One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (Police)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Dave70968

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
6,676
Reaction score
4,619
Location
Norman
So it's not like this was a case of the police not having reasonable suspicion(or merely going on a fishing expedition), because they did find something.....the courts just decided it was inappropriate regardless(which is a win for the 4th amendment in the end)

The fact that they ultimately found something does not mean that they had reasonable suspicion. What is found in a search does not retroactively justify the search. The High Court held that there was no reasonable suspicion following the conclusion of the traffic stop. In the Court's own words:
Question presented:
This Court has held that, during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, asking a driver to exit a vehicle, conducting a drug sniff with a trained canine, or asking a few off-topic questions are "de minimis" intrusions on personal liberty that do not require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to comport with the Fourth Amendment. This case poses the question of whether the same rule applies after the conclusion of the traffic stop, so that an officer may extend the already-completed stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification. [Emphasis mine]
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/13-09972qp.pdf
From the Court's opinion
After receiving evidence, a Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied. The Magistrate Judge found no probable cause to search the vehicle [note: probable cause is a different, higher standard than reasonable suspicion] independent of the dog alert. App. 100 (apart from “information given by the dog,” “Officer Struble had [no]thing other than a rather large hunch”). He further found that no reasonable suspicion supported the detention once Struble issued the written warning.
...
We granted certiorari to resolve a division among lower courts on the question whether police routinely may extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion, in order to conduct a dog sniff. 573 U. S. ___ (2014). Compare, e.g., United States v. Morgan, 270 F. 3d 625, 632 (CA8 2001) (postcompletion delay of “well under ten minutes” permissible), with, e.g., State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶13, 229 P. 3d 650, 658 (2010) (“[W]ithout additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded.”). [Emphasis added]
Read the whole thing here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf
 

Hobbes

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
8,738
Reaction score
749
Location
The Nations
The senate bill in the OP goes to joint conference to be reconciled with the house bill that has already passed....

But far more distressing is a bill at the Legislature that has the potential to bring the Open Records Act to its knees. Language included in House Bill 1361 by Rep. Claudia Griffith, D-Cleveland, would let any public body determine whether an open records request would cause an “excessive disruption.” That body could then deny the request in its entirety.

Approval of this bill would allow any agency to simply tell a member of the media or any citizen making an open records request, “Sorry, this request is asking a lot — you’re out of luck.”

This language is part of a bill that also deals with dashboard cameras and body cameras used by law enforcement. Some in law enforcement are concerned about costs associated with storing and reviewing the videos, and with the amount of lag time allowed between when a video is made and when it can be released. These are legitimate issues; some tweaking to the law may be needed.

But the other piece of this bill is a travesty. “That has to change,” said Sen. David Holt, R-Oklahoma City, “or this will be one of the worst bills ever passed for transparency.” He’s right. Oklahomans should insist that this assault on the Open Records Act is repelled.
http://newsok.com/oklahomas-open-records-act-is-taking-a-beating/article/5395914
 

John6185

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
9,309
Reaction score
9,607
Location
OKC
I liked it decades ago, you kill a cop and you get the chair. Even Capone and his boys did' want a dead cop on their doorstep. And the gas chamber had it's merits as well but times have changed and with the DOJ it's ok to do anything you want. I liked it when children could walk down the street by themselves and no one bothered them.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,424
Reaction score
15,659
Location
Collinsville
I don't see were Open Records Act legislation isn't a bad thing. It appears to be a protection for victims of violent crimes. Keeps the news agencies from obtaining those videos, and profiting from them. What's ya'lls thoughts?

I think news agencies should be forced to compensate victims from the profits they gain, when exploiting their pain and suffering for fun and profit. :D
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom