Re: Can the Police Detain You After Issuing a Warning Ticket
If the USSC wants to reverse itself, it has that right. We shall see. But, so far (and I am on a laptop and not at home or the office where I have my resources) the standard of case law is that unreasonably prolonging the detention is unlawful, and once you have completed your business you cannot just hold onto a person absent some new reasonable suspicion to detain further.
Re: Can the Police Detain You After Issuing a Warning Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
If the USSC wants to reverse itself, it has that right. We shall see. But, so far (and I am on a laptop and not at home or the office where I have my resources) the standard of case law is that unreasonably prolonging the detention is unlawful, and once you have completed your business you cannot just hold onto a person absent some new reasonable suspicion to detain further.
reverse itself? care to show an opinion that they would be reversing?
You are arguing any detention after the justification for the stop has been completed is unreasonable. The 8th doesn't agree with you. It appears they are taking a stand that a de minimus detention is not unreasonable. That is what the SCOTUS is hearing. The issue of waiting for the dog to be brought to the scene deals with a reasonable detention based on the justification for the stop. This new issue is simply; how long can they continue to detain you without any reasonable suspicion and so far the 8th has said 7-8 minutes is not unreasonable.
Re: Can the Police Detain You After Issuing a Warning Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
And, of course, since one guy says he is aware of someone doing this it MUST be happening everywhere! :rolleyes:
Here's another link from my local community. This man caused two innocent men to spend decades in prison through his fraudulent and perjurious testimony. It may not be happening everywhere, but it happened here in Florida. And it has happened elsewhere. You can get a dog to "hit" any time you like, just get him excited and make him think his toy is in the car. It is not a difficult thing.
Quote:
Quoting Florida Today
Of 48 grand jury indictments in Brevard during those four years, FLORIDA TODAY found 16 murder and capital sexual assault cases in which the dog handler testified or provided key evidence.
Re: Can the Police Detain You After Issuing a Warning Ticket
How about their holding that a routine traffic stop "must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." (Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 500.) And then there is their decision that a detention "justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission." (Caballes (2005) 543 U.S. 405, 407.) And, a further decision that states that the key is whether or not "the police diligently pursued a means of investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly." (Sharpe (1985) 470 U.S. 675, 686-688.) They have further decided that questioning the driver on matters unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop is allowed as long as the questioning does not unduly prolong the detention. (Mendez (9th Cir. 2007) 476 F.3d 1077, 1080; and Johnson (2009) 555 U.S. 323, 325 re: the officer's inquiries may not "measurably extend the duration of the stop.") And, from the 9th Circuit, if, before the original detention has been resolved, the officer has obtained the detainee's valid consent for a continuation of the detention, for instance, while you search his vehicle, or, the officer has developed reasonable suspicion about some other or different offense, then he is permitted to extend the detention. (Rojas-Millan (9th Cir. 2000) 234 F.3d 464, 469-470--license plate and possible stolen vehicle concerns escalated to possible drug transportation;
Then there is a host of California case law that I must adhere to that reinforces and even expands upon this limited detention concept.
So, if the USSC decides to revers and allow for detentions based on NO reasonable suspicion, then it sets a precedent that should set any civil libertarian afire as it opens the door for detentions without any cause. Indeed, the USSC would be saying that a detention absent even reasonable suspicion would be permissible. This is a scary road to travel down. I suspect they took the case only to reinforce that the detention is NOT unlimited and not remove the reasonable suspicion requirement.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Quoting
Bubba Jimmy
Here's another link from my local community. This man caused two innocent men to spend decades in prison through his fraudulent and perjurious testimony. It may not be happening everywhere, but it happened here in Florida. And it has happened elsewhere. You can get a dog to "hit" any time you like, just get him excited and make him think his toy is in the car. It is not a difficult thing.
I'm sure I can find an example of anything if I look for it. And with hundreds of thousands of contacts between law enforcement the citizenry every day, it would be highly improbable that none of them would be without some problem. But, of course, the fact that malfeasance occurs even with regularity in one place does NOT mean that it occurs anywhere else and certainly not everywhere.
Re: Can the Police Detain You After Issuing a Warning Ticket
Quote:
They have further decided that questioning the driver on matters unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop is allowed as long as the questioning does not unduly prolong the detention. (Mendez (9th Cir. 2007) 476 F.3d 1077, 1080; and Johnson (2009) 555 U.S. 323, 325 re: the officer's inquiries may not "measurably extend the duration of the stop.")
mendez; seriously? That should never have gone to appeals anyway. The guy was stopped for no registration; legit. His license was being ran and while that was ongoing, it was realized the temp plate on the vehicle was expired. When approaching mendez to inform of that, there was an ongoing conversation about his prior charges so one of the cops asked about whether the was a gun in the car; mendez responded affirmatively and the rest is history.
Quote:
The arrest occurred only eight minutes after the stop.
there was no prolonging of the detention beyond what was reasonable for the purpose until the idiot ratted on himself. It wasn't the time that was the guys big issue anyway. It was that he didn't believe the cops could ask him about anything not specific to the stop:
Quote:
Mendez's primary argument, that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to support their questioning, is "premised on the assumption that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question [him]... because the questioning constituted a discrete Fourth Amendment event."
aren't you the one that says a cop can ask anything he wants to ask?
It appear SCOTUS agrees with you as well but does limit it to not prolonging the stop:
Quote:
The Supreme Court, however, recently decided in Muehler, that "mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure" unless it prolongs the detention of the individual, and, thus, no reasonable suspicion is required to justify questioning that does not prolong the stop. Muehler, 544 U.S. at 101, 125 S.Ct. 1465 (internal quotation marks omitted)
I also do not see Mendez supporting your argument. Some of the other cases might but Mendez only relies on other cases in the statement that a detention cannot be prolonged by unrelated questioning (which was not even applicable because he detention was not prolonged by any questioning).
Royer;
Quote:
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that respondent had been involuntarily confined within the small room without probable cause, that, at the time his consent to search was obtained, the involuntary detention had exceeded the limited restraint permitted by Terry v. Ohio,392 U. S. 1, and that such consent was therefore invalid because tainted by the unlawful confinement.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
it was about an outright illegal detention. It had nothing to do with detaining him beyond the time allowed for an initial contact. The issue of Terry in the case was not about time but the scope of the investigation.
Quote:
(b) In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant. Here, the DEA agent diligently pursued his investigation, and clearly no delay unnecessary to the investigation was involved. Pp. 470 U. S. 686-688.
closer but the problem with that case is; the bales of what appeared to be marijuana in the back of the truck is the issue they were talking about resolving their suspicions about. In other words; act or let him go but what is reasonable became the crux of the issue and it was held that the time was not unreasonable.
sharp:
Quote:
Id. at 970. But the court held the investigative stops unlawful because they "failed to meet the requirement of brevity" thought to govern detentions on less than probable cause. Ibid. Basing its decision solely on the duration of the respondents' detentions, the majority concluded that
"the length of the detentions effectively transformed them into de facto arrests without bases in probable cause, unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment.'
"yes, brevity but take note, in the case I cited, we are speaking of 8 minutes. In Sharp we are talking about 30-40 minutes. 30 minutes is unreasonable even by the SCOTUS case regarding the dogs (I think 20 minutes was determined to be reasonable). 8 minutes is not comparable.
Quote:
So, if the USSC decides to revers and allow for detentions based on NO reasonable suspicion, then it sets a precedent that should set any civil libertarian afire as it opens the door for detentions without any cause. Indeed, the USSC would be saying that a detention absent even reasonable suspicion would be permissible. This is a scary road to travel down. I suspect they took the case only to reinforce that the detention is NOT unlimited and not remove the reasonable suspicion requirement.
It's already scary Carl. Way too many cops make up reasonable suspicion, or at least claim it to bully the suspect into compliance.
but anyway, I have little doubt a short duration detention is going to be seen as a reasonable intrusion and as such, endorsed by the SCOTUS.
It's that darn word; reasonable, that is being used to remove the rights the Constitution says we have. Anything is possible as long as it is reasonable. It's just that my opinion of reasonable does not match their opinion and obviously, my opinion doesn't count.
Re: Can the Police Detain You After Issuing a Warning Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
I'm sure I can find an example of anything if I look for it. And with hundreds of thousands of contacts between law enforcement the citizenry every day, it would be highly improbable that none of them would be without some problem. But, of course, the fact that malfeasance occurs even with regularity in one place does NOT mean that it occurs anywhere else and certainly not everywhere.
Oh, I'm not surfing the web looking to dig up dirt on cops. The two links I've share, on the dog handler and Derek Middendorf, are right here in my home town. This is stuff this community is living with. And my own experience with the perjurious cop under oath. When a community has this kind of nonsense in front of it, in the media and in its daily experience, it has an effect. I know the parents of one of the men wrongfully convicted by John Preston's testimony (he's the fraudulent dog handler). Wilton Dedge spent over two decades in prison for a crime he didn't commit in part because of this man's now-discredited testimony.
So when a cop testifies that the dog made a "hit", can you at least see how it might affect the jury pool in my home town?
Re: Can the Police Detain You After Issuing a Warning Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
...a detention "justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission."... And, a further decision that states that the key is whether or not "the police diligently pursued a means of investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly."... They have further decided that questioning the driver on matters unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop is allowed as long as the questioning does not unduly prolong the detention.... the officer's inquiries may not "measurably extend the duration of the stop.")...
Those cases, in essence, are all reciting the de minimis standard. I agree with Carl that if the Supreme Court changes that approach, defining a time threshold for what constitutes arbitrary detention without any reasonable suspicion, "it sets a precedent that should set any civil libertarian afire as it opens the door for detentions without any cause". The Supreme Court has been very reluctant to endorse bright line rules in the past, and I don't expect that to change. It may be difficult to define the precise conditions under which a detention becomes unreasonable, but I very much doubt that the Supreme Court is going to resolve the conflict by choosing an arbitrary number of minutes of detention.