PDA

View Full Version : Own a Garden, maybe not much longer...


xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 11:29 AM
http://tennzen.blogspot.com/2009/03/bill-could-affect-gardens-farmers.html

If you:

* have a garden (backyard, homestead, or full-blown farmer)
* participate in a CSA
* buy or sell vegetables at a Farmer's Market, roadside stand or Amish/Mennonite community
* buy or sell milk or cheese (especially raw milk products) from a local farm
* buy/sell/grow organic meats, vegetables, or dairy products

... then you need to know that there's some legislation that's rapidly progressing through Congress that could affect you.

The bills are HR 875 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00875:) and S 425 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.00425:): the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 and the Food Safety and Tracking Improvement Act, respectively.

These bills would basically transfer all state control over food regulation to a new agency - the Food Safety Administration, under the the Department of Health and Human Services. (In blatant disregard for the 10th Amendment, I might add.) Its implications point to the weeding out of all independent, family farms as well as all organic farming operations because of peremptory federal regulations determined in favor of corporate factory farms.

Some of the requirements in these bills include:

Designating the Food Safety Administration (FSA) as sole regulator of food safety rather than the individual states, including granting FSA the power to implement and administer a "national system for regular unannounced inspection of food establishments" under its own terms. ("Food establishment" is so broadly defined in the bill that it can be anything from a meat packing plant to a backyard garden.)

Reclassifying all farms as "food production facilities", ensuring they come under the regulatory and inspection protocols of FSA as well as enforcing compliance with whatever FSA deems as appropriate food safety requirements. (Again, "farm" is used very generically.)

Additionally, the bills contain language that would expand the definition of the word "contaminant" for purposes of widening the scope of what constitutes "adulterated food". In other words, the vague, open-ended language would grant nearly unlimited authority to the FSA to arbitrarily levy fines whenever and to whomever it deems fit for breaching its subjective food safety rules.

Dino 6 Rings
05-06-2009, 11:33 AM
They are not going to get my Tomatoes on pain of Death!

7SteelGal43
05-06-2009, 11:43 AM
oh boy :applaudit: i was afraid the O(crap) administration wasn't gonna make government even bigger. gee, if we're lucky, (note sarcasm) there won't be ANY areas of our life that govt isn't involved in by the time O(crap)s first term is over.

Dino 6 Rings
05-06-2009, 11:46 AM
I wonder if this applies to my wife's herb garden? She'd be so pissed off if they try to regulate her Lavendar or Parsley.

trauben
05-06-2009, 12:01 PM
I can't wait till they legislate someone to come in and help me wipe my ass after a good healthy :poop:!
This way it will save me the trouble of reaching back there myself and leaving dingleberries.

MACH1
05-06-2009, 12:04 PM
So much for saving jobs.

Let the Amateur Hour continue.

tony hipchest
05-06-2009, 12:08 PM
legalize it

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 12:12 PM
I wonder if this applies to my wife's herb garden? She'd be so pissed off if they try to regulate her Lavendar or Parsley.

Unfortunately, the language is so vague...that a hardcore could interpret that your wife's Herb Garden wasn't safe...and take your supplies.

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 12:13 PM
legalize it

Legalize what?

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 12:17 PM
Gets worse...at least here in Ohio...some of this has already started.

http://open.salon.com/blog/xylocopa/2009/05/03/war_on_food

On December 1, 2008, Lorain County Sherriff’s deputies stormed the home of John and Jacqueline Stowers of LaGrange, Ohio, where they run a natural foods co-op called the Manna Storehouse, which distributes locally produced food, including grass-fed beef and lamb, free-range chicken, organically grown grains and produce, and raw milk and cheeses. The Manna Storehouse website promises food that is “...all natural, as God intended it to be.”

In a video statement on youtube, the Stowerses claim that the police rounded up their children, who were being homeschooled, and held them captive for more than six hours while they ransacked their home, seizing not just co-op supplies but also a year’s personal supply of food for the Stowers, as well as their cell phones and computers. The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund have joined forces to represent the Stowerses in a civil suit against the State of Ohio and Lorain County.

SteelersinCA
05-06-2009, 12:23 PM
Where are you getting this info from? I cannot see any possible way for the Federal government to regulate a backyard garden (not even the commerce clause comes close to touching that) that would be just plain ridiculous.

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 12:41 PM
Where are you getting this info from? I cannot see any possible way for the Federal government to regulate a backyard garden (not even the commerce clause comes close to touching that) that would be just plain ridiculous.

What are "food production facilities"? Section 206 of HR 875.

Places that create/produce food. The language is vague enough as to cause problems...especially for people (like me) who have large gardens. I have almost an acre of land devoted to nothing but my personal garden. I have to use a tractor to properly till the land. I don't sell any thing that I grow...but could my residence not qualify as a food production facility under that language? Logically, it's nothing more than a large garden...but I make enough that I could probably sell some of the produce off (particularly the Tomatoes and Corn). I also have two apple trees, a cherry tree and a pear tree on my residence.

My neighbors are being taxed on a gazebo they built in their backyard because it has benches (seats) and is therefor classified as a "house". Obviously, their actual house is taxed considerably harder...but that vague description allows the state of OH to tax them. There's no way anybody could possibly live in that Gazebo. They also are taxed on the broken down greenhouse they own because it has benches built into it. It's very sad.

tony hipchest
05-06-2009, 12:41 PM
Gets worse...at least here in Ohio...some of this has already started.

http://open.salon.com/blog/xylocopa/2009/05/03/war_on_food

more proof that bush hated hippies.

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 12:45 PM
more proof that bush hated hippies.

I don't know the entirety of that story...I haven't been able to do much more than rudimentary research on it...but they don't live too far from my relatives...so I'll (hopefully) know more soon. There may have been a lot more going on than just some Mom N Pop shop being closed down.

Still, it's sickening to think that this is going on...if it proves to be true. These two new bills being passed around aren't going to make things better...they'll be much much worse.

When big corporations move into town...they put the little Mom N Pop places out of business...then, when the big business fails, hundreds (if not thousands) of people suffer. We were much better when we were dependent on each other...as opposed to some big corporation like Walmart, Krogers, Food Lion, etc...

tony hipchest
05-06-2009, 12:49 PM
i agree but now youre starting to scare me with all the liberal talk. sounds like the cops got a tip, went on a raid and found nothing, so they had to create something to try and save face.

fansince'76
05-06-2009, 01:00 PM
legalize it

Hear, hear! :smoker: :chuckle:

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 01:02 PM
i agree but now youre starting to scare me with all the liberal talk. sounds like the cops got a tip, went on a raid and found nothing, so they had to create something to try and save face.

It get's worse too...

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.survivalism/2008-12/msg00180.html

The Stowers' crime? They run a private, members-only
food co-op.

