Login    
   
   
    Register FAQ  •  Search    

· Home ·   Forums ·  Who Are We? ·  What is Open Carry? ·  CCDW Process ·  FAQ ·  Contact ·  Terms ·

Fundraiser to Support Delaware Open Carry!


We've come to that time of the year when our server lease and domain name registrations are coming up for renewal. In the past, many of you have expressed your generosity in the form of donations in order to keep the site running - I'm asking for your support again this year.

Please visit our donation information page for more details and, if you enjoy this site, if you've ever attended our gatherings or, if this community has brought you some knowledge or entertainment, please give what you can to keep us going.

→ Donation Information Page ←


It is currently Sat Dec 14, 2019 5:03 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Cases to Know: Florida v. J.L. (2000)
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:14 pm
Posts: 1865
Location: Bear, Delaware
In 1995, the Miami-Dade Police received a 911 call that a youth in a plaid shirt was at a bus stop carrying a firearm. When officers arrived on the scene, they saw three individuals, one of whom was wearing a plaid shirt but was not engaged in any suspicious or illegal behavior.

Based on the anonymous tip, the officers frisked the person and found a pistol and also discovered that the youth was a minor. He was arrested and his property seized.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States stated that the search was unreasonable. In order to engage in a Terry stop-and-frisk, the tip must be "suitably corroborated" with the accurate prediction of future activity of the subject and accurate in its assertion of potential criminal activity -- in layman's terms, there must be reasonable suspicion that can be articulated that the individual is or is going to commit a crime. In this case, the tip was sufficient to only identify the individual and gave no indication of criminal behavior, thus making the officer's reliance on it unjustified.

Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to carve out a "Firearms Exception" to the Terry v. Ohio standard, stating, "Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun..."

In applying this to being stopped on foot, if an officer indicates that they received a report of a person carrying a gun, while they're still free to engage in a consensual encounter, if they attempt to frisk you, it is still advised that you do not resist, but inform them that you do not consent to any search.

Ask for a supervisor. Be sure to obtain the cards or names and badge numbers of all officers involved and seek the advice of an attorney citing this case as a reference. A Freedom of Information Act request can be filed to obtain the 911 call and see exactly what information the caller gave.

Quote:
FLORIDA v. J. L.

certiorari to the supreme court of florida

No. 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.



FLORIDA, PETITIONER v. J. L.

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of florida

[March 28, 2000]

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this case is whether an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. We hold that it is not.

I

On October 13, 1995, 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. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-40-A-41. So far as the record reveals, there is no audio recording of the tip, and nothing is known about the informant. Sometime after the police received the tip--the record does not say how long--two officers were instructed to respond. They arrived at the bus stop about six minutes later and saw three black males "just hanging out [there]." Id ., at A-42. One of the three, respondent J. L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Id ., at A-41. 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, and J. L. made no threatening or otherwise unusual movements. Id ., at A-42-A-44. One of the officers approached J. L., told him to put his hands up on the bus stop, frisked him, and seized a gun from J. L.'s pocket. The second officer frisked the other two individuals, against whom no allegations had been made, and found nothing.

J. L., who was at the time of the frisk "10 days shy of his 16th birth[day]," Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. He moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search, and the trial court granted his motion. The intermediate appellate court reversed, but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment. 727 So. 2d 204 (1998).

Anonymous tips, the Florida Supreme Court stated, are generally less reliable than tips from known informants and can form the basis for reasonable suspicion only if accompanied by specific indicia of reliability, for example, the correct forecast of a subject's " `not easily predicted' " movements. Id ., at 207 (quoting Alabama v. White , 496 U. S. 325, 332 (1990)). The tip leading to the frisk of J. L., the court observed, provided no such predictions, nor did it contain any other qualifying indicia of reliability. 727 So. 2d, at 207-208. Two justices dissented. The safety of the police and the public, they maintained, justifies a "firearm exception" to the general rule barring investigatory stops and frisks on the basis of bare-boned anonymous tips. Id ., at 214-215.

Seeking review in this Court, the State of Florida noted that the decision of the State's Supreme Court conflicts with decisions of other courts declaring similar searches compatible with the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. DeBerry , 76 F. 3d 884, 886-887 (CA7 1996); United States v. Clipper , 973 F. 2d 944, 951 (CADC 1992). We granted certiorari, 528 U. S. -- (1999), and now affirm the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.

II

Our "stop and frisk" decisions begin with Terry v. Ohio , 392 U. S. 1 (1968). This Court held in Terry

"[W]here a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him." Id ., at 30.

In the instant case, the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from any observations of their own but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller. Unlike a tip from a known informant whose reputation can be assessed and who can be held responsible if her allegations turn out to be fabricated, see Adams v. Williams , 407 U. S. 143, 146-147 (1972), "an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant's basis of knowledge or veracity," Alabama v. White , 496 U. S., at 329 . As we have recognized, however, there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits "sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make the investiga-
tory stop." Id ., at 327. The question we here confront
is whether the tip pointing to J. L. had those indicia of reliability.

In White , the police received an anonymous tip asserting that a woman was carrying cocaine and predicting that she would leave an apartment building at a specified time, get into a car matching a particular description, and drive to a named motel. Ibid . Standing alone, the tip would not have justified a Terry stop. Id ., at 329. Only after police observation showed that the informant had accurately predicted the woman's movements, we explained, did it become reasonable to think the tipster had inside knowledge about the suspect and therefore to credit his assertion about the cocaine. Id ., at 332. Although the Court held that the suspicion in White became reasonable after police surveillance, we regarded the case as borderline. Knowledge about a person's future movements indicates some familiarity with that person's affairs, but having such knowledge does not necessarily imply that the informant knows, in particular, whether that person is carrying hidden contraband. We accordingly classified White as a "close case." Ibid .

The tip in the instant case lacked the moderate indicia of reliability present in White and essential to the Court's decision in that case. The anonymous call concerning J. L. provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. That the allegation about the gun turned out to be correct does not suggest that the officers, prior to the frisks, had a reasonable basis for suspecting J. L. of engaging in unlawful conduct: The reasonableness of official suspicion must be measured by what the officers knew before they conducted their search. All the police had to go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information about J. L. If White was a close case on the reliability of anonymous tips, this one surely falls on the other side of the line.

Florida contends that the tip was reliable because its description of the suspect's visible attributes proved accurate: There really was a young black male wearing a plaid shirt at the bus stop. Brief for Petitioner 20-21. The United States as amicus curiae makes a similar argument, proposing that a stop and frisk should be permitted "when (1) an anonymous tip provides a description of a particular person at a particular location illegally carrying a concealed firearm, (2) police promptly verify the pertinent details of the tip except the existence of the firearm, and (3) there are no factors that cast doubt on the reliability of the tip ... ." Brief for United States 16. These contentions misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop.

An accurate description of a subject's readily observable location and appearance is of course reliable in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse. Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity. 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. Cf. 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §9.4(h), p. 213 (3d ed. 1996) (distinguishing reliability as to identification, which is often important in other criminal law contexts, from reliability as to the likelihood of criminal activity, which is central in anonymous-tip cases).

A second major argument advanced by Florida and the United States as amicus is, in essence, that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception." Under such an exception, a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. We decline to adopt this position.

Firearms are dangerous, and extraordinary dangers sometimes justify unusual precautions. Our decisions recognize the serious threat that armed criminals pose to public safety; Terry 's rule, which permits protective police searches on the basis of reasonable suspicion rather than demanding that officers meet the higher standard of probable cause, responds to this very concern. See 392 U. S., at 30 . But an automatic firearm exception to our established reliability analysis would rove too far. Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call falsely reporting the target's unlawful carriage of a gun. Nor could one securely confine such an exception to allegations involving firearms. Several Courts of Appeals have held it per se foreseeable for people carrying significant amounts of illegal drugs to be carrying guns as well. See, e.g., United States v. Sakyi , 160 F. 3d 164, 169 (CA4 1998); United States v. Dean , 59 F. 3d 1479, 1490, n. 20 (CA5 1995); United States v. Odom , 13 F. 3d 949, 959 (CA6 1994); United States v. Martinez , 958 F. 2d 217, 219 (CA8 1992). If police officers may properly conduct Terry frisks on the basis of bare-boned tips about guns, it would be reasonable to maintain under the above-cited decisions that the police should similarly have discretion to frisk based on bare-boned tips about narcotics. As we clarified when we made indicia of reliability critical in Adams and White , the Fourth Amendment is not so easily satisfied. Cf. Richards v. Wisconsin , 520 U. S. 385, 393-394 (1997) (rejecting a per se exception to the "knock and announce" rule for narcotics cases partly because "the reasons for creating an exception in one category [of Fourth Amendment cases] can, relatively easily, be applied to others," thus allowing the exception to swallow the rule).* 1

The facts of this case do not require us to speculate about the circumstances under which the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability. We do not say, for example, that a report of a person carrying a bomb need bear the indicia of reliability we demand for a report of a person carrying a firearm before the police can constitutionally conduct a frisk. Nor do we hold that public safety officials in quarters where the reasonable expectation of Fourth Amendment privacy is diminished, such as airports, see Florida v. Rodriguez , 469 U. S. 1 (1984) ( per curiam ), and schools, see New Jersey v. T.L.O. , 469 U. S. 325 (1985), cannot conduct protective searches on the basis of information insufficient to justify searches elsewhere.

