Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Video: Citizen is detained for open carry.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Brown" data-source="post: 1832330" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>Stop and Identify caselaw has more recent decisions bythe Supreme Court than Brown vs. Texas such as Illinois vs. Wardlow and Hodari vs. California both of which offer no requirement for the police to advise you of the crime you are being detained for. </p><p></p><p>Also, take a look at Brown vs. Texas again. The issue is whether or not the police can compel you to identify yourself not whether or not they have to tell you the reason for your detainment. The issue was there was a Texas statute that required you to identify yourself to police when asked. THAT was the constitutional issue, not whether the police had reasonable suspicion or not or if they had to articulate that suspicion at the time of detainment. </p><p></p><p>Police officers are required to articulate the suspicion to the court, not to the suspect.</p><p></p><p>Be real careful using caselaw simply because it agrees with any given position. It may not be the most recent or it may no longer be considered good caselaw. Plus many folks without the training or experience to applyt caselaw do so incorrectly or take it completely out of context. Context gives caselaw its meaning. Even those trained to do so frequently mis-apply it.</p><p></p><p>Thus it can real risky to assert your "rights" based on caselaw that you may not understand properly.</p><p></p><p>YMMV.</p><p></p><p>Michael Brown</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Brown, post: 1832330, member: 18"] Stop and Identify caselaw has more recent decisions bythe Supreme Court than Brown vs. Texas such as Illinois vs. Wardlow and Hodari vs. California both of which offer no requirement for the police to advise you of the crime you are being detained for. Also, take a look at Brown vs. Texas again. The issue is whether or not the police can compel you to identify yourself not whether or not they have to tell you the reason for your detainment. The issue was there was a Texas statute that required you to identify yourself to police when asked. THAT was the constitutional issue, not whether the police had reasonable suspicion or not or if they had to articulate that suspicion at the time of detainment. Police officers are required to articulate the suspicion to the court, not to the suspect. Be real careful using caselaw simply because it agrees with any given position. It may not be the most recent or it may no longer be considered good caselaw. Plus many folks without the training or experience to applyt caselaw do so incorrectly or take it completely out of context. Context gives caselaw its meaning. Even those trained to do so frequently mis-apply it. Thus it can real risky to assert your "rights" based on caselaw that you may not understand properly. YMMV. Michael Brown [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Video: Citizen is detained for open carry.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom