Well, I've been here for over 5 years and I haven't run into any trouble. But then again I try not to do anything that will give any police officer P.C. to stop me.Is the Gestapo in Colonie still going after ham ops with mobile rigs for violation of VTL 397?
Actually, police do not need "PC" or probable cause to stop you. All they need is "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. It is a lower standard. See Terry vs. Ohio.Well, I've been here for over 5 years and I haven't run into any trouble. But then again I try not to do anything that will give any police officer P.C. to stop me.
Not exactly true, a pat down can be conducted at any time you come into contact with a person provided you inform them that you are conducting a search for your protection. This was referenced several times in Maryland v Wilson, however it has been addressed at the state level since. It really pivots around the rule of mimms.To conduct a frisk, the officer must show not only a justification for the original stop, but also a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed and dangerous.
I found a variety of improvised weapons on people and in their cars (during searches pursuant to arrest or warrant). Things like zip guns, flare pen guns, and even a fake cell phone gun. Does that knowledge change the scope of "reasonable" actions of an officer during a Terry search? I suggest it would be unreasonable of an officer to discount their existence. They might not be real common, but it only takes once...Terry searches are only for weapons. If an officer doing a patdown notes anything that is not obviously a weapon (like the shape of a portable radio on the belt or in a pocket, for example), he/she has no authority to establish the identity of the object or to examine it further.
I know you teach CJ Dave, but I disagree. Police can do Terry stops on vehicles as well as persons when they have reason to believe that criminal activity is afoot. They do not need probable cause.I disagree. Police can't do Terry Stops on cars, at least not in New York. PC is required as pulling over a vehicle is a "seizure."
Agreed. Same goes for narcotics. While patting down a subject for a weapon, an officer feels what he belives, based upon his training and experience, to be a syringe concealed in someone's front pocket. He can establish the identity of that object. "What's this?" "Is this your dope?" Once established, he then has PC to retrieve that item as it is evidence of a crime and to protect that evidence from being destroyed.davenf2g said:Terry searches are only for weapons. If an officer doing a patdown notes anything that is not obviously a weapon (like the shape of a portable radio on the belt or in a pocket, for example), he/she has no authority to establish the identity of the object or to examine it further.
A simple question always grants consent. "Do you have any guns, knifes, or other weapons on your person?" "Do you mind if I pat you down for my safety?" I've never been told no.adamrgirard said:Not exactly true, a pat down can be conducted at any time you come into contact with a person provided you inform them that you are conducting a search for your protection. This was referenced several times in Maryland v Wilson, however it has been addressed at the state level since. It really pivots around the rule of mimms.
Again, correct. Any idiot, including me, can post anything they want on the internet. Don't believe everything you read. Get advice from a professional trained in that area. Just as defendants get advice from their attorneys, us law enforcement personnel get advice from ADA's, AUSA's, Asst. State Prosecutors, etc. as well as constantly keeping informed of recent court decisions. Just because the law says one thing, doesn't mean it can be done. For example, friends of mine that work in California are bound by the liberal 9th circuit.The information in the lawyers.com article is not state specific. Before relying on any legal advice, you should first get it from an actual lawyer. Then you should be sure that the advice applies in your state.
True. Feds are bound by federal law, not state law. However, some states grant peace officer status to feds, other states actually grant specific authority. For example, in the NYS CPL, several feds are actually granted specific authority. This usually includes a person "is commiting, is about to commit or has commited a felony." In NYS, I belive ANY OFFENSE committed in an officer's presence applies as well. An offense is defined as a misdemeanor or felony. Since most violations are not misdemeanors or felonies, they have no authority to stop you.sc8 said:First, "federal officials" if they pull someone over for a narcotics incident, they already have the warrant to do so and make the arrest, or they observed a drug sale. They can not pull over a vehicle for "no reason" and they actually have less ability than a state or local officer to make a stop since they can't enforce state traffic laws unless they are made peace officers by the state law, or have a signed MOU that allow them to do so.
It's very distressing to see the very brave & commited men & women who are sworn to protect & to serve you called such a vile name, I will soon be one of those dedicated sworn & certified law enforcement officers & I'm quite curious as to who you would now contact in an emergency if the need ever arose. I'm not familiar with your situation there, however I'm quite sure if the department in question was violating your civil rights, there would have been some type of lawsuit or an external agency investigation by now or am I misleading myself? No personal offense intended however your post just distresses me & is a very unfair depiction of the thousands of law enforcement officers who perform duties that may be deemed unpleasant and/or unpopular to some civilians.Is the Gestapo in Colonie still going after ham ops with mobile rigs for violation of VTL 397?
If it quacks like a duck....
While it seems to be human nature to paint with a broad brush, the fact is that some of those "very brave & committed" police officers have overstepped the legitimate bounds of their authority at times. A police force contains many individuals who serve from the highest motivations, but there are also people in uniform who should not have been allowed to join up.