Finally, the requirement that an anonymous tip bear standard indicia of reliability in order to justify a stop in no way diminishes a police officer's prerogative, in accord with Terry , to conduct a protective search of a person who has already been legitimately stopped. We speak in today's decision only of cases in which the officer's authority to make the initial stop is at issue. In that context, we hold that an anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability of the kind contemplated in Adams and White does not justify a stop and frisk whenever and however it alleges the illegal possession of a firearm.

The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is affirmed.

It is so ordered .



FLORIDA, PETITIONER v. J. L.

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of florida

[March 28, 2000]

Justice Kennedy , with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring.

On the record created at the suppression hearing, the Court's decision is correct. The Court says all that is necessary to resolve this case, and I join the opinion in all respects. It might be noted, however, that there are many indicia of reliability respecting anonymous tips that we have yet to explore in our cases.

When a police officer testifies that a suspect aroused the officer's suspicion, and so justifies a stop and frisk, the courts can weigh the officer's credibility and admit evidence seized pursuant to the frisk even if no one, aside from the officer and defendant themselves, was present or observed the seizure. An anonymous telephone tip without more is different, however; for even if the officer's testimony about receipt of the tip is found credible, there is a second layer of inquiry respecting the reliability of the informant that cannot be pursued. If the telephone call is truly anonymous, the informant has not placed his credibility at risk and can lie with impunity. The reviewing court cannot judge the credibility of the informant and the risk of fabrication becomes unacceptable.

On this record, then, the Court is correct in holding that the telephone tip did not justify the arresting officer's immediate stop and frisk of respondent. There was testimony that an anonymous tip came in by a telephone call and nothing more. The record does not show whether some notation or other documentation of the call was made either by a voice recording or tracing the call to a telephone number. The prosecution recounted just the tip itself and the later verification of the presence of the three young men in the circumstances the Court describes.

It seems appropriate to observe that a tip might be anonymous in some sense yet have certain other features, either supporting reliability or narrowing the likely class of informants, so that the tip does provide the lawful basis for some police action. One such feature, as the Court recognizes, is that the tip predicts future conduct of the alleged criminal. There may be others. For example, if an unnamed caller with a voice which sounds the same each time tells police on two successive nights about criminal activity which in fact occurs each night, a similar call on the third night ought not be treated automatically like the tip in the case now before us. In the instance supposed, there would be a plausible argument that experience cures some of the uncertainty surrounding the anonymity, justifying a proportionate police response. In today's case, however, the State provides us with no data about the reliability of anonymous tips. Nor do we know whether the dispatcher or arresting officer had any objective reason to believe that this tip had some particular indicia of reliability.

If an informant places his anonymity at risk, a court can consider this factor in weighing the reliability of the tip. An instance where a tip might be considered anonymous but nevertheless sufficiently reliable to justify a proportionate police response may be when an unnamed person driving a car the police officer later describes stops for a moment and, face to face, informs the police that criminal activity is occurring. This too seems to be different from the tip in the present case. See United States v. Sierra-Hernandez , 581 F. 2d 760 (CA9 1978).

Instant caller identification is widely available to police, and, if anonymous tips are proving unreliable and distracting to police, squad cars can be sent within seconds to the location of the telephone used by the informant. Voice recording of telephone tips might, in appropriate cases, be used by police to locate the caller. It is unlawful to make false reports to the police, e.g. , Fla. Stat. Ann. §365.171(16) (Supp. 2000); Fla. Stat. Ann. §817.49 (1994), and the ability of the police to trace the identity of anonymous telephone informants may be a factor which lends reliability to what, years earlier, might have been considered unreliable anonymous tips.

These matters, of course, must await discussion in other cases, where the issues are presented by the record.


FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1

* At oral argument, petitioner also advanced the position that J. L.'s youth made the stop and frisk valid, because it is a crime in Florida for persons under the age of 21 to carry concealed firearms. See Fla. Stat. §790.01 (1997) (carrying a concealed weapon without a license is a misdemeanor), §790.06(2)(b) (only persons aged 21 or older may be licensed to carry concealed weapons). This contention misses the mark. Even assuming that the arresting officers could be sure that J. L. was under 21, they would have had reasonable suspicion that J. L. was engaged in criminal activity only if they could be confident that he was carrying a gun in the first place. The mere fact that a tip, if true, would describe illegal activity does not mean that the police may make a Terry stop without meeting the reliability requirement, and the fact that J. L. was under 21 in no way made the gun tip more reliable than if he had been an adult.

_________________
Rob/Wynder
Delaware Open Carry, Founder
Notary Public
Image


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Cases to Know: Florida v. J.L. (2000)
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:28 am 
Offline
Founding Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 4655
Location: Claymont.DE
So how do cities get away with their 'stop and frisk' crap? Seems it would violate this ruling. There is no probable cause to justify this police action. They do it in Philly and want to do it in Wilmington.

Is it just me or does it seem like the whole system is out of control?

And how much more money will we borrow from China before we become just like that place.? Or are we already there?

_________________
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein
What a shame that we have the two major political parties that believe the former.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Cases to Know: Florida v. J.L. (2000)
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:20 am
Posts: 1197
Location: Wilmington
People are either scared or fed up and have allowed the system to grow out of control. Most will give up a few of YOUR rights if it makes THEM feel safer.

-
Jim

_________________
Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect.

NRA Certified Instructor
* Home Firearms Safety * Basic Pistol * Personal Protection Inside the Home * Personal Protection Outside the Home


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Cases to Know: Florida v. J.L. (2000)
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:21 pm 
Offline
Founding Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:13 pm
Posts: 4655
Location: Claymont.DE
Ya know, I took an oath when I join the military. Similar to what every politician takes.
It didn't mean much to me then because it was just something required to get the job. As life goes on that oath means more to me today then ever before. I never violated that oath and although I'm no longer in the military I don't remember ever being told that that oath is now null and void.

How can a politician, who takes this oath many time during their long political career, ever stand in front of the people and say that they are upholding their oath? Seems like almost everyone of these politicians is dead set against upholding the Constitution. And it occurs in both parties, everyday.

Even the Supreme Court gets caught up in it. I can't understand half the rulings. This one seems right but stop and frisk is simply beyond me. I just don't see the difference. A 911 call for suspicious activity means less then some cops years of experience. If they don't see a crime being committed they just assume your guilty because you fit a profile? And what happens when they decide that we fit the profile.

So somehow when I see a crime being committed it means less to the court then if a cop doesn't see a crime, but thinks they might be committing a crime later? Am I missing something?

And is there a list of activities that we should avoid?
If being Canadian and standing on a street corner is good enough for the cops when will they decide that we are Canadians too? Or just a couple of Canadians walking down the street, or having a picnic or dinner meeting? Or sitting at home? Cops know that illegal activity occur all the time and everywhere they go. And who's a better judge of character then the police?

_________________
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." - Robert A. Heinlein
What a shame that we have the two major political parties that believe the former.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Cases to Know: Florida v. J.L. (2000)
PostPosted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:03 am 
Offline
Founding Member

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 148
stephpd wrote:
Ya know, I took an oath when I join the military. Similar to what every politician takes.
It didn't mean much to me then because it was just something required to get the job. As life goes on that oath means more to me today then ever before. I never violated that oath and although I'm no longer in the military I don't remember ever being told that that oath is now null and void.

How can a politician, who takes this oath many time during their long political career, ever stand in front of the people and say that they are upholding their oath? Seems like almost everyone of these politicians is dead set against upholding the Constitution. And it occurs in both parties, everyday.

Even the Supreme Court gets caught up in it. I can't understand half the rulings. This one seems right but stop and frisk is simply beyond me. I just don't see the difference. A 911 call for suspicious activity means less then some cops years of experience. If they don't see a crime being committed they just assume your guilty because you fit a profile? And what happens when they decide that we fit the profile.

So somehow when I see a crime being committed it means less to the court then if a cop doesn't see a crime, but thinks they might be committing a crime later? Am I missing something?

And is there a list of activities that we should avoid?
If being Canadian and standing on a street corner is good enough for the cops when will they decide that we are Canadians too? Or just a couple of Canadians walking down the street, or having a picnic or dinner meeting? Or sitting at home? Cops know that illegal activity occur all the time and everywhere they go. And who's a better judge of character then the police?



+1 dude. So much truth in this post I don't know what to say besides i agree. On that last part I just cant help but think that I would be freaked out if I saw a bunch of Canadians OC'ing in a restaurant or at a park or something. Who wouldn't right? Just shows how much racism and inequality still exists today, but that is another topic, sort of.

_________________
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

The Second Amendment guarantees the first!


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Cases to Know: Florida v. J.L. (2000)
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:14 pm
Posts: 1865
Location: Bear, Delaware
Florida v. J.L is also supported by two other cases.

1) United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2000) which declares that possession of a firearm in public, with no other circumstances present, does not justify a stop. "For all the officers knew, even assuming the reliability of the tip that Ubiles possessed a gun, Ubiles was . . . lawfully exercising his right . . . to possess a gun in public." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &no=003091)

2) United States v. Dudley, 854 F. Supp. 570 (S.D.Ind. 1994) in which the court declared that a report of persons with guns did not justify an investigative stop. "In short, the Government failed to establish . . . that some reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, based on articulable facts, justified this seizure. And, if the stop itself is unlawful, neither Terry nor Michigan v. Long authorize the police to search the suspects or the suspect's vehicle for weapons, even if the officers reasonably fear for their safety." (Link needed)

_________________
Rob/Wynder
Delaware Open Carry, Founder
Notary Public
Image


 Profile  


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


phpBB skin developed by: John Olson
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group