Too much ice

I did edit for the 25 states by bringing up Hiibel ruling.

Not in here picking argument but was to provide the case that I expected that was cite for @whodeycin85...
But that is reasonable suspicion..not blanket misdeamor charges...in slice situation I can almost hear the lawyer asking for probable cause to be there..and there t wasn't tany therefore they were trespassed..not because of illegals but lack of cause..

Otherwise every traffic case speeding first time dui etc ( all misdemeanorz) you wouldnt be required to show proof of valid id ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
But that is reasonable suspicion..not blanket misdeamor charges...in slice situation I can almost hear the lawyer asking for probable cause to be there..and there t wasn't tany therefore they were trespassed..not because of illegals but lack of cause
EXACTLY but he is believing this is due to his illegal workers being involved in "only" misdemeanors which has nothing to do with the issue at all
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
It "cites" discussing shopkeepers and their security's role in detaining suspected shoplifters

Educate yourself on the actual law pertaining to law enforcement. Start with the definition of Reasonable Suspicion and Terry vs Ohio and go from there..

If you believe that police can't stop a random guy matching a description of a suspected crime suspect (misdemeanor OR felony, guilty OR innocent) I suggest you try it out LOL
You should educate yourself. The courts have ruled numerous times that would be too vague and insufficient for a reasonable suspicion.

idk what it is about this thread that makes you say a lot of incorrect statements
 
But that is reasonable suspicion..not blanket misdeamor charges...in slice situation I can almost hear the lawyer asking for probable cause to be there..and there t wasn't tany therefore they were trespassed..not because of illegals but lack of cause..

Otherwise every traffic case speeding first time dui etc ( all misdemeanorz) you wouldnt be required to show proof of valid id ..
Nope Commonwealth vs Warren, Turay vs commonwealth, US vs Jones and plenty more. Simply saying the race and their shirt is too vague
 
You should educate yourself. The courts have ruled numerous times that would be too vague and insufficient for a reasonable suspicion.

idk what it is about this thread that makes you say a lot of incorrect statements
He is refusing the statement "SCOTUS has ruled that a misdemeanor doesn’t rise to the level of probable cause for requiring ID" .which is false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
He is refusing the statement "SCOTUS has ruled that a misdemeanor doesn’t rise to the level of probable cause for requiring ID" .which is false.
I’m referring to him saying his W/M shirt and cap description. It’s bs and that’s been ruled numerous times to not be enough for probable suspicion
 
You should educate yourself. The courts have ruled numerous times that would be too vague and insufficient for a reasonable suspicion.

idk what it is about this thread that makes you say a lot of incorrect statements
The articulation would be multiple things, it's easy to articulate

suspect was the same race, similar clothing as described and close in proximity to the incident for example

I am not incorrect, I've done this for over 30 years, I know the law
 
Yea for probable cause...100%....probable cause is not a misdeamor.
He also as Orange doesn't understand the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion which is all that's needed for actual detainment and investigation, except for community caretaking or consensual encounters
 
I’m referring to him saying his W/M shirt and cap description. It’s bs and that’s been ruled numerous times to not be enough for probable suspicion
The original statement was what started the is whole thing...that's what he has been disputing ..and it being conflated or being talked past...

Probable cause and and actual misdeamor charge are different...you don't have to ID unless they have probable cause...of they have probable cause that you committed a misdeamor you have to ID.. articulable reasonable suspicion is enough to if...the SCOTUS has ruled that basic description is not enough probable cause.
 
The original statement was what started the is whole thing...that's what he has been disputing ..and it being conflated or being talked past...

Probable cause and and actual misdeamor charge are different...you don't have to ID unless they have probable cause...of they have probable cause that you committed a misdeamor you have to ID.. articulable reasonable suspicion is enough to if...the SCOTUS has ruled that basic description is not enough probable cause.
Probable cause and probable suspicion are different. Ricky brought up probable suspicion
 
Reasonable suspicion or reasonable articulable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that in United States law is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts",[2] and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.[3] If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. However, if the police develop probable cause during a weapons frisk (by feeling something that could be a weapon or contraband, for example), they may then conduct a full search. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[4] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.


Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard allowing police to briefly detain a person based on specific, articulable facts—not mere hunches—suggesting criminal activity is occurring, has occurred, or is about to occur. Established in Terry v. Ohio (1968), this standard allows for limited stops and pat-downs for weapons, requiring less evidence than probable cause.

Key Aspects and Examples
  • Articulable Facts: Officers must be able to explain the specific, observable behaviors that led to the detention.
  • Totality of Circumstances: Courts evaluate the entire situation, including the officer's training and experience.
  • Examples: Pacing outside a closed business at night, matching a suspect description, fleeing from police, or exhibiting signs of impaired driving (e.g., weaving).
  • Scope: Detentions must be temporary and limited in scope.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause
  • Reasonable Suspicion: Allows for a temporary, investigative stop.
 

Attachments

  • 1773078632827.png
    1773078632827.png
    641 bytes · Views: 0
  • 1773078632805.png
    1773078632805.png
    641 bytes · Views: 0
The articulation would be multiple things, it's easy to articulate

suspect was the same race, similar clothing as described and close in proximity to the incident for example

I am not incorrect, I've done this for over 30 years, I know the law
I don’t care what you’ve done for 30 years. Courts have ruled your description too vague numerous times
 
Reasonable suspicion or reasonable articulable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that in United States law is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts",[2] and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.[3] If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. However, if the police develop probable cause during a weapons frisk (by feeling something that could be a weapon or contraband, for example), they may then conduct a full search. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[4] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.


Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard allowing police to briefly detain a person based on specific, articulable facts—not mere hunches—suggesting criminal activity is occurring, has occurred, or is about to occur. Established in Terry v. Ohio (1968), this standard allows for limited stops and pat-downs for weapons, requiring less evidence than probable cause.

Key Aspects and Examples
  • Articulable Facts: Officers must be able to explain the specific, observable behaviors that led to the detention.
  • Totality of Circumstances: Courts evaluate the entire situation, including the officer's training and experience.
  • Examples: Pacing outside a closed business at night, matching a suspect description, fleeing from police, or exhibiting signs of impaired driving (e.g., weaving).
  • Scope: Detentions must be temporary and limited in scope.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause
  • Reasonable Suspicion: Allows for a temporary, investigative stop.
They rest you didn't "fleeing from police, or exhibiting signs of impaired driving (e.g., weaving)... You cant id for just matching it has to be several of those things not just height and clothing alone or speaking spanish .that where everyone is talking around one another
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey123
They rest you didn't "fleeing from police, or exhibiting signs of impaired driving (e.g., weaving)... You cant id for just matching it has to be several of those things not just height and clothing alone or speaking spanish .that where everyone is talking around one another
Here's the example of reasonable suspicion

I am on patrol late very late at night downtown, I see a male walking down the street on the sidewalk. I have no legal right to detain and force him to ID himself, because I have no reasonable suspicion a crime has been, is being, or will be committed.

Same scenario, I am on patrol downtown very late at night in a high crime area where several burglaries have occurred, I see a white male dressed in black walking around some closed businesses, and then he gave me a glance and started walking the opposite direction down the sidewalk. I have articulable reasonable suspicion to investigate and detain him further

The articulable facts of my experience, crime history in the area, what I saw and experienced, what 911 callers may say and describe, suspect's actions, etc. ALL are easy to make the reasonable suspicion.
Description and location of a possible suspect are the two easiest to make
 
Last edited:
LOL no they didn't, you are referencing one specific case of a law....it doesn't supersede Terry vs Ohio and what articulated reasonable suspicion is and how it's used by LEO
Nobody is saying reasonable suspicion isn’t allowed and used. Simply being white and matching shirt is too vague I’ve already referenced multiple court cases that ruled so
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
They rest you didn't "fleeing from police, or exhibiting signs of impaired driving (e.g., weaving)... You cant id for just matching it has to be several of those things not just height and clothing alone or speaking spanish .that where everyone is talking around one another
Exactly. Ricky’s original example was terrible and not enough for reasonable suspicion
 

Advertisement



Back
Top