Exactly. When you ask a guy to turn over his guns and he says he won’t and starts saying he doesn’t have to comply because of the constitution, your spidery senses start tingling that “hey, maybe this guy is a criminal or mentally ill” and even though you’re a Republican cop and supporter the second amendment, you’re going to arrest this obvious bad guy and make sure his guns are confiscated and that he loses the right to purchase guns ever again.

Why do you love licking the boots of authority? Why do you hate libertarian values?

Lay off the soy. It’s amplifying your learning disability.

We're going in circles here. i dont understand why we're circling back to the same agreed upon points.

you're required in all states to show id when lawfully stopped under reasonable suspicion. knowing whether you're under reasonable suspicion requires the officer to tell you what he's reasonable suspicious of.

if for instance an officer pulls you over for no reason you're legally not required to show id. it gets sticky when you have to prove how you knew you weren't under a lawful stop, but the first step is if the officer told you why you were stopped.

tbh i've said all i can say. we're talking about an exceptionally rare case if a cop who pulls someone over and not only doesnt tell them why but persists to not tell them why when asked after they decline to show ID. so we have a stubborn cop coming up against a stubborn person. both of whom decline to yield. AND for a cop to decline to tell the person why they were pulled over it's in almost all cases because the cop thinks they have a weapon and doesnt want to let on that they know a weapon is present. diagnosing a unicorn isnt my idea of fun.

That does not require the reasonable and articulable suspicion to be disclosed to the individual under suspicion.

Correct. The "reasonable and articulable suspicion" is necessary for the cop to MAKE an investigatory stop. Nothing says the cop must articulate this reason to the person that was stopped though.



/e Btw, the reason the cops don't like to tell the person that has been stopped... what he did wrong, is that if the reason doesn't happen to agree with what that person is eventually charged with... it gets tossed out of court.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 18 2019 12:53pm

It doesnt get tossed out of court though, the case I linked was a case where the charge and the reason articulated to the suspect didnt match.

That last part isn't true. it's like saying if you get pulled over for a burnt out tail light they can't charge you for the kilo of coke in your back seat.

Tbh, I don't remember where I read it. I had like 16 tabs open. One article had reasons the ID request was legal, and also described why the cop didn't have to explain the charges.

It had to do with "something like" the probnlems officers had in court if the claimed infraction, didn't match the actual crime the perp was charged with. It further explained that to make sure this problem in court didn't arise.... officers tended to list a whole bunch of infractions so as to be able to end up matching what the perp was finally charged with.
So there were some more court cases that dealt with this issue.

Unfortunately, I can't remember which article had this expansion of the reasons the officers used NOT to state what the perp was charged with. Between then and now, I've been dealing with the landlord and a plumber he needed to call in for one of his units.

But I know "something very like" what I posted above, was the reasoning the courts used to make it legal for the officer to NOT have to tell the perp the reason he/she was pulled over.




/e



Needless to say, I expected that argument. In fact that occurred to me as well. See my explanation further up in this very post.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 18 2019 01:18pm

You understand how if-then works, right?

the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during a police Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.

If reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement is NOT present, then requiring name disclosure does violate the fourth amendment.

True. But again... this still does NOT require the officer to "articulate" the suspicion(s) to the perp. It is only necessary that the officer HAS reasonable and articulable suspicion(s). I assume here, that the officer must be able to articulate the suspicion(s) to the court though.

This post was edited by Ghot on Oct 18 2019 01:26pm