Dayum...complaints about WHAT? A black guy with a hat and coat does not indicate ANY crime. The officer MUST be able to lay out a case for a crime before he or she can legally detain you. Period. This is black letter law.
Remember that guy who said DM police profiled him?
- Thread starter UNIowaHawk
- Start date
LOL...you really think a cop can stop and question you because you might be a guy who might have committed some crime? I'm not telling you you're wrong...the Supreme Court is telling you you're wrong. Feel free to take it up with them. Do you think the residents of West Des Moines call the cops on these guys:
Without reading case law, I suspect the police can rely on eyewitness statements to create a reasonable suspicion. If someone reported that they were walking by their neighbor's house and saw their neighbor murder his wife through the window, surely the cops would have reasonable suspicion to search the house even if they did not personally see the event.
Whether there is reasonable suspicion here or not, I don't know. Its a close call. But I think its a stretch to say that they can't have reasonable suspicion because they have not personally witnessed any illegal activity.
Rascist,... there we go,.. knew that was coming...
So these guys are acting suspiciously? They're doing exactly the same thing Mr. Hill did.
No, in a case like this, where police have received complaints, it is well within reason for them to stop the individual, question their activities and ask to see identification....
It's kind of the point of the whole thread...both of them. How did that escape you until now? And I'll ask you specifically..are THESE guys acting suspiciously:
So these guys are acting suspiciously? They're doing exactly the same thing Mr. Hill did.
Hell yes,... everybody thinks Mormons are suspicious...
So these guys are acting suspiciously? They're doing exactly the same thing Mr. Hill did.
Hell yes. Those guys deserve to get beat down.
I honestly don't know anything about this case, so I should shut my trap. I just take issue with the idea that the police have to personally observe illegal conduct or that a report of illegal conduct plus a matching description, if specific enough, doesn't rise to reasonable suspicion.
In all honesty, there probably was a mistake here. But I think that probably was by the call operator or dispatcher. The officer was probably just dispatched to check on a suspicious person, without any detail or much detail. The person who took the call should have asked for specific details about the behavior and then determined it was not suspicious. The cop should have never been sent out. Even if the guy was violating a no solicitation ordinance, does that really merit sending a black-and-white?
Distributing political fliers, as stated earlier in this thread, has never been considered "solicitation". The guy was a dick, but there's no law that says I have to submit to an officer if the officer doesn't have reasonable suspicion that I'm breaking the law. The officer can ask, but I don't have to provide -- this applies as much to providing my name as it does consenting to a search.
The guy was a dick about it and I do think he was at least half-hoping for a situation like what developed, but I think that's also a reasonable thing to shine light on - there is a lot of racial profiling. In this case, I thought the officer was fine, but the profiling really came from the complaint calls.
If he has reasonable suspicion yes he can. The key is reasonable suspicion.LOL...you really think a cop can stop and question you because you might be a guy who might have committed some crime? I'm not telling you you're wrong...the Supreme Court is telling you you're wrong. Feel free to take it up with them. Do you think the residents of West Des Moines call the cops on these guys:
Lol,
you don't think you can be detained if you match the description of someone that committed a crime? good luck with that.
While he may have been legal, in that he was passing out fliers, a neighbor might have called this in because they thought he was selling something or casing. I don't know, I didn't hear the call.
If passing out fliers is legal the cop should have told him to have a nice day. If other information was passed to 911, the cop might have had other cause.
From a first amendment website:
The Supreme Court has often affirmed the reasonableness of “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech in the door-to-door context. 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.
Translation: many municipalities have ordinances (whether they would stand up to challenge is a different matter) to curb this type of solicitation. It's not the cops job to be a lawyer. If there is an ordinance on the books, he enforces it (Which i have no idea if wdm does).
you don't think you can be detained if you match the description of someone that committed a crime? good luck with that.
While he may have been legal, in that he was passing out fliers, a neighbor might have called this in because they thought he was selling something or casing. I don't know, I didn't hear the call.
If passing out fliers is legal the cop should have told him to have a nice day. If other information was passed to 911, the cop might have had other cause.
From a first amendment website:
The Supreme Court has often affirmed the reasonableness of “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech in the door-to-door context. 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.
Translation: many municipalities have ordinances (whether they would stand up to challenge is a different matter) to curb this type of solicitation. It's not the cops job to be a lawyer. If there is an ordinance on the books, he enforces it (Which i have no idea if wdm does).
well,...what else is there? I am sorry.....homes are robbed daily by "suspicious" folks police never get called on. Have a black guy walk thru an upper scale white area...and every damned eye available is trained upon them.....
I think that's pretty clearly where this incident fell down. I'm not sure it's so much on the cop, but I suspect some neighbors saw a strange man walking the street going up to houses and jumped to some conclusions and called in various vague 911 calls about some lurker. Dispatch doesn't have much and yet sends the officer out. Officer then talks to the guy and really has nothing. The guy handing out fliers was within his rights....and yet did act like a tool.
Whoever took the calls should have pressed harder on why neighbors were suspicious of this guy. If he had been up to something more nefarious like trying doorknobs, looking in mailboxes or going around to look in windows, then the callers could have given that to dispatch who definitely would have sent an officer with a bunch of specifics to ask the guy about. Then he could detain and press for ID and stuff. But, of course, none of this existed in this case because he was just distributing fliers.
I know that the courts have always held that political activity and religious activity cannot be restricted by solicitation ordinances.
I dont know of a metro city that prohibits distribution of election materials....
I believe the man was a verified volunteer for the local Republican congressional candidate...this is where the "profiling" complaint does have some merit.....The body cam shows that the suspect refused to identify himself, thus giving the police the right to "detain" him....But there is much more to this story than what BOTH sides will admit to. Both sides are justified to an extent and BOTH sides are certainly at fault here, too.
Luckily for most of us being an ass is not against the law.
I just read several, including a chicago suburb, which lead to the snippet from the first amendment website.
So the West Des Moines police can release the body cam footage of them going out to investigate
So lay out possible “articulable” facts that the officer could have possessed to indicate that this specific person committed a crime. If you think a call about someone acting “suspiciously” rises to that level, you’re at odds with the Supreme Court. Thank goodness.
Yes, but the words "reasonable suspicion" are meaningless without the rest .... of criminal activity.
Words have differing definitions. One can be non-4th-Amendment "suspicious" about a guy in their neighborhood. That isn't the same "suspicion" required by 4th amendment law, which is required to be articulable and reasonable of criminal activity having or continuing to occur.
So, yes, a statement from a citizen, anonymous or otherwise, can lead to a reasonable suspicion. For example: 911 - "whats the emergency?" Caller - "This guy in front of me in a silver Pontiac Trans-Am with license plate XXXXXX has swerved between the left and right lane several times and, oh shit! he just threw a beer can out the window and it nearly hit my car!"
But just saying someone called the police and are "suspicious" has no real correlation, on its own, to the actual required suspicion necessary.
Having said all of that, which should have been completely obvious, nothing stops an officer from approaching a person in a public place and talking to them. That person may not be required to talk to them or stay put.
This thread and others like it worry me, because we've apparently gotten to the point where annoying or pissing off officers has become a worse crime than those that they may even be stopped for. Facts are posted, and then the posts all become about, "just be nice to the officer or else bad things might happen," or, "hell, he's lucky they didn't shoot him!" nonsense.
So, WDM residents are basically all racists. Non White people are just not good enough to live in upper scale WDM.
What a sad world you live in
This is the most likely and extremely common scenario. In my opinion, even without pushing the neighbors, the officer may approach and talk to the guy, which resolves the vast majority of concerns. This happens on those neighborhood facebook-like websites all the time. Then there is a later post from someone saying police informed them it was a X religion person or a X student selling Y or a window washer, or something, and everybody moves on.
If the guy doesn't want to talk, and there isn't any other suspicion, they let them go. Does that guy later break in to a house? Maybe, but the only way to prevent that would be violating the Constitution and laws more important than vague suspicion claims.
Also, nothing stops the officer from continuing to investigate, or even watch the guy. Hell, they could bring in the entire squad to sit on every street in the neighborhood to ensure he never commits a crime. Obviously they won't do that for monetary and policy reasons, but they could.
What they can't, however, do is seize a person without Constitutional authority. Some posters here either believe they (1) should be able to or (2) want to neuter the protection to where (1) basically applies anytime an officer wants it to.
Actually, all it requires is a reasonable level of suspicