Monday, June 25, 2012 2:35:53 PM
"its called REASONABLE SUSPICION. cam are use by gang members so he could be a gang member for having a cam"
Are you going to suggest that every CNN van with a camera mounted on the roof or close to any window is a crip drive by wagon just waiting to be called into action?
You have to be a world class cretin to not recognise that the police officer was completely in the wrong by: Suggesting he can take possession of private property without reasonable cause.
Driving on the highway under ths speedlimit is not probable cause. Driving a motorcycle is not probable cause. By that definition, every black, white or hispanic person in the US should always be stopped for just about everything because someone with their particular skintone once killed a guy.
Do you European immigrants currently residing in the USA have any sense of self respect left?
Monday, June 25, 2012 11:43:47 AM
DM: Your walking a very very fine line. That's like saying that every kid who has a cell phone may potentially be carrying video footage of his friends committing a minor crime, so therefore all teenagers cell phones should be screened for video evidence. It`s ridiculous.
Reasonable suspicion usually applies only when a crime has been committed and a person matches the description or a person is acting out of the ordinary. It is not to be used to take away the rights of citizens to be unlawfully searched without a warrant. And you`re doing exactly what Macgruffin did, you`re assuming that that the cop has a right to stop the person for his camera. That individual can deny the cop the right to search his property without a warrant, which means the inital arrest to GET the camera was unlawful. So before you start throwing out precendents, first understand the crime being committed. Heres a hint, there wasn`t one in this case.
Monday, June 25, 2012 10:05:17 AM
>Based on what evidence? >
its called REASONABLE SUSPICION. cam are use by gang members so he could be a gang member for having a cam
"(1) the consensual encounter, which may be initiated without any objective level of suspicion; (2) the investigative detention, which, if non-consensual, must be supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) the arrest, valid only if supported by probable cause." United States v. Smith, 594 F.3d 530, 535 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Waldon, 206 F.3d 597, 602 (6th Cir. 2000)).iii