leo firsked me today! - Page 4
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 144

Thread: leo firsked me today!

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR:247507
    Can I ask an honest question, whitetiger (and anybody else that cares to answer)? Do you still believe this?:

    "Ok up to this point i can see the lawfulness of what he did"
    "He was right to check me out"
    If this all went down exactly as told, then this was clearly an unlawful search and this cop should be sued personally.

  2.   
  3. #32
    I must say if I come across a LEO like this, my only response will be "Are you detaining me or am I free to go?" I would suggest using this line when confronted by one of the LEO's such as this one who give the rest a bad name.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Can I ask an honest question, whitetiger (and anybody else that cares to answer)? Do you still believe this?:

    "Ok up to this point i can see the lawfulness of what he did"
    "He was right to check me out"
    NO the cop acted illegally! NavyLCDR you are correct. In my opinion the cop was trying to impress the young lady, and had other activities in mind(with the young lady). To any cop I say if you show me respect you will get respect. Cops have to obey the law too. It is a good thing that the Founding Fathers of our REPUBLIC (not democracy)were willing to be inconvenienced. Rights are not lost all at once. It happens a little at a time. I am not anti cop. YOUR RIGHTS, USE THEM OR LOSE THEM!

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    NOT cool. Bad cop, no doughnut.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Drunkbeater View Post
    If this all went down exactly as told, then this was clearly an unlawful search and this cop should be sued personally.
    What the LEO did was very wrong. However there is no lawsuit in it. To sue one must be able to prove a tort occurred (which it did), there were damages (there are none) and a close causal connection exists between the two. Embarrassment is not mental anguish and most suits alleging such must show physiological harm or illness resulted. A tort without measurable damage is not enough. For example, if a drunk slams into your car but doesn't damage it you have no suit. Yes he committed a tort but did not cause damage. Same with the incident described in the OP.

    Like any profession there are going to be good and bad people in it. But it is very difficult to successfully pursue a accusation of an unlawful search in this situation. There are no real witnesses and the LEO can say anything when asked why he searched a suspect. A judge will likely support the LEO position.

    However the OP had a great comeback line. :-)
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  7. #36
    I am thinking a formal complaint might be a good idea here. I'm sure you are not the only person he has treated like this nor will you be the last. If his supervisor gets enough complaints they may notice a pattern and hopefully correct the officer. If this officer does try to harass you or give you bogus tickets, then having filed a complaint about his previous misconduct would probably go a long way in proving that he is just out to get you. I thought your response was funny and justified and hopefully made him realize he was being a punk or bully (but probably not). I do kind of have to disagree with changing your route home. I don't believe that we should be afraid of the cops and "hide" from them for fear of retribution. Like the OP said you fought bullies all the time when you were younger so why "hide" from this one. If he wants to come after you with some bogus charges I say let him and and confront the bully they usually go away when you do. But first make your complaint so you have a leg to stand on.

    I do agree we should not be bashing each other here. We are all on the same side. Unless someone does something utterly stupid they deserve respect. And By the way thank you for your service Semper Fi.

  8. #37
    If your really that pissed about it talk to a lawyer get the surveillance tapes and go to court.....I don't remember the full details but I had a friend who got paid a pretty penny over illegal searches by his PO he mentioned it to his lawyer and ended up uncovering multiple cases with multiple people over surveillance tapes.... he got paid and the douches lost their jobs.... I'm lucky enough to live in a town where ******* fuzz don't last too long....

  9. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    What the LEO did was very wrong. However there is no lawsuit in it. To sue one must be able to prove a tort occurred (which it did), there were damages (there are none) and a close causal connection exists between the two. Embarrassment is not mental anguish and most suits alleging such must show physiological harm or illness resulted. A tort without measurable damage is not enough. For example, if a drunk slams into your car but doesn't damage it you have no suit. Yes he committed a tort but did not cause damage. Same with the incident described in the OP.
    And you would be mistaken. 4th Amendment rights violation is enough to sue over. Sources:

    42 USC 1983:
    United States Code: Title 42,1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

    § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
    Real life example: St. John v. Alamogordo. Matthew St. John was watching a movie in a theater, legally open carrying. Cops came in, escorted him out, disarmed him, patted him down, let him go, all of which would have been perfectly legal actions if their was reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime being committed. He put the gun in his truck and went back in and finished the movie. St. John won a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit in Federal District Court due to the illegal seizure of his person in violation of the 4th Amendment and when he filed a civil lawsuit, the City of Alamogordo settled out of court for $21,000.

    I would suggest you read the case, BC1:
    http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?PHP...downfile&id=52

    Alamogordo police pay $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit - Washington DC gun rights | Examiner.com

    On September 8, 2009, Federal District Judge Bruce D. Black, issued an order previously examined here, that concluded as a matter of law that Alamogordo police officiers violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot." Judge Black's opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate court rulings, including the United States Supreme Court, holding that there is no firearms exception to the Fourth Amendment.
    I find it saddening how the illegal seizure of the person is so easily blown off by a lot of people. Seems like their 2nd Amendment rights are much more important to them than the 4th Amendment.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  10. Note this from the St. John v. Alamogordo court opinion:

    A seizure under the Fourth Amendment occurs when "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave."
    What do you think, was the OP seized by the police officer?

    Then the question becomes, was the seizure lawful?

    An investigatory detention is "justified at its inception" if "the specific and
    articulable facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts give rise to a reasonable suspicion
    a person has or is committing a crime," ... "[I]nchoate suspicions and unparticularized hunches" are insufficient bases for a reasonable seizure.
    Did reasonable and articulable suspicion exist of any crime being committed by the OP?

    So, was the frisk legal?

    As discussed above, Defendants' detention of Mr. St. John was not a "valid investigatory
    detention." Defendants had no reason to suspect that Mr. St. John was involved in, or was about
    to become involved in, any criminal activity. Nor did they have any reason to believe that Mr. St.
    John posed a safety threat. Accordingly, Defendants' search of Mr. St. John was invalid.
    The Conclusion? The Federal District Court found the Alamogordo police liable due to the illegal seizure of St. John only, violating the 4th Amendment. The Court dismissed claims for false arrest and battery. The City of Alamogordo then paid the $21,000 settlement because the Federal Court found the officer liable for the 4th Amendment violation only.

    Conclusion
    Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with regard to liability on
    Plaintiff's claims under the Fourth Amendment and New Mexico Constitution. Mr. St. John's
    motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to his battery and false arrest claims.
    What say you now, BC1?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. #40
    Theres an azz hole in every bunch! !

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast