Jump to content

My appeal to LEO Rpers.


MickeyO

Recommended Posts

However, a significant problem you will encounter @MickeyO is that most cops don't know case law. Most Internal Affairs cases are handled incorrectly due to favoritism. So I think your challenging of them to the understanding of the law is completely valid.

Edited by Brown Buffalo
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Brown Buffalo said:

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 lead 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.


 

Thanks for the write up!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MickeyO said:

I'm not really sure if you're familiar with how America works (Not a bash) but you can't terry frisk people based on prior charges, that's now how that shit works.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with how America works, but they can and will, regardless if it's legal or not. ESPECIALLY in L.A., which is a decent representation of Los Santos.

Welcome to the U.S. Just be glad that it wasn't an "Executioner".

"Executioners": Deputy gang with matching tattoos rules Compton station, LASD deputy alleges | ABC7 - YouTube

Edited by DLimit
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Brown Buffalo said:

However, a significant problem you will encounter @MickeyO is that most cops don't know case law. Most Internal Affairs cases are handled incorrectly due to favoritism. So I think your challenging of them to the understanding of the law is completely valid.

The way IA handles things vary. IA's first loyalties are the Chief of Police and the Department as a whole, that's how IRL IA does things. PD IA handles things different than SD IA surely. Is PD IA corrupt? I wouldn't exactly say so, I can't speak about SD IA but if it means the department can save face by throwing people under the bus or hide things under the rug? IA will do that, that's how it is IRL, even the LAPD does this. I speak for myself, if I don't know the law, I either ask or look it up. One of PD IA's leaders is an American police officer IRL with a degree in criminal justice.

 

Americans police officers breach a person's rights constantly, that's how it works in America. Not every cop is an outstanding person or educated and knows the handbook and caselaws front to back and back to front. And sometimes, police officers are literal scum who make people's lives a living hell, that's how it is. Of course if they are caught they have a lot to answer to probably. 

Edited by nelsondx
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, nelsondx said:

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.

I had a friend spend a month in jail because a police officer arrested them with little to no evidence. They plead not guilty and in the end, the arrest was thrown out of court. That's all IC.

The OOC consequences was that they couldn't play their character for a month, and they lost all motivation to play on the server. I can't say I blame them, but I reiterate what I said: IC decisions also have OOC consenquences.

Cops making mistakes is one thing, but many LEO players forget that they weild more power then your average player, and can completely destory the motivation of illegal RPers on the server. Police and Criminals are not against eachother, they're symbiotic. They cannot have a meaningful RP experience without the other, and therefore respect is paramount.

I'm not here to throw blame around. I can tell you personally that 95% of my interactions with police have been extremely positive. I'm just explaining that illegal RPers have very justified frustrations when it comes to one-sided police interactions. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Being a member of the PD, I know many people have legitimate gripes because some people either don’t know or choose not to learn American caselaw. And that’s both American and people from other countries. 
 

However, for the OPs incident, that is not the case. Put yourself in the shoes of a police officer whose stopping (From what I read) a convicted murderer, priors for illegal guns, whose potentially on drugs and is showing suspicious behavior. Yea, you’re getting patted down for weapons every day of the week before I deal with you. 

Edited by Mick
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Fancy Toothpaste said:

The OOC consequences was that they couldn't play their character for a month, and they lost all motivation to play on the server. I can't say I blame them, but I reiterate what I said: IC decisions also have OOC consenquences.

They could've RP'd in prison, though... for I.C. development? My greatest experiences were in prison.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...