? about daugter getting stop/search/pat down

[mustanginky]

when i typed my response before, on my phone, i could have sworn you had stated her race. i apologize for that.

what i don't apologize for though is my other statements. what he did would be called textbook good law enforcement techniques. it has been explained why he did what he did as best we can without actually being there.

facts
1)daughter did something to cause a traffic stop, probably a tail light
2)daughter consented to a search
3)nothing was found and she was released with a warning

these are just the things i took from your own admission.

let me ask you a question, would you be mad if he hadn't patted her down?

 

[EvergreenSVT]

You keep missing the point. There is a huge difference between a true "Terry Stop" and a patdown for safety during a probable cause interaction. The point of Terry is that an officer only needs articulable reasons to stop and talk and perform an immediate patdown for weapons for a person meeting the requirements of Terry. This wasnt a Terry stop.

I wasn't referring to this stop.

Note though that several people in this thread missed the tail light part and moved directly to justify the stop based on suspicious activity, which would be a Terry stop, no?

 

[FordSVTFan]

I wasn't referring to this stop.

That is unfortunate, because I was.

Note though that several people in this thread missed the tail light part and moved directly to justify the stop based on suspicious activity, which would be a Terry stop, no?

Without PC or RS to make the stop, just on articulable facts it is likely a Terry Stop of an auto.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

I said I patdown each person removed from the vehicle during a traffic stop for their safety and mine.

Yes, you did. And I simply asked for a citation of the case which allows that.

This was NOT a Terry Stop, get it through your head. This was a stop based on probable cause.

I was not commenting on the OPs case, I was commenting that since the pat down is not compatible with Terry, there must be some other case to cite. Please cite that case so that I may read it.

Also, the Supreme Court has ruled over and over that a traffic stop is NOT the seizure of the person.

"When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment ." Justice Souter writing for the majority in Brendlin v. California. It's the first sentence of the opinion, can't miss it. He concludes that passengers are also seized.

Also from Brendlin:
"A person is seized by the police and thus entitled to challenge the government’s action under the Fourth Amendment when the officer, “ ‘by means of physical force or show of authority,’ ” terminates or restrains his freedom of movement, Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, 434 (1991) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 19, n. 16 (1968) ), “through means intentionally applied,” Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U. S. 593, 597 (1989) (emphasis in original).

...there needs to be some test for telling when a seizure occurs in response to authority, and when it does not. The test was devised by Justice Stewart in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (1980) , who wrote that a seizure occurs if “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave,” id., at 554 (principal opinion).

The law is settled that in Fourth Amendment terms a traffic stop entails a seizure of the driver “even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653 (1979) ; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 809–810 (1996) . And although we have not, until today, squarely answered the question whether a passenger is also seized, we have said over and over in dicta that during a traffic stop an officer seizes everyone in the vehicle, not just the driver. See, e.g., Prouse, supra, at 653 (“topping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of [the Fourth and Fourteenth] Amendments”); Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U. S. 1, 4, n. 3 (1980) (per curiam) (“There can be no question that the stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitute a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment ”); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 436–437 (1984) (“[W]e have long acknowledged that stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a seizure” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Hensley, 469 U. S. 221, 226 (1985) (“topping a car and detaining its occupants constitute a seizure”); Whren, supra, at 809–810 (“Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of [the Fourth Amendment ]”).

See also Arizona v. Johnson. All of the cases of pat downs that I'm seeing in these cases rely on Terry and the reasonable suspicion requirement for frisking.

It is clear you are hung up on a single construct of law and want to apply it here where it is not applicable.

I'm pointing out where the Terry construct is inapplicable and asking which other construct ought to be used.

Please tell me you have nothing to do with the practice of law.

Thank God no, I am a productive citizen.

Also, am I to understand from your last post that traffic stops are permissible in cases where the suspicion of criminal activity is articulable but falls below the standard set for "reasonable suspicion?" Please direct me to that as well. Thank you.

 

[kirks5oh]

Lol at two 17 year old girls driving a full-sized conversion van around. Be thankful that you have a daughter who appears to be a very well-behaved teenager. Realize the police officer has no way of determining who is a good 17 year old, and who is a druggie without making the stop. Fix the taillight-that's your fault. Move on. Maybe your daughter seemed nervous, or gave him other reason to search. Or maybe he figured there was a decent chance of finding drugs in the vehicle--ever watch the show COPS?

 

[thepizz]

I had NO idea people still had/drove conversion vans anyway? Is it still the 90s? Driving one of those things is PC alone!

 

[FordSVTFan]

Thank God no, I am a productive citizen.

Also, am I to understand from your last post that traffic stops are permissible in cases where the suspicion of criminal activity is articulable but falls below the standard set for "reasonable suspicion?" Please direct me to that as well. Thank you.

I am done trying to have an educated discourse on the law. You are simply not equipped to do so. You google and post without realizing that the law is not black and white and every decision is fact dependent. You simply do not get that "seizure" in the fourth amendment realm specifically denotes "unreasonable seizure." Traffic stops are brief encounters and do not rise to the level of unreasonable seizure of the person so for purposes of 4th amendment violation, in effect, they are not seizures. It is a brief encounter where a person is detained. But, if your knowledge of the law went beyond google you make be able to make that connection instead of requiring me to waste my time educating and correcting you.

Your silly comment above clarifies your stance on the Law and those that practice it or enforce it.

Please share with everyone what it is you do for a living and what educational training you have. I mean besides google.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

I am done trying to have an educated discourse on the law. You are simply not equipped to do so. You google and post without realizing that the law is not black and white and every decision is fact dependent.

How like a lawyer to claim that sentences don't mean what they say.

You simply do not get that "seizure" in the fourth amendment realm specifically denotes "unreasonable seizure." Traffic stops are brief encounters and do not rise to the level of unreasonable seizure of the person so for purposes of 4th amendment violation, in effect, they are not seizures. It is a brief encounter where a person is detained.

Per Mr. Chief Justice Warren: "It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person." If there are unreasonable seizures there must also be reasonable seizures, no? Yet both are seizures, and by definition a detention is a seizure. If allowable, it is a reasonable seizure. If unlawful, it is an unreasonable seizure. I could find a dozen cases showing an identical definition of seizure, yet you will not present a single case showing another.

Your silly comment above clarifies your stance on the Law and those that practice it or enforce it.

I actually like lawyers and considered not putting it there, but I felt that with your condescending and arrogant attitude I ought to put something with an edge in there. I should not have.

Please share with everyone what it is you do for a living and what educational training you have. I mean besides google.

I have a BA and I am not a lawyer, nor am I a policeman. Are you an 1811?

 

[DKING89]

OP: Would this have been a non-issue if this was a female officer doing the search and pat down?

 

[NyteByte]

"When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment ." Justice Souter writing for the majority in Brendlin v. California. It's the first sentence of the opinion, can't miss it. He concludes that passengers are also seized.

See also Arizona v. Johnson. All of the cases of pat downs that I'm seeing in these cases rely on Terry and the reasonable suspicion requirement for frisking.

I'm pointing out where the Terry construct is inapplicable and asking which other construct ought to be used.

Thanks for posting all that information since it was very interesting. The facts and examples you found speak for themselves.

 

[FordSVTFan]

How like a lawyer to claim that sentences don't mean what they say.

It is like a lawyer to be perfectly clear about the meaning of the law or legal decisions. You keep screaming "Green, Green, Green, when in fact it is Blue."

Per Mr. Chief Justice Warren: "It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person." If there are unreasonable seizures there must also be reasonable seizures, no? Yet both are seizures, and by definition a detention is a seizure. If allowable, it is a reasonable seizure. If unlawful, it is an unreasonable seizure. I could find a dozen cases showing an identical definition of seizure, yet you will not present a single case showing another.

You just made my point. The 4th Amendment specifically refers to UNREASONABLE SEIZURES. Reasonable seizures like in a traffic stop based in PC or RS are not afforded the protections of the 4th. Do you get it yet?

I actually like lawyers and considered not putting it there, but I felt that with your condescending and arrogant attitude I ought to put something with an edge in there. I should not have.

You clearly do not understand the law or its application. Your lack of training in the law leads you to apply "layperson" definitions to specific legal definitions/terms and therefore make an incorrect assumption that they are perfectly clear and state what you claim them to state.

Like I said I do this every single day and review the case law and statutes that deal with it. I simply will not continue a discourse where you choose to apply layperson meaning and understanding to specific legal terminology and therefore misapply it.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

You just made my point. The 4th Amendment specifically refers to UNREASONABLE SEIZURES. Reasonable seizures like in a traffic stop based in PC or RS are not afforded the protections of the 4th. Do you get it yet?

So you agree with my statement that a person has been seized (either reasonably or unreasonably) when they have been restrained from moving by a policeman, and that a traffic stop is a seizure, contrary to your previous statement? Do you also agree now (contrary to previous assertions about Terry) that Reasonable Suspicion based on articulable facts is the lowest standard for which an officer can make a seizure?

I don't like the way you put that. People are afforded the protection of the fourth amendment, not activities. And a person lawfully seized is not without fourth amendment rights.

Are you an 1811? Or some other sort of FLEO? Or are you now a government lawyer?

 

[Templar]

The LEO searched the van BEFORE he checked them for weapons? WOW.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Our agency's policy (ref: Terry V Ohio & Arizona V Johnson and FLETC standards) requires the officer to articulate:

-Belief a crime has/is/will be committed
-Belief the individual was armed/dangerous

Only then may a weapons frisk be conducted.

 

[FordSVTFan]

So you agree with my statement that a person has been seized (either reasonably or unreasonably) when they have been restrained from moving by a policeman, and that a traffic stop is a seizure, contrary to your previous statement? Do you also agree now (contrary to previous assertions about Terry) that Reasonable Suspicion based on articulable facts is the lowest standard for which an officer can make a seizure?

Once again still looking for black and white when the law is gray. My prior statement indicated reality. A traffic stop based in PC or RS is not an unreasonable seizure and therefore not violative of the 4th Amendment and thus the protections afforded are not called into play.

You continue to use a Terry standard for things that have nothing to do with Terry. I will now stop confusing with logic and actual legal prowess.

I don't like the way you put that. People are afforded the protection of the fourth amendment, not activities. And a person lawfully seized is not without fourth amendment rights.

Feel free to continue to try to spin this however you like. I deal with these issues multiple times a day and cannot continue to try and discern nuances of the law for you.

If you continue to attempt to apply the Terry standard to non-Terry police interactions you will continue to be lost in the world of police procedure and constitutional law.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Our agency's policy (ref: Terry V Ohio & Arizona V Johnson and FLETC standards) requires the officer to articulate:

-Belief a crime has/is/will be committed
-Belief the individual was armed/dangerous

Only then may a weapons frisk be conducted.

But that is if the stop is not based on P.C. :beer:

 

[neatofrito1618]

lol @ OP for thinking drugs are something that are confined to some specific group.

I know plenty of "good girls" that do drugs. Those that wake up at 4:30 AM on school days to do volunteer work in the community still like to sit down and smoke weed at the end of the day just as much as the next guy.

My old roomate did an assload of volunteer work, had event reminders in her phone to remind her of the exact day she was eligable to donate plasma again, etc. and graduated with a BioMed Science degree with a 4.0 and smoked weed everyday. You would be AMAZED at the amount of 4.0 students that consume more drugs than you can imagine, and not necessarily study drugs(adderall, meth/coke, etc.)

And I'm sure all their parent's would be willing to bet the ranch they wouldn't touch drugs if you had a gun pointed at them.

 

[EvergreenSVT]

Once again still looking for black and white when the law is gray. My prior statement indicated reality. A traffic stop based in PC or RS is not an unreasonable seizure and therefore not violative of the 4th Amendment and thus the protections afforded are not called into play.

Yet you indicated that there was a third, lower threshold for a stop (specifically for a Terry stop) that was articulable suspicion that was not reasonable. You also indicated that a traffic stop was not a seizure, which is obviously not the case. Of course if it is lawful it is a REASONABLE seizure, but still a seizure, and you are correct in that it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment. All I said was that persons had 4A rights even when seized lawfully.

You continue to use a Terry standard for things that have nothing to do with Terry. I will now stop confusing with logic and actual legal prowess.

I have yet to find a case that has anything to do with a pat down for weapons and doesn't draw directly from Terry. Now, if you are alluding to an officer being able to do a search for evidence in the OPs case, then you are the one who is looking at the wrong thing. You are free to cite a case, and have been all along, that gives officers authority to search for weapons specifically, without a reason to believe they are there. Or are you referring to the automatic frisk permissible with persons suspected of certain crimes?

Feel free to continue to try to spin this however you like. I deal with these issues multiple times a day and cannot continue to try and discern nuances of the law for you.

If you continue to attempt to apply the Terry standard to non-Terry police interactions you will continue to be lost in the world of police procedure and constitutional law.

You have made no attempt to explain anything, beyond insults at my intelligence, education, comprehension, etc. If you wished at any time to be helpful you could have posted case names for me to read.

 

[caveeagle]

when i typed my response before, on my phone, i could have sworn you had stated her race. i apologize for that.

what i don't apologize for though is my other statements. what he did would be called textbook good law enforcement techniques. it has been explained why he did what he did as best we can without actually being there.

facts
1)daughter did something to cause a traffic stop, probably a tail light
2)daughter consented to a search
3)nothing was found and she was released with a warning

these are just the things i took from your own admission.

let me ask you a question, would you be mad if he hadn't patted her down?

Look, I am really not sure what your point is. I do appreciate the perspective from the LOE on this site. There is some other J@ck-A$$ rhetoric going on here that is just pointless. You don't know my daughter, or my family, so opinions on that matter are just plain useless. I am 42 years old, have 4 children and have been around the block enough to know what passed in the normal world. When something does not make sense to me, I inquire with an open mind. That is why I posted my question here.

What continues to disturb me is some of the attitutes that seem prevalent.

Point-A: I get that a tail-light being out is PC for a traffic stop. But... somehow to assume that I was 'at fault' is rediculous. How can anyone prevent a bulb from burning out!! Back in the early 90's, I used to drive my '67 very on a daily basis. I carried a box of spare fuses and bulbs in that car. When I got stopped (Gainesville PD) for a blown taillight, I was surprised and offered to replace it immediately. The cop said to me "I don't really care. Youre still getting a ticket." (true story). WOW! what a great way to perpetuate bad attitudes about cops. I he really didn't care that I replaced the freakin' bulb, I can only infer that the stop was really just an excuse to harass me or look for some other possible reason to possibly arrest me. So that is my current opinion (FWIW). Cops don't really give a crap about a burnt out light. Its just an excuse to stop and dig deeper. (sounds like harasment to me!)

Point-B: The conversion van is jut the family car. There may have been a smell of stale gummy bears or goldfish, but the pot. That is just BS. My wife met here right after the incident and looked throught he car and did not smell anything unusual.
I did spend about two hours this weekend sorting out the rear brake lights. The bulbs were all fine! (FWIW) there was a bad ground on the left harness that for some reason was only affecting the brake light. ?? Now fixed!!

Point-C: So, do all you LOEs tell your families not to allow a search if asked? Or are your families exempted from such conditions? Special stickers and cards etc? Not trying to be a smart-@$$, but there does seem to be an informal exemtion for families and frieds of LOEs that I have observed. In my line of work, I have had several professional interactions with LOEs. We hired several off-duty cops for weekend security and also provided donated products (beverages) on several occasions when asked. At one point I was given some sort of badge-type sticker by the officer I saw most often. I would never put that on my car, because I don't have any real offiliation.

It just aggrivates my irritated status, when some here suggest I am negligant in not 'warning' my kid how NOT to become a victim of some overzealous newbie cop.

Point-D: Some here keep suggesting that I am 'ignoring' good advice. Not true, I have largely calmed the wife down, and my own anger has largely been surpressed. Our family was at a birthday party this weeking where there was a LOE dad present. He had heard about the situation because the daughters have mutual friends. The guy asked my daughter a few questions about what had happend. I think the dad was WGPD vs OCS, but he seemed pretty familiar with the protocal. This guy seemed to think that a complaint would probably not go anywhere, but that the 'pat down' was deffinately out of line. He should not have put any part of his hands inside her pockets and that he should have only 'patted' the front pockets with the back of his hand.

Once again, thanks to some of the respectful responses. I know that cops have a tough job and I am certainly not trying to make it any harder. I just really think that you have a few bad actors out there that seem to think that a badge gives them the right to push people around. Just be decent and respectfull to people and there will be a lot fewer haters out there!!!

 

[FordSVTFan]

Yet you indicated that there was a third, lower threshold for a stop (specifically for a Terry stop) that was articulable suspicion that was not reasonable. You also indicated that a traffic stop was not a seizure, which is obviously not the case. Of course if it is lawful it is a REASONABLE seizure, but still a seizure, and you are correct in that it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment. All I said was that persons had 4A rights even when seized lawfully.


I have yet to find a case that has anything to do with a pat down for weapons and doesn't draw directly from Terry. Now, if you are alluding to an officer being able to do a search for evidence in the OPs case, then you are the one who is looking at the wrong thing. You are free to cite a case, and have been all along, that gives officers authority to search for weapons specifically, without a reason to believe they are there. Or are you referring to the automatic frisk permissible with persons suspected of certain crimes?


You have made no attempt to explain anything, beyond insults at my intelligence, education, comprehension, etc. If you wished at any time to be helpful you could have posted case names for me to read.

Im sorry you cant find the correct law that will satisfy you. It is out there. Try Westlaw or Lexis.