While state authorities were looking for evidence of illegal
activities, the family was not informed what crime they were suspected
of, they were not read their rights or allowed to make a phone call.
The children, some as young as toddlers, were traumatized by armed
officers interrogating the adults with guns drawn.

The Morning Journal, a newspaper serving northern Ohio, reported that
the Stowers were believed to be operating without a license. However,
the Stowers claim that the food co-op they run does not engage in any
activities that would require state licensing.

Friends of the Stowers openly question why such aggressive tactics
were necessary to investigate a licensing complaint.

The Ohio Department of Agriculture has apparently been chastised by
the courts in previous cases for over-reach, including entrapment of
an Amish man to sell raw milk, which backfired, when it became known
that the man gave milk instead of selling it to a state undercover
agent, refusing to take money for what he believed to be a charitable
act. The Amish literally interpret the Gospel of Matthew (5:42) to
?give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee
turn not thou away.?

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 01:03 PM
This is why more government is almost never a good idea.

SteelersinCA
05-06-2009, 01:06 PM
What are "food production facilities"? Section 206 of HR 875.

Places that create/produce food. The language is vague enough as to cause problems...especially for people (like me) who have large gardens. I have almost an acre of land devoted to nothing but my personal garden. I have to use a tractor to properly till the land. I don't sell any thing that I grow...but could my residence not qualify as a food production facility under that language? Logically, it's nothing more than a large garden...but I make enough that I could probably sell some of the produce off (particularly the Tomatoes and Corn). I also have two apple trees, a cherry tree and a pear tree on my residence.

My neighbors are being taxed on a gazebo they built in their backyard because it has benches (seats) and is therefor classified as a "house". Obviously, their actual house is taxed considerably harder...but that vague description allows the state of OH to tax them. There's no way anybody could possibly live in that Gazebo. They also are taxed on the broken down greenhouse they own because it has benches built into it. It's very sad.

There is a definitions section in the bill and garden isn't mentioned in the definition of food production facility. I'm just saying if you grow for your own use the feds can't regulate it. The instant you start selling it and introducing it into the stream of commerce, they can.

It would be a giant stretch to say a garden is a "food production facility." Don't know what to tell you about getting taxed on buildings on your property, most states tax buildings and improvements on land. Here's OH's definition.

http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/5703-3

SteelersinCA
05-06-2009, 01:07 PM
It get's worse too...

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.survivalism/2008-12/msg00180.html

You don't have to be read your rights if they aren't going to question you.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-06-2009, 02:05 PM
You don't have to be read your rights if they aren't going to question you.

No, but if detained for that long, they should have been read their rights...should have been able to make a phone call and most CERTAINLY should have either been charged or allowed to leave. A police officer has the right to detain you only long enough to see whether probably cause exists to arrest you.

Any police supervisor worth their weight in salt should have been getting pretty antsy about detaining someone that long without finding SOMETHING early on in the investigation as justification.

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 02:57 PM
There is a definitions section in the bill and garden isn't mentioned in the definition of food production facility. I'm just saying if you grow for your own use the feds can't regulate it. The instant you start selling it and introducing it into the stream of commerce, they can.

(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term `food production facility' means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.

definition of a farm: a tract of land devoted to agricultural purposes

To carry that over, the definition of tract:

an area either large or small: as

a: an indefinite stretch of land
b: a defined area of land

What is a garden but a tract (small defined space) of land devoted to agricultural purposes?

I'm not saying that it will come to this everywhere, but already we're seeing signs of this kind of BS here in Ohio (as outlined in the two examples above.)

I can't imagine it will get better when we add more government to this. In my experience in working with State and Federal government agencies, they find ways to justify their existence.

xfl2001fan
05-06-2009, 02:59 PM
You don't have to be read your rights if they aren't going to question you.

How long are they allowed to quarantine you in your own home with not a single phone call then? How long are they allowed to detain you (period) without justifiable cause?

NJarhead
05-06-2009, 03:16 PM
more proof that bush hated hippies.

As he should. :chuckle:

SteelersinCA
05-06-2009, 04:37 PM
No, but if detained for that long, they should have been read their rights...should have been able to make a phone call and most CERTAINLY should have either been charged or allowed to leave. A police officer has the right to detain you only long enough to see whether probably cause exists to arrest you.

Any police supervisor worth their weight in salt should have been getting pretty antsy about detaining someone that long without finding SOMETHING early on in the investigation as justification.

How long are they allowed to quarantine you in your own home with not a single phone call then? How long are they allowed to detain you (period) without justifiable cause?

The had probable cause, they had a search warrant. You can only get a search warrant with probable cause. A police officer CANNOT detain you in order to obtain probable cause. They either have to have probable cause to detain you, or not detain you. That's a general rule there are exigent circumstances and things like that, but none apply here.

That being said, once they have probable cause they can take as long as is reasonably necessary to conduct their investigation. For instance, if you are stopped for speeding, you can be detained for only as long as reasonable for the police officer to cite you. If he sees something else in the course of that process he can add time to investigate that issue.

Bottom line, there is no hard and fast rule as to time for detention, it's all reasonableness. Should have they done it different, sure, is it illegal what they did? Only if the court determines it was an unreasonable time for detention.

Steelman16
05-06-2009, 04:45 PM
Thomas Jefferson sums up my thoughts quite nicely:

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

:thumbsup:

KeiselPower99
05-06-2009, 05:02 PM
Hmm If big brother aint making no money from it then its illegal.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-11-2009, 06:03 AM
The had probable cause, they had a search warrant. You can only get a search warrant with probable cause..

Probable cause for a search warrant and probable cause for an arrest are two completely different things,

A police officer CANNOT detain you in order to obtain probable cause. They either have to have probable cause to detain you, or not detain you. That's a general rule there are exigent circumstances and things like that, but none apply here.

A police officer most certainly CAN detain you long enough to see if there is probably cause for an arrest. Once an officer has initiated a warrant...a traffic stop...an investigative stop...etc....and has reason to believe that further investigation may yield reason for an arrest, he may continue his investigation and detain the individual as part of that investigation.

Godfather
05-11-2009, 08:57 AM
We might be getting unnecessarily worried here, considering that the sources are all blogs/newsgroups and Salon. Plus if the stories are true, the abuses are being carried out by state and local governments and not the feds. That's awful but there are so many of those entities that we'll always see abuses and/or idiocy.

SteelersinCA
05-11-2009, 09:51 AM
Probable cause for a search warrant and probable cause for an arrest are two completely different things,

Whoever told you that lied to you, probable cause is probable cause. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th amendment USC.

A police officer most certainly CAN detain you long enough to see if there is probably cause for an arrest. Once an officer has initiated a warrant...a traffic stop...an investigative stop...etc....and has reason to believe that further investigation may yield reason for an arrest, he may continue his investigation and detain the individual as part of that investigation.

Again, someone is lying to you, the police absolutely cannot detain anyone without probable cause. Initiating a warrant, I assume you mean serving a warrant, assumes probable cause is already valid or it's an illegal warrant. A traffic stop is only legal if there is probable cause. What do you mean investigative stop? Is that a stop just to say "hi?" The police cannot pull over any person just to see what's up and hopefully catch them in some criminal activity. A cop cannot continue an investigation simply for any reason, he must have a reasonable and articulable reason based upon an objective standard. But of course this all assumes he had probable cause to pull you over in the first place.

Are you a cop? Your response sounds like cop probable cause.

Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or has committed a misdemeanor in their presence. The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 16 -17 (1948); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62 - 63 (1968).

Here's some links for you:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/criminal/home_search.html
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/search_seizure(1).html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-11-2009, 10:55 AM
Whoever told you that lied to you, probable cause is probable cause. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 4th amendment USC.



Again, someone is lying to you, the police absolutely cannot detain anyone without probable cause. Initiating a warrant, I assume you mean serving a warrant, assumes probable cause is already valid or it's an illegal warrant. A traffic stop is only legal if there is probable cause. What do you mean investigative stop? Is that a stop just to say "hi?" The police cannot pull over any person just to see what's up and hopefully catch them in some criminal activity. A cop cannot continue an investigation simply for any reason, he must have a reasonable and articulable reason based upon an objective standard. But of course this all assumes he had probable cause to pull you over in the first place.

Are you a cop? Your response sounds like cop probable cause.

Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or has committed a misdemeanor in their presence. The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause. Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 16 -17 (1948); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 62 - 63 (1968).

Here's some links for you:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/practical/criminal/home_search.html
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/search_seizure(1).html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule41.htm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Nothing I have stated would lead a person to believe that I thought a suspect can be detained without justification...you may want to go back and read more carefully.

Yes I was a cop for a number of years...your logic is flawed and you are arguing semantics.

1) I never said the police can detain you without probable cause...but justification for detainment, justification for an arrest, and justification for a warrant are different things
2) There is no such thing as "cop probable cause"
3) If you dont know what an investigative stop is..let me educate you.

Officers detain suspects everyday when there is a reasonable assumption that the person may be involved in a crime. In these cases, after following protocol, an officer can use the results of his investigation to assert "probable cause" for an arrest.

For instance, a 911 dispatch center gets a cellphone call on 911 (phase-2) in which a male suspect states that he is going to rape his daughter. The dispatcher can give officers the 911 address from which the call came in and officers are dispatched to that area.

A second call comes in from the same phone and phase-2 shows that call to originate one block south of the original phone call. The suspect again states that he intends to harm his daughter. That information is shared with the units on the street.

An officer sees a male walking southbound from the area in question, and makes an investigative stop. During that stop the officer runs the suspects drivers license and sees that he is registered as a sexual offender through NCIC (National Crime Information Center) The officer now has PROBABLE CAUSE to detain. Not justification for a warrant, or arrest but most definately cause to hold and question.

The officer then gains permission to use the suspects phone and calls 911 which matches the original cell phone number to the number recieved from the suspects cellphone...PROBABLE CAUSE for arrest. (By the way, that would be a class 4 felony-false 911 and a Felony Disorderly Conduct, due to a statement to harm)

Now....A warrant for arrest is a written order signed by a judge ,based on verifiable evidence or witness, directing the police to arrest the person named in the warrant. If a judge issues a warrant for your arrest, the police may arrest you and the arresting officers should inform you they have a warrant and produce the warrant for your review.

HOWEVER... The police can arrest you without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that you committed an offense in their presence, or when an individual informs an officer that you have just allegedly committed an offense.

I think the difference in what we are saying is "knowledge without application".

SteelersinCA
05-11-2009, 11:46 AM
1) I never said the police can detain you without probable cause...but justification for detainment, justification for an arrest, and justification for a warrant are different things
2) There is no such thing as "cop probable cause"


Actually if you read more carefully you said probable cause for arrest and a warrant are 2 completely different things, which they are not.

I understand there is no such thing as "cop probable cause" I said that because cops know just enough to be dangerous when it comes to trampling Constitutional rights. I could tell you were a cop from your response, I see and hear it everyday.

3) If you dont know what an investigative stop is..let me educate you.

Officers detain suspects everyday when there is a reasonable assumption that the person may be involved in a crime. In these cases, after following protocol, an officer can use the results of his investigation to assert "probable cause" for an arrest.

A reasonable assumption based upon training and experience in an objective standard is probable cause my friend. you don't need to "assert" probable cause after the fact. If you see someone run a red light, that is probable cause for arrest.

For instance, a 911 dispatch center gets a cellphone call on 911 (phase-2) in which a male suspect states that he is going to rape his daughter. The dispatcher can give officers the 911 address from which the call came in and officers are dispatched to that area.

A second call comes in from the same phone and phase-2 shows that call to originate one block south of the original phone call. The suspect again states that he intends to harm his daughter. That information is shared with the units on the street.

An officer sees a male walking southbound from the area in question, and makes an investigative stop. During that stop the officer runs the suspects drivers license and sees that he is registered as a sexual offender through NCIC (National Crime Information Center) The officer now has PROBABLE CAUSE to detain. Not justification for a warrant, or arrest but most definately cause to hold and question.

The officer then gains permission to use the suspects phone and calls 911 which matches the original cell phone number to the number recieved from the suspects cellphone...PROBABLE CAUSE for arrest. (By the way, that would be a class 4 felony-false 911 and a Felony Disorderly Conduct, due to a statement to harm)

Now....A warrant for arrest is a written order signed by a judge ,based on verifiable evidence or witness, directing the police to arrest the person named in the warrant. If a judge issues a warrant for your arrest, the police may arrest you and the arresting officers should inform you they have a warrant and produce the warrant for your review.

HOWEVER... The police can arrest you without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that you committed an offense in their presence, or when an individual informs an officer that you have just allegedly committed an offense.

You can save the education, I just wanted to hear a cop say investigative stop and then describe it. What you are really referring to is a Terry stop. From the case Terry v. Ohio. As usual, the cops misapply to law to reality. A Terry stop is only allowed when they "reasonably believe based on training and experience and from an objective standard" (sound familiar?) that the suspect is involved in a crime and has weapons. It has nothing to do with the scenario you described.

The scenario you described is an interesting one. (Nevermind the fact that most convicted felons automatically waive their 4th amendment rights, so whether he's involved in a rape or not makes no difference if he is a convicted sex offender.) I assume if there are 4 men walking southbound you believe the cop has a right to stop them all huh? I take it you didn't click on the links and read the LAW? What if the suspect doesn't give you permission to use his cell phone? Where does your probable cause come from then? The fact of the matter is without that permission you have an invalid Terry stop (if he's not a sex offender) and no probable cause for arrest. He would have to walk. 90% of all arrests are made without warrants, but only because there is probable cause.

Probable cause for arrest and a warrant are the same. There is no such thing as an investigative stop for anything other than weapons, read Terry v. Ohio and it's progeny.

I think the difference in what we are saying is "knowledge without application".

No the difference is "knowledge with mis-application." But I love cops like you, you keep me employed!!!

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 04:46 AM
Actually if you read more carefully you said probable cause for arrest and a warrant are 2 completely different things, which they are not.



Thats what I thought...arguing semantics. I laid out in detail the diference and you refuse to acknowledge that.

I understand there is no such thing as "cop probable cause" I said that because cops know just enough to be dangerous when it comes to trampling Constitutional rights. I could tell you were a cop from your response, I see and hear it everyday.

Thank you for acknowledging that you made up that phrase...and that you have problems with cops...it explains much. Saying "cops know just enough to trample Constitutional Rights" is pretty all-encompassing, rude, and to be honest, narrow minded.
To hear you use the word "cops" like its a dirty word is offensive. Why dont we do a quick poll as to who people trust more....Cops or Lawyers.

You can save the education, I just wanted to hear a cop say investigative stop and then describe it. What you are really referring to is a Terry stop. From the case Terry v. Ohio. As usual, the cops misapply to law to reality. A Terry stop is only allowed when they "reasonably believe based on training and experience and from an objective standard" (sound familiar?) that the suspect is involved in a crime and has weapons. It has nothing to do with the scenario you described.


The scenerio I described doesnt meet the criteria for a Terry Stop...a Terry Stop by definition would be an investigative stop in which an officer believes the suspect to be armed and does a stop and frisk . A "limited search" is allowed. In the scenerio I presented, the officer did not frisk and would not have believed there was a weapon. The officer does however have "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity. That meets the criteria for a an investigative stop. (I will give other examples of investigative stops later). If you think that all Investigative stops are Terry stops you may want to refresh your memory.

The scenario you described is an interesting one. (Nevermind the fact that most convicted felons automatically waive their 4th amendment rights, so whether he's involved in a rape or not makes no difference if he is a convicted sex offender.) I assume if there are 4 men walking southbound you believe the cop has a right to stop them all huh? I take it you didn't click on the links and read the LAW? What if the suspect doesn't give you permission to use his cell phone? Where does your probable cause come from then?

So you are saying....if your change the scenario, it would be different.

Yea...no kidding:doh:

Probable cause for arrest and a warrant are the same. There is no such thing as an investigative stop for anything other than weapons, read Terry v. Ohio and it's progeny.

Wrong....WOW...VERY WRONG!!! Again you are under a misconception. A terry stop is just one form of an investigative stop. A terry stop is a "stop & frisk". An investigative stop is a broader term that encompasses terry stops but also include situations in which:

1) reasonable evidence has been gathered while an officer was implementing an authorized regulatory policy or investigation so as to indicate a person may have been involved in or witnessed illegal activity
2) an anonymous tip with "evidence of reliability" indicates that a person may have been involved in illegal activity. (Alabama vs. White & Adams vs Williams)
3) an individual flees from the approach of an officer (United States vs. Brignoni-Ponce)

In all three of these scenerios, failure to comply to questioning or an attempt to leave may result in obstruction charges (depending on the situation), due to the officer being engaged in a legal stop and police investigation.

To say that "There is no such thing as an investigative stop for anything other than weapons" is a pretty BIG mistake. If you are an attorney, you should know better.
If what you are saying is true....please explain to me how a police agency is allowed to set up roadblocks and checks? By definition a roadblock is a authorized regulatory investigative stop.

I am guessing that you won't explain yourself on this one since your statement is so basically flawed and obviously wrong.

No the difference is "knowledge with mis-application." But I love cops like you, you keep me employed.

And we love Lawyers like you...its called "easy overtime".:chuckle:

steelwall
05-12-2009, 05:25 AM
LLT I trust cops WAAAAAAAAY more than lawers, when someone is breaking into my home I'm not on the phone with my lawer.

In my personal opinion I'm sick of criminals getting out of crimes for the "probabl cause" argument.

Say a guy is pulled over with 2 killos of cocaine, but his lawer gets him out because of the probabl cause argument.... Thats not justice. IMO

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 05:39 AM
LLT I trust cops WAAAAAAAAY than lawers, when someone is breaking into my home I'm not on the phone with my lawer.

In my personal opinion I'm sick of criminals getting out of crimes for the "probabl cause" argument.

Say a guy is pulled over with 2 killos of cocaine, but his lawer gets him out because of the probabl cause argument.... Thats not justice. IMO

Ironically it is Judges and Lawyers that have traditionally wiped their butts with the Constitution,...and since most Judges were Lawyers I think we can find a common denominator.

steelwall
05-12-2009, 05:57 AM
Ironically it is Judges and Lawyers that have traditionally wiped their butts with the Constitution,...and since most Judges were Lawyers I think we can find a common denominator.


And lets not forget that even if the probabl cause defense gets a drug dealer (using my senerio) off an offense, the fact is the guys is a drug dealer bringing our society down by getting citizens strung out on drugs, which usually lead them to more (and often serious crimes)

People...you don't want to get caught breaking the law....then don't do it.

Police should be held accountable, but throwing a drug dealer (again using my scenario) is the public safer off a techicality (again is that justice?)? Are our neigbors and children safer? Are we safer?

Getting few kilos of heroin of the streets seems more important than the rights of a drug dealer... or whatever the crime is.

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 09:45 AM
Wrong....WOW...VERY WRONG!!! Again you are under a misconception. A terry stop is just one form of an investigative stop. A terry stop is a "stop & frisk". An investigative stop is a broader term that encompasses terry stops but also include situations in which:

1) reasonable evidence has been gathered while an officer was implementing an authorized regulatory policy or investigation so as to indicate a person may have been involved in or witnessed illegal activity
2) an anonymous tip with "evidence of reliability" indicates that a person may have been involved in illegal activity. (Alabama vs. White & Adams vs Williams)
3) an individual flees from the approach of an officer (United States vs. Brignoni-Ponce)

In all three of these scenerios, failure to comply to questioning or an attempt to leave may result in obstruction charges (depending on the situation), due to the officer being engaged in a legal stop and police investigation.

To say that "There is no such thing as an investigative stop for anything other than weapons" is a pretty BIG mistake. If you are an attorney, you should know better.
If what you are saying is true....please explain to me how a police agency is allowed to set up roadblocks and checks? By definition a roadblock is a authorized regulatory investigative stop.

I am guessing that you won't explain yourself on this one since your statement is so basically flawed and obviously wrong.



And we love Lawyers like you...its called "easy overtime".:chuckle:

Let me break down your scenarios for you.

1. Reasonable evidence? Is that what it says in the cop manual? Do you know what that is derived from? Let me say it again, a reasonable and articulable reason based on an objective standard!!!! That's probable cause!!! Not an investigative stop!
2. Again Reliable evidence? Probable Cause!!!!! You can get a warrant on a reliable tip, although it actually has to have more if it's an anonymous tip. But, the fact remains, Probable cause!!!
3. United States vs. Brignoni-Ponce?? The case that says Border patrol agents cannot stop people just because they look like Mexicans near the border? The case that says that:

In Terry v. Ohio, supra, the Court declined expressly to decide whether facts not amounting to probable cause could justify an "investigative `seizure'" short of an arrest, 392 U.S., at 19 n. 16, but it approved a limited search - a pat-down for weapons - for the protection of an officer investigating suspicious behavior of persons he reasonably believed to be armed and dangerous. The Court approved such a search on facts that did not constitute probable cause to believe the suspects guilty of a crime, requiring only that "the police officer . . . be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" a belief that his safety or that of others is in danger. Id., at 21; see id., at 27.

You talking about that case??? See what we have here is another example of cops misapplying the law. That little bit of knowledge is dangerous in your hands. Nothing in that case says anything about a suspect fleeing. Let me guess it was in your cop manual right?


I'll get back to you on the roadblocks later, they have to be properly noticed and it can't be a random check, gotta get to court, I have more cops that made arrests that don't want to come in when they are subpoenaed, I'll let you keep guessing as to which side I'm on, but I'll give you a hint, you don't get overtime when you're on call.

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 09:48 AM
LLT I trust cops WAAAAAAAAY more than lawers, when someone is breaking into my home I'm not on the phone with my lawer.

In my personal opinion I'm sick of criminals getting out of crimes for the "probabl cause" argument.

Say a guy is pulled over with 2 killos of cocaine, but his lawer gets him out because of the probabl cause argument.... Thats not justice. IMO

Blame the cop and the Constitution. If the cops did their job properly and didn't trample the USC, no one would get away. Would you be for a law that said if the cops violate someone's rights the cop gets docked pay or suspended and the criminal is not free? I bet the cops wouldn't.

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 09:49 AM
And lets not forget that even if the probabl cause defense gets a drug dealer (using my senerio) off an offense, the fact is the guys is a drug dealer bringing our society down by getting citizens strung out on drugs, which usually lead them to more (and often serious crimes)

People...you don't want to get caught breaking the law....then don't do it.

Police should be held accountable, but throwing a drug dealer (again using my scenario) is the public safer off a techicality (again is that justice?)? Are our neigbors and children safer? Are we safer?

Getting few kilos of heroin of the streets seems more important than the rights of a drug dealer... or whatever the crime is.

Yes, we are safer when the Constitution is upheld.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 11:05 AM
Let me break down your scenarios for you.

1. Reasonable evidence? Is that what it says in the cop manual? Do you know what that is derived from? Let me say it again, a reasonable and articulable reason based on an objective standard!!!! That's probable cause!!! Not an investigative stop!
2. Again Reliable evidence? Probable Cause!!!!! You can get a warrant on a reliable tip, although it actually has to have more if it's an anonymous tip. But, the fact remains, Probable cause!!!
3. United States vs. Brignoni-Ponce?? The case that says Border patrol agents cannot stop people just because they look like Mexicans near the border? The case that says that:


Semantics and misdirection...pathetic.

WOW...I am sure that the forum is totally surprised that you chose to ignore my challenge to your idiotic statement that an investigative stop can only be for weapons...

No answer?

Feel Stupid for saying it?...Yea...you should.

Then we will move on.

Within the scope of United States vs Brignoni-Ponce the court ruling states:

We elaborated on Terry in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972), holding that a policeman was justified [422 U.S. 873, 881] in approaching the respondent to investigate a tip that he was carrying narcotics and a gun.

"The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. . . . A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time." Id., at 145-146.

You will notice that it states:

Because of the important governmental interest in preventing the illegal entry of aliens at the border, the minimal intrusion of a brief stop, and the absence of practical alternatives for policing the border, an officer whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country may stop the car briefly, question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause

Notice the officer is allowed to make an investigative stop...FURTHER DETENTION must be based on on consent or probable cause.

You talking about that case??? See what we have here is another example of cops misapplying the law. That little bit of knowledge is dangerous in your hands. Nothing in that case says anything about a suspect fleeing. Let me guess it was in your cop manual right?

See my above response...see the part about a criminal escaping? Not sure how you think a suspect "can escape" without fleeing. Tell me...do the bad guys in California have the ability to teleport?

An ignorant attorney is a dangerous thing.

I'll get back to you on the roadblocks later, they have to be properly noticed and it can't be a random check,

Doesn't address the issue that a roadblock is most certainly an investigative stop. Again...unless the laws in California are as idiotic as their attorneys, they are investigative stops ...and I doubt if the "I wasnt notified that I would be stopped tonight" defense is going to get a drunk driver off the hook. (Well...not in any place NOT called California.)

gotta get to court, I have more cops that made arrests that don't want to come in when they are subpoenaed, I'll let you keep guessing as to which side I'm on, but I'll give you a hint, you don't get overtime when you're on call.

So good to know that we have people like you in the world to save us from the evil law enforcement community. And I dont care enough about you to care which side your on, but if your so anti-cop...I....am...going ...to guess...the rapists, drug dealers, child-molesters, and gang-bangers.
Birds of a feather and all that..

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 11:35 AM
Blame the cop and the Constitution. If the cops did their job properly and didn't trample the USC, no one would get away.

That is perhaps the most stupid....misinformed....pile of liberal fluff that has ever been posted in this forum.

Yes folks...our cops are not heroes...they are evil facsists who want to take away your consitutional rights. Be afraid...Be very afraid.:coffee:

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 12:38 PM
I love how you say I am arguing semantics....
Probable cause for a search warrant and probable cause for an arrest are two completely different things,
Whoever told you that lied to you, probable cause is probable cause.
your logic is flawed and you are arguing semantics.

1) I never said the police can detain you without probable cause...but justification for detainment, justification for an arrest, and justification for a warrant are different things

Actually if you read more carefully you said probable cause for arrest and a warrant are 2 completely different things, which they are not.

Probable cause for arrest and a warrant are the same.
Thats what I thought...arguing semantics. I laid out in detail the diference and you refuse to acknowledge that.
Semantics and misdirection...pathetic.

You, clearly, state probable cause is different for an arrest vs. a warrant. Then you try to backpedal into the justification is different. Probable cause is probable cause. If you need probable cause for an arrest it is the same probable cause you need for a warrant. It is the exact same standard. There's no semantics, no games, no anything other than your statement being absolutely wrong. Since you want admissions, will you admit you were wrong? Will you admit there is no difference between probable cause for arrest and probable cause for a warrant? Will you admit the only one playing semantics is you? Thought not.

Definition of probable cause:
The amount and quality of information police must have before they can arrest or search without a warrant or that a judge must have before she will sign a search warrant allowing the police to conduct a search or arrest a suspect. Reliable information must show that it's more likely than not that a crime has occurred and the suspect is involved. http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/4494A6C8-8698-4F26-9B7ADDE110A7E091/alpha/P/ Notice the conjunction "or" signifies no difference.

Misdirection? You turned a correct statement by me:
The had probable cause, they had a search warrant. You can only get a search warrant with probable cause.
Response by you:
Probable cause for a search warrant and probable cause for an arrest are two completely different things,

Into a discussion on the minutiae about an "investigative stop." How's that for misdirection! Do you disagree you can only get a search warrant with probable cause? Do you still submit that probable cause for an arrest and a warrant are different probable causes?

Now we get to personal insults! Awesome! Aren't there rules against that in this forum, but wait you're a former cop, rules don't apply to you, right?

Can we move on now that it is clear you are the one engaging in semantics and misdirection?

Going back to the case you cited, I'm going to bold something different for you:
We elaborated on Terry in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972), holding that a policeman was justified [422 U.S. 873, 881] in approaching the respondent to investigate a tip that he was carrying narcotics and a gun.

"The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. . . . A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time." Id., at 145-146.

See they are talking about in the context of carrying a weapon. That little"Id" refers back to the case cited immediately before that. You can't piece meal case law. I guess I'm just arguing semantics :sigh:

Because of the important governmental interest in preventing the illegal entry of aliens at the border, the minimal intrusion of a brief stop, and the absence of practical alternatives for policing the border, an officer whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country may stop the car briefly, question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause
Did you forget the line immediately preceding that paragraph? I did not. Except at the border and its functional equivalents, patrolling officers may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences therefrom, reasonably warranting suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country.
Or maybe the paragraph immediately after?
(b) To allow roving patrols the broad and unlimited discretion urged by the Government to stop all vehicles in the border area without any reason to suspect that they have violated any law, would not be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

See my above response...see the part about a criminal escaping? Not sure how you think a suspect "can escape" without fleeing. Tell me...do the bad guys in California have the ability to teleport?
See my response about the context of that paragraph.

Doesn't address the issue that a roadblock is most certainly an investigative stop. Again...unless the laws in California are as idiotic as their attorneys, they are investigative stops ...and I doubt if the "I wasnt notified that I would be stopped tonight" defense is going to get a drunk driver off the hook. (Well...not in any place NOT called California.)

Actually, in every state a DUI checkpoint has to be publicly disseminated in order for it to be a valid checkpoint, so yes in every state in the Union if you haven't properly notified the citizens that there will be a DUI checkpoint, the "I wasn't notified that I would be stopped tonight" defense works every time because proper notification is a requirement for all valid checkpoints. The police release this information through news agencies, websites, ads in papers, etc.

http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4c.html Here's the ABA legal guide on roadblocks, there are links within that link. What it boils down to is a Constitutional balancing test. The solution most be closely related to the problem it is designed to address. There are different levels of scrutiny depending on the right being abridged.

What I will freely admit is there are exceptions to EVERY rule. I have said so since the beginning of my posts. If you want to say that a DUI checkpoint is an "investigative stop," you win. I would not classify it as such because take note of a line in the ABA guide, "The police can't single out your car unless they have a suspicion that you don't have your driver's license, that your vehicle is unregistered, or that you or your car may be seized for violating the law." How exactly do you look like you don't have a license? How does one's car look like it is unregistered?

When the cops have suspicion, that's not investigative. I have never said cops cannot detain and question someone who they feel based upon their training and experience in an objective light has reasonable suspicions. You took issue with my correct statement and have misdirected it into this.

So good to know that we have people like you in the world to save us from the evil law enforcement community. And I dont care enough about you to care which side your on, but if your so anti-cop...I....am...going ...to guess...the rapists, drug dealers, child-molesters, and gang-bangers.
Birds of a feather and all that..

Wrong guess. Yes, DA's are designed to protect the citizens from illegal searches seizures and other bad police practice. Who else do you think protects people from that? Oh you didn't really think cops were angels did you? Police departments are some of the most corrupt government entities out there. Wonder what internal affairs is for, hmmmm. We don't need to discuss it, I know you know it. i would never expect you to come on a public forum and admit all the illegal activity you have seen you brethren partake in.

Bottom line, a correct statement was turned into a meaningless argument about the smallest details of the law. There are no hard and fast rules in the law. You know that. If you would like to continue throwing scenarios around, we could spend the rest of our lives picking them apart. Now you're upset to the point that you are throwing out insults and it's not really worth it. I suppose we could continue this discussion if you wanted to, but I don't really see the point.

Again, if it makes you feel validated to say that a roadblock is absolutely an investigative stop, you win. Arguing over that is definitely not worth it.

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 12:47 PM
That is perhaps the most stupid....misinformed....pile of liberal fluff that has ever been posted in this forum.

Yes folks...our cops are not heroes...they are evil facsists who want to take away your consitutional rights. Be afraid...Be very afraid.:coffee:

How is that wrong? If the cop never violates the 4th amendment and makes an arrest based on proper probable cause how would the criminal get away on a probable cause technicality?

Oh you didn't follow the logic of the response, I get it. He said he hates when criminals get off on probable cause technicalities. You see the 4th amendment protects people from illegal search and seizure (lacking probable cause). So if someone gets off on a probable cause technicality, whose fault is that? Either the cop or the USC. I'm quite certain the USC does it's job, so that leaves just 1. And since the USC does it's job and if the 1 did theirs, how many people would get away on a probable cause technicality?????

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 01:11 PM
How is that wrong? If the cop never violates the 4th amendment and makes an arrest based on proper probable cause how would the criminal get away on a probable cause technicality?

Oh you didn't follow the logic of the response, I get it. He said he hates when criminals get off on probable cause technicalities. You see the 4th amendment protects people from illegal search and seizure (lacking probable cause). So if someone gets off on a probable cause technicality, whose fault is that? Either the cop or the USC. I'm quite certain the USC does it's job, so that leaves just 1. And since the USC does it's job and if the 1 did theirs, how many people would get away on a probable cause technicality?????

Its stupid because you are making a blanket statement to cover ALL cops...To say that ...If the cops did their job properly and didn't trample the USC, no one would get away.....is nothing more than a little mind being arrogant, prejudiced and immature.

Seriously...do you REALLY believe that the only way for a bad guy to EVER get away is because of a cop trampling their rights....really?

...and dont try to say that you only made that comment in response to a specific circumstance because it is almost word for word to what you state earlier in a broad statement.

cops know just enough to be dangerous when it comes to trampling Constitutional rights

I can only assume you hate cops so much because California has a stupidity clause and YOU have been pinched one too many times for D.W.S.

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 01:21 PM
Attempt #2 at avoiding another misdirection. Did you miss the part where I quoted what he said in my response? What does quoting mean on a message board? Let's try again.

LLT I trust cops WAAAAAAAAY more than lawers, when someone is breaking into my home I'm not on the phone with my lawer.

In my personal opinion I'm sick of criminals getting out of crimes for the "probabl cause" argument.

Say a guy is pulled over with 2 killos of cocaine, but his lawer gets him out because of the probabl cause argument.... Thats not justice. IMO

Blame the cop and the Constitution. If the cops did their job properly and didn't trample the USC, no one would get away. Would you be for a law that said if the cops violate someone's rights the cop gets docked pay or suspended and the criminal is not free? I bet the cops wouldn't.

That is perhaps the most stupid....misinformed....pile of liberal fluff that has ever been posted in this forum.

Yes folks...our cops are not heroes...they are evil facsists who want to take away your consitutional rights. Be afraid...Be very afraid.:coffee:

How is that wrong? If the cop never violates the 4th amendment and makes an arrest based on proper probable cause how would the criminal get away on a probable cause technicality?

Oh you didn't follow the logic of the response, I get it. He said he hates when criminals get off on probable cause technicalities. You see the 4th amendment protects people from illegal search and seizure (lacking probable cause). So if someone gets off on a probable cause technicality, whose fault is that? Either the cop or the USC. I'm quite certain the USC does it's job, so that leaves just 1. And since the USC does it's job and if the 1 did theirs, how many people would get away on a probable cause technicality?????

Its stupid because you are making a blanket statement to cover ALL cops...To say that ...If the cops did their job properly and didn't trample the USC, no one would get away.....is nothing more than a little mind being arrogant, prejudiced and immature.

Seriously...do you REALLY believe that the only way for a bad guy to EVER get away is because of a cop trampling their rights....really?

...and dont try to say that you only made that comment in response to a specific circumstance because it is almost word for word to what you state earlier in a broad statement.

I can only assume you hate cops so much because California has a stupidity clause and YOU have been pinched one too many times for D.W.S.

Are we talking seriously now? because I thought we were still on the part where you take my statements entirely out of context. OK you win again, I won't say I was making the comment in response to a specific circumstance even though I quoted him in my response. I'll just let you call it whatever you want. Go ahead please "educate" me on what it means when you quote another poster and then respond to them. Let me know how that is attributing it to ALL cops.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 01:59 PM
I love how you say I am arguing semantics....

Into a discussion on the minutiae about an "investigative stop." How's that for misdirection! Do you disagree you can only get a search warrant with probable cause? Do you still submit that probable cause for an arrest and a warrant are different probable causes?

.

A discussion precipitated by an outright lie on your behalf to try and bolster your argument.

1) You said there is no such thing as an investigative stop other than for weapons.... You were proven wrong and wont admit it.

2) You also said an officer MUST have probable cause to initiate an investigative stop....yet when shown a court decision that says a stop can be initiated prior to having probable cause for arrest .....You wont admit you were wrong.

3) You said that a Roadblock was not an investigative stop...You are wrong and will not admit it.

Now we get to personal insults! Awesome! Aren't there rules against that in this forum, but wait you're a former cop, rules don't apply to you, right?

I take it as a personal insult when you tell me that I...and my co-workers only know enough about the law to be able to tramble on the constitution...Dont dish it out if you cant take it. (pathetic)

Can we move on now that it is clear you are the one engaging in semantics and misdirection?

Going back to the case you cited, I'm going to bold something different for you:
See they are talking about in the context of carrying a weapon. That little"Id" refers back to the case cited immediately before that. You can't piece meal case law. I guess I'm just arguing semantics :sigh:
Did you forget the line immediately preceding that paragraph? I did not.
Or maybe the paragraph immediately after?
See my response about the context of that paragraph.

So...a simple yes or no....Can an investigative stop be initiated other than for weapons?

Actually, in every state a DUI checkpoint has to be publicly disseminated in order for it to be a valid checkpoint, so yes in every state in the Union if you haven't properly notified the citizens that there will be a DUI checkpoint, the "I wasn't notified that I would be stopped tonight" defense works every time because proper notification is a requirement for all valid checkpoints. The police release this information through news agencies, websites, ads in papers, etc.

This is a perfect example of your inability to debate.

The question was as if a roadblock is an investigative stop...and you create a rabbit trail as to proper notification instead of answering the question.

So again...yes or no...is a roadblock an investigative stop?

instead of answering the question I get...What it boils down to is a Constitutional balancing test. The solution most be closely related to the problem it is designed to address. There are different levels of scrutiny depending on the right being abridged. :doh:

The closest you can come to admitting you were wrong is by saying...

If you want to say that a DUI checkpoint is an "investigative stop," you win. I would not classify it as such

Your wrong...and that nullifies your statement that an investigative stop can only be for weapons. Also I just got off the phone with District 6 State Police who noted that at the discretion of the district commander, the state police should notify the public and may give specific details in regards to roadside investigative stops. That was from their manual.

When the cops have suspicion, that's not investigative. I have never said cops cannot detain and question someone who they feel based upon their training and experience in an objective light has reasonable suspicions. You took issue with my correct statement and have misdirected it into this.

Yea..I'm the one arguing semantics...not only have you argued probable cause...you then argue the word investivative...and we are now down to suspicion.

Wrong guess. Yes, DA's are designed to protect the citizens from illegal searches seizures and other bad police practice.

Really, I had though that DA's were lawyers not good enough to be the private sector....my bad.

Again, if it makes you feel validated to say that a roadblock is absolutely an investigative stop, you win. Arguing over that is definitely not worth it

Your right...But I would think that you would at least be honest enought to admit that you were obviously wrong or being dishonest in order bolster your argument....and that your problem with me stems more from some innate hatred towards cops then in what I had to say.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 02:05 PM
Attempt #2 at avoiding another misdirection. . Let me know how that is attributing it to ALL cops.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Gee..I dont know call me silly..but when you make a BROAD statement even in reponse to ONE post..you might have an arguement.

..But anyone who has been following your ramblings can see that you posted the SAME statement earlier in an even BROADER reference.

Is your name Nigel by chance?

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 02:06 PM
I'll admit I was wrong when you admit you were wrong, go ahead. Why should I answer your questions when you ignore mine?

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Gee..I dont know call me silly..but when you make a BROAD statement even in reponse to ONE post..you might have an arguement.

..But anyone who has been following your ramblings can see that you posted the SAME statement earlier in an even BROADER reference.

Is your name Nigel by chance?

A broader reference in A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. You really are a dumb cop aren't you, you just simply don't get it. You started this argument making erroneous statements, now you want to delve in to the intricacies of the law of which you obviously know nothing about. Now the State Police are a legal authority!!! This is too rich. What branch of the gov't are the police? Is that branch responsible for making laws? Let me help you out dumb cop, executive and NO. The difference between you and me is cop manuals are the authority for you, the law is the authority for me. Now I know why you aren't a cop anymore, even you were too dumb to live in their corrupt world. :rofl:

What is so hard for you to understand, you can't walk up to John Q. Citizen and stop him because you feel like it.

No, my problem with you is that you attempted to call me out on a probable cause for arrest vs warrant delineation and now have unsuccessfully tried to back away from the very foundation of this argument which is that you were wrong.

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 02:34 PM
Gee..I dont know call me silly..but when you make a BROAD statement even in reponse to ONE post..you might have an arguement.

..But anyone who has been following your ramblings can see that you posted the SAME statement earlier in an even BROADER reference.

Is your name Nigel by chance?

I did post the same statement earlier about cops trampling rights. I believe they do. However, when you add to that the fact that I said no one would get away and it is clear there are many many reasons why criminals would get away coupled with the fact that I quoted him about probable cause, it would lead a reasonable person to conclude i was talking about it in the context of probable cause. Then I explained it and it wasn't good enough for Mr. Misdirection. As much as we disagree you really think I was implying that probable cause is the only reason a criminal walks? Really?

Let me put it to you simply:

1. Cops trample rights
2. If cops didn't trample rights with respect to probable cause, no one would get away with probable cause technicalities.

3rd try.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 02:37 PM
A broader reference in A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. You really are a dumb cop aren't you,

There are rules about personal attacks..I thought you knew that?:chuckle: (and its You are really a dumb cop..."You really a dumb cop" sounds like Tim Lumber)
Your statements about cops show an immature and prejudiced attitude...You can call it what you want.

You started this argument making erroneous statements,

Really?...I answer that accusation by again bringing up your erroneous statements and asking you again for a simple yes or no

1) You stated that an investigative stop can only be initiated for weapons...Do you stand by that statement...yes or no?

2) You stated that an officer must have probable cause to initiate an investigative stop (This being your first definition of probable cause...not #2 or #3 definition)...do you stand by that statement...yes or no?

3) You furthered your erroneous statement about investigative stops by asserting that a road block is not an investigative stop..and later admitted again that you did not think it met the definition....do you stand by that statement...yes or no?

now you want to delve in to the intricacies of the law of which you obviously know nothing about. Now the State Police are a legal authority!!!

Yes in Illinois the Police are considered a legal authority...what do you call the police in California?

Let me help you out dumb cop,

Oh...gotcha!:thumbsup:
By the way...There are rules about personal attacks..I thought you knew that?:chuckle: (and its "Let me help you out, you dumb cop".... Let me help you out dumb cop still sounds like Tim Lumber)

The difference between you and me is cop manuals are the authority for you, the law is the authority for me.
:laughing: You really are an arrogant little man...arn't you?


What is so hard for you to understand, you can't walk up to John Q. Citizen and stop him because you feel like it.

Show me where I said you could (or do I need to add that to your erroneaous statements)...and relax...or youll never get that private sector job.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 02:40 PM
1. Cops trample rights
2. If cops didn't trample rights with respect to probable cause, no one would get away with probable cause technicalities.

3rd try.

And the third time you sound like a cop-hating arrogant little man, who got schooled and shown up about obvious lies to bolster an intelligent persona on a message board...and is about to have a coronary.

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 02:53 PM
There are rules about personal attacks..I thought you knew that?:chuckle: (and its You are really a dumb cop..."You really a dumb cop" sounds like Tim Lumber)
Your statements about cops show an immature and prejudiced attitude...You can call it what you want.

Actually, either grammatical construction is fine. Really is an adverb modifying "are." Good try, remember probable cause for an arrest is different than probable cause for a warrant!!!! Don't dish it out if you can't take it right? Isn't that what you said?


Really?...I answer that accusation by again bringing up your erroneous statements and asking you again for a simple yes or no
1) You stated that an investigative stop can only be initiated for weapons...Do you stand by that statement...yes or no?
2) You stated that an officer must have probable cause to initiate an investigative stop (This being your first definition of probable cause...not #2 or #3 definition)...do you stand by that statement...yes or no?
3) You furthered your erroneous statement about investigative stops by asserting that a road block is not an investigative stop..and later admitted again that you did not think it met the definition....do you stand by that statement...yes or no?

Like I said, I'll start answering your questions when you start answering mine, that's fair.

Yes in Illinois the Police are considered a legal authority...what do you call the police in California?

No police agency is a legal authority when it comes to interpretation of the law.

:laughing: You really are an arrogant little man...arn't you?

Show me where I said you could (or do I need to add that to your erroneaous statements)...and relax...or youll never get that private sector job. :toofunny:

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 03:21 PM
In a last ditch attempt to bring this to a close. Perhaps we are both arguing the same thing. Apparently in IL you call them investigative stops, in CA what you term an investigative stop we call a limited search or terry stop. Here is a CA lawyer (not me, he's in Fresno) on Terry Stops. http://www.capozzilaw.com/article.jsp?practArea=38&articleIndex=0

Perhaps CA is different from Ill in that regard. The state laws may be different. Notice he is saying the same thing I am, a Terry Stop is an investigative stop and it is for weapons. Maybe there is some state level difference between CA and IL. I don't have the desire to research it, I don't typically concern myself with other state's laws. I doubt you have the time or inclination to do the same for CA.

My attempt at resolving this, take it or leave it.

tony hipchest
05-12-2009, 03:58 PM
just thought i'd add my 2 cents...

Cop Land may be Sylvester Stallones finest flick, and some local agencies are starting to use twitter to alert motorists of the whens and wheres of dwi checkpoints (which i think is cool).

i need to learn more about this twitter stuff.

anyways...

:hunch:

oh... and legalize it! (gardens that is)

SteelersinCA
05-12-2009, 04:02 PM
There is actually a national registry for DUI/DWI checkpoints, I forget the name of it, but it's a subscription service that will email/text you locations of checkpoints around you. There are also some iPhone and Blackberry apps that will do the same.

Will you move to CA if they legalize it? Arnold wants to to raise money.