Remember that guy who said DM police profiled him?
- Thread starter UNIowaHawk
- Start date
That is precisely where the word "articulable" comes in to play. Mattski keeps leaving that one out, as long as the "criminal activity" pair.
Here we have a situation in which there could, arguably, be grounds sufficient for reasonable suspicion. Mattski says there was. Huge difference.
Otherwise, well posted hawkifann.
I just reread my Constitution (*snark, yes), and couldn't find the "officer obligation" exception.
Just to quibble because the thread has gone stale. Speeding and illegal turn, and likely crossing center line are all "probable cause" stops, not reasonable suspicion or terry stops.
Your second paragraph has it right. Scenario: Black lincoln drives through neighborhood, neighbor calls police and reports simply, "this black lincoln looks suspicious, and doesn't belong to any of my neighbors." In this scenario, the 4th would unequivocally bar the stopping of that vehicle without other cause or suspicion. Some posters (mattski) advocate that the call and the dispatch somehow either create or corroborate the necessary suspicion, which is absurd.
Somebody has already posted WDM's solicitation law, have you even bothered to read it before making these posts?
in case you are unaware, when it says: It thus seems that courts would be likely to uphold laws designed to limit solicitations to daylight hours or laws affirming the rights of residents to post signs indicating that they do not wish to be disturbed by solicitors.
That means that the court would likely rule for a homeowner that had a sign up that said "no solicitation" or for a city that had an ordinance limiting hours of solicitation.
That means that the court would likely rule for a homeowner that had a sign up that said "no solicitation" or for a city that had an ordinance limiting hours of solicitation.
They (WDM PD) waited a LONG time before they released the vest cam vid.....I never saw it on the local news until yesterday (Monday). And I watch a lot of local news....
If I was God, I would have released this video as soon as the perp released his phone cam....and then let the local news folks decide which story they were gonna feature. But again...this starts to wander off what the issue might (or might not) be here.
Mikey...I observe what I observe...and look at the numbers and YOU make your own judgement. You get out past 19th St. and WDM is not what WDM east of 19th is. Back in the day WDM (Valley Junction) was very middle class, union, railroad based economically. Today is not your grandmother's Valley Junction. The freeway (and Iowa Reality/Bill Knapp) changed those days forever.
Again you are wrong. That case will not be broadly applied to every instance. That was the point of the paragraph from a first amendment website.
That case, according to the site, would not likely survive a challenge based on time and signage on private property.
That case wouldn't survive a challenge? It was the Supreme Court that issued the finding. Where are you going to challenge it? I'm not arguing that a locality can't limit the time someone can knock on your door. That has not a thing to do with the case here. Mr. Hill's activity CAN NOT be restricted as solicitation...he is protected by the First Amendment, as are Jehovah's Witnesses and activists espousing political views. The one concession is that a No Solicitation sign can...theoretically...limit him but it wan't part of the challenge in the Stratton case and the ACLU says it would be problematic to challenge it. Not that it matters...it has no bearing on Mr. Hill's activity.
