed Plaintiff engaging in allegedly suspicious behavior. The defendants are the City of Round Rock, Texas, Officer Garza, Sergeant Greg Brunson, Sergeant Sampson Connell, Officer Tracy Staggs, and "John Does," an unknown number of unidentified police officers who allegedly participated in Plaintiffs arrest.[2] Plaintiff brings suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violation of his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the federal Constitution, and under the Texas Constitution for alleged violation of his rights secured by Article 1, sections 8, 9, 10, and 19.
The arrest that forms the basis of Plaintiff's claims took place on the evening of September 26, 2013 in the parking lot of the Extended Stay America Hotel where Plaintiff had rented a room. Compl. [#1] ¶ 13. Plaintiff was returning to the hotel around 9:15 p.m. when he saw a stray cat in the hotel's parking lot. According to Plaintiff, he intended to feed the cat, so he stopped, climbed out of his car, and "peered into the grass" to look for the cat. Id. ¶ 16. When he could not find the cat, Plaintiff returned to his car to park closer to his hotel room. Upon returning to his car, Plaintiff noticed a police vehicle in the parking lot. Plaintiff claims "[h]e did not know why the police car was there, but assumed it was not significant and went about his business." Id. at ¶ 17. The police car, driven by Officer Garza, turned on its lights and stopped Plaintiff.
Officer Garza approached Plaintiff's car and informed him he had stopped Plaintiff because Officer Garza was curious as to what Plaintiff was doing.
[There you have it people, probable cause not required, probable suspicion rules the fucking day!], andyone here does not see the problem with that is a complete fucking asshelmet idiot.
Plaintiff provided Officer Garza with his driver's license but informed Officer Garza he would not answer any other questions. Officer Garza then "radioed for backup[,] citing `noncompliance." Id. ¶ 19. Officer Garza remained by Plaintiff's window while waiting for backup and told Plaintiff to keep his hands where Officer Garza could see them until the other officers arrived. When the officers arrived, Officer Garza asked Plaintiff to exit his car. Plaintiff asked Officer Garza for his reasoning, to which Officer Garza replied "because I asked you to." Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff responded by stating he "didn't think he was legally required to do so." Id.
According to Plaintiff, at that moment, Officer Garza and several other officers pulled Plaintiff out of the car and pinned him face down on the ground. Id. Plaintiff felt "at least three officers on top of his body, manipulating his limbs and putting pressure on his torso, neck, and hard." Id. ¶ 25. The officers then handcuffed Plaintiff and placed him on the curb. Standing over Plaintiff', Officer Garza asked Plaintiff whether he was "ready to talk." Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff again refused and cursed in response. The officers shackled Plaintiff's legs, and Officer Garza informed Plaintiff he was under arrest, allegedly citing disorderly conduct for uttering an expletive in a public place. Plaintiff admits, however, that Officer Garza listed in his police report "resisting a search" as his reason for arresting Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 31.
After Plaintiff was arrested, the officers searched his person and his car, finding nothing illegal or suspicious. Officer Garza drove Plaintiff to the Round Rock police station before Plaintiff was transferred to the Williamson County Jail, where he remained until 5:00 p.m. the next day.
On October 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Officer Garza with the Round Rock Police Department. The police department investigated Plaintiff's complaint, and determined that while the events did in fact occur, Officer Garza's conduct was "within the policy of the Round Rock Police Department." Id. ¶ 37.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his original complaint on July 24, 2015. Plaintiff claims he sustained "injuries to his mouth" and suffered emotional and psychological injury as a result of the injury. Id. ¶ 33. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he is now "fearful of being groundlessly abused by police officers." Id. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief
The City and the Individual Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss on September 18, 2015. See City's Mot. Dismiss [#12]; Individual Defs.' Mot. Dismiss [#13]. On February 26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued his report and recommendation, to which Plaintiff objected on March 11, 2016. R. & R. [#28]; Obj. [#30]. Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge erred by, among other things, relying on facts outside of the complaint,[3] finding there was reasonable suspicion for Plaintiff's detention and probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest, concluding there was no excessive force, and dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15114448653216983671&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Welcome to the land of used to be free.
http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1537&context=lawreview
http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1537&context=lawreview
The Ohio Court of Appeals wrote that “[t]he right of the proper authorities to stop and question persons in suspicious circumstances has its roots in early English practice where it was approved by the courts and the common-law commentators.”29 The court noted also that “[t]oday, in several states, the authority of police officers to detain suspects for a reasonable time for questioning is granted by statute,” or “is recognized by court decisions.”30 The court recognized that neither the United States Supreme Court nor the courts of Ohio had decided whether a police officer may stop and question suspicious persons, and concluded in a case of first impression that “the better view seems to be that the stopping and questioning of suspicious persons is not prohibited by the Constitution.”31
The Ohio Court of Appeals reasoned that Detective McFad-den had no intent to arrest anyone when he first encountered the trio in front of the store, and that he intended "only to inquire as to the defendant's activities.”32 The court found that McFadden’s arrest of Terry occurred after McFadden discovered the gun on him.33 The court approved the investigatory stop as a procedure that fell short of arrest.34
After determining that Detective McFadden could lawfully investigate Terry and the others, the Ohio Court of Appeals reasoned that “it follows that the officer ought to be allowed to ‘frisk,' under some circumstances at least, to insure that the suspect does not possess a dangerous weapon which would put the safety of the officer in peril.”35 The court asked two questions: “What is the officer to do in this situation?” and “Are we to allow him the right of inquiry and then, when this right is exercised, reward him with an assailant's bullet?”36 The court's answer was that “[t]he practice of ‘frisking5 is well accepted in police practice, and police officers seem unanimous in stating that ‘frisking' is done for self-protection and not as a mere evidentiary ‘fishing expedition.' ”37 The court was careful to distinguish a frisk for dangerous weapons from a “search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest.”38 Thus, the court upheld Detective McFadden's frisk for dangerous weapons.39
Having approved the investigatory stop and the frisk, the Ohio Court of Appeals had no difficulty concluding that once McFadden found the gun, he had probable cause to arrest Terry.40 Thus, the court concluded that the evidence had been obtained in conformity with the Constitution, and it affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas Court. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeals of Terry and Chilton “on the ground that no ‘substantial constitutional question’ was involved.”41 In so doing, the Ohio Supreme Court removed itself from the discussion of stops and frisks.
Taking a very different view of the substantiality of the constitutional questions raised in the case, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to Terry and Chilton.42 The Court was poised to address head on a subject that it had not previously confronted. Before granting discretionary review in Terry, the Court had noted probable jurisdiction in two New
York State cases—People v. Sibron43 and People v. Peters44— which challenged a New York statute that specifically dealt with stop and frisk. For reasons that will become apparent, the Supreme Court chose Terry as the case to announce its approach to forcible police encounters with citizens short of probable cause, and avoided dealing with the New York statute.
C. The Supreme Court's Reasoning
The first sentence of Chief Justice Warren’s opinion in Terry is as follows: “This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances.”45 Only after so describing the case did the Chief Justice state the facts and the procedural history. Like the Ohio Court of Appeals, the Chief Justice began the legal analysis in his opinion by observing that the questions raised involved "issues which have never before been squarely presented to this Court.”46
Part I of the Chief Justice’s legal analysis describes two competing arguments. The first is the argument for a stop and frisk rule:
On the one hand, it is frequently argued that in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose it is urged that distinctions distinctions should be made between a “stop” and an “arrest” (or a “seizure” of a person), and between a “frisk” and a “search.” Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to “stop” a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to “frisk” him for weapons.. .. This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a “stop” and a “frisk” amount to a mere “minor inconvenience and petty indignity,”47 which can properly be imposed upon the citizen in the interest of effective law enforcement on the basis of a police officer’s suspicion.48
as we can see constitutional 'probable cause' has now been reduced to 'probable suspicion' and due process reduced to we are the nazis fuck you give us your god damned papers slave.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 4/21/2017 6:55:52 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
Erosion of Rights? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread