All I know is that my goal during a traffic stop is to make the officer comfortable. I like to meet him (or her) and shake his hand, so I immediately get out of my car and walk back to him and and tell him in a loud and clear voice: "I have a gun!"
Also look at this one. http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf
All I know is that my goal during a traffic stop is to make the officer comfortable. I like to meet him (or her) and shake his hand, so I immediately get out of my car and walk back to him and and tell him in a loud and clear voice: "I have a gun!"
In each instance, officers seem to feel they may violate a citizens rights, based on their belief that, even though they`ve seen no aggressive or threatening behavior, that they may "be in danger". What a load of hooey. Unconstitutional as well as unacceptable.
Police officers should probably get used to the notion that when the constitution requires them to have articulable evidence to support a reasonable believe that a person is armed AND dangerous, they should maybe actually have some articulable evidence before seizing property.I love these threads. One should probably simply get used to the idea that officers have the ability to disarm anyone they have made legal contact with, for suspicion of violating the law or ordinance. I didn't do it as course of habit, but there were times, when "something didn't seem right," and the person disarmed.
Kut (sees clouds gathering)
Police officers should probably get used to the notion that when the constitution requires them to have articulable evidence to support a reasonable believe that a person is armed AND dangerous, they should maybe actually have some articulable evidence before seizing property.
The state bears the burden in every seizure absent a warrant. People don't have to articulate crap. What you describe is what's called an "unparticularized hunch", something explicitly addressed in Terry.I think people should be able to articulate why it is "unreasonable" for an officer to disarm a person who is suspected of being in violation a law or ordinance. So if I was to articulate it, I would say "Judge, I disarmed this person because they were in violation of XYZ. I would not have disarmed this person if they were not suspected of violating XYZ. In my experience and many others that serve in LE, people whom I make contact with due to suspicion of violating XYZ, are far more likely to pose a risk to myself than those who have not violated XYZ, hence why that person was disarmed."
The state bears the burden in every seizure absent a warrant. People don't have to articulate crap. What you describe is what's called an "unparticularized hunch", something explicitly addressed in Terry.
I articulated the reasoning. Explain why such articulation isn't valid.
All I know is that my goal during a traffic stop is to make the officer comfortable. I like to meet him (or her) and shake his hand, so I immediately get out of my car and walk back to him and and tell him in a loud and clear voice: "I have a gun!"
When did protect and serve turn into bust and enforce?
"Bust and service", the SquirrelnutZ motto.When was it ever one or the other? I bust robbers and enforce the law against robbery to protect the community from robbers, which is the service a robbery detective offers.