My appeal to LEO Rpers.

[Fancy Toothpaste]

To everyone saying, "Just take it IC", keep in mind that the court system is seemingly very understaffed at the moment and quite slow. You're basically telling someone to sit in jail for several weeks waiting for a judge to clear up their wrongful search and arrest because a police officer on this server clearly wasn't trained properly as to the circumstances in which they are allowed to frisk someone.

IC decisions also have OOC consenquences.

[Vassilios]

This just sounds like an IC issue to me. There shouldn't be OOC rules about things like this.

[Earlll]

1 minute ago, Fancy Toothpaste said:

To everyone saying, "Just take it IC", keep in mind that the court system is seemingly very understaffed at the moment and quite slow. You're basically telling someone to sit in jail for several weeks waiting for a judge to clear up their wrongful search and arrest because a police officer on this server clearly wasn't trained properly as to the circumstances in which they are allowed to frisk someone.

IC decisions also have OOC consenquences.

There's Internal Affairs. 

[lambchops]

Regardless of how serious my initial reply was (which depends on a working legal system) this is not going to devolve into a "Illegal roleplayers are bad because" or "PD/SD/whoever is bad because" thread. Gripes with individual actors can be brought up through multiple means, both IC and OOC, but we're not going to fling shit at each other again.

Edited June 21, 2021 by lambchops

[Tseard]

 

[nelsondx]

10 minutes ago, Fancy Toothpaste said:

To everyone saying, "Just take it IC", keep in mind that the court system is seemingly very understaffed at the moment and quite slow. You're basically telling someone to sit in jail for several weeks waiting for a judge to clear up their wrongful search and arrest because a police officer on this server clearly wasn't trained properly as to the circumstances in which they are allowed to frisk someone.

IC decisions also have OOC consenquences.

I disagree. This is an IC mistake, if a cop breaches your character's 4th Amendment Rights, how is that an OOC to begin with? Take it to Internal Affairs and it'll be dealt with. Also, can't cops make mistakes IC?  Isn't that perhaps telling cops to rp robocops if they are not allowed mistakes? If the courts are understaffed, how is that PD's fault? It seems to be JSA more than anything.

Edited June 21, 2021 by nelsondx

[MickeyO]

6 minutes ago, Fancy Toothpaste said:

To everyone saying, "Just take it IC", keep in mind that the court system is seemingly very understaffed at the moment and quite slow. You're basically telling someone to sit in jail for several weeks waiting for a judge to clear up their wrongful search and arrest because a police officer on this server clearly wasn't trained properly as to the circumstances in which they are allowed to frisk someone.

IC decisions also have OOC consenquences.

thanks 

[Brown Buffalo]

Hello, and thank you for tagging me @Stormas the de-facto "wrong case law destroyer" let me give you my opinion based off of a few cases that have come along since Terry v. Ohio and Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

The best case that I can refer us to is a federal case which I deem the most applicable as opposed to California state law as the question really in question here is not a state law question but a federal question due to it relating specifically to the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution @Jonesyany deviation from this case would be outside of the scope of practice for a California court.

United States v. Stennis, 457 F. App'x 494 (6th Cir. 2012) highlights a new phrase that is not outlined in Terry v. Ohio or Pennsylvania v. Mimms, this term is "protective frisk".

In United States v. Stennis, the Defense attempted to suppress evidence gained after officers removed a suspect from his vehicle and performed a Terry frisk, they argued (like the OP) that this was a violation of his rights. This case relied on TWO prongs in validating the officers choice for a protective frisk.

1) A bulge visible.
2) Officers prior knowledge of the defendant.

The court is not clear whether both prongs must be satisfied, and in a situation where the court is not definitive on requiring both, we consider that either prongs could hold the same value and that the officer must use a "weighing scale" test to decide. 

Pulling someone out of a car without satisfying the visual test of seeing a bulge, and not having prior knowledge of the defendant would be Unconstitutional. Pulling someone out of a car with prior knowledge of the defendant likely is constitutional. What defines prior knowledge? Courts do not specify in their opinions every situation that could satisfy this test. However, a few examples would be (1) prior violent felonies, (2) prior weapons charges, (3) prior dealings in violent situations that might not have led to an arrest.

I think it is also misunderstood what exactly Terry frisks entail and for that let me offer some clarification from the Stennis case.
"Due to the unique dangers traffic stops present for police officers, an officer may, in the course of conducting a legal stop, order a driver out of the vehicle and conduct a Terry frisk should the officer reasonably suspect the individual to be armed and dangerous. During the course of a protective pat down, if the officer detects nonthreatening contraband or weapons on the individual's person, the evidence is subject to immediate seizure."

United States v. Stennis, 457 F. App'x 494, 495 (6th Cir. 2012)

To highlight where a protective frisk is not applicable we can look at a case such as United States v. Tharpe:

"To justify a Terry search, the officer on the scene must be able to point to specific and articulable facts suggesting actual physical risk. Determination of the need for the frisk is judged against an objective standard because the feelings or hunches of an officer are too lacking in substance to effectively guarantee protection of constitutional rights. Just as subjective whims by officers can not justify a protective frisk, so, in light of the protean variety of the street encounter, courts must judge each individual factual context flexibly according to the objective evidentiary justification which the constitution requires."

United States v. Tharpe, 536 F.2d 1098, 1099 (5th Cir. 1976)

Mere hunches, inclinations, profiling, etc. are not sufficient reasons to satisfy the objective standard for a Terry Frisk. However, prior convictions, or dealings can establish patterns that are acceptable in court.

In my opinion any officer who has a dealing with a suspect who has prior convictions relating to violent felonies, weapons charges, or prior dealings in violent situations that might not have led to an arrest they would satisfy one of the prongs established in United States v. Stennis and therefore it would be considered a lawful search and or detention.

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by Brown Buffalo

[YouChef]

1 hour ago, Bala said:

So when you get away from the police and the admins summon you back then ask:

"Why didn't you RP breaking your ankle when you turned that corner so quickly and let them capture you? 1 hour jail, disgusting PGer"

Why are they not told to put out a warrant, stick posters on the wall and search for you to resolve the issue ICly? 

If you break an OOC rule then expect that the issue will be RESOLVED OOC'ly, but don't come with an IC ISSUE and try to RESOLVE IT OOC'LY.

Edited June 21, 2021 by YouChef

[arandomgamer]

1 hour ago, Свето said:

Homie got racially profiled in-game, damn

 

I don't think that's the word you're looking for, considering he was already a convicted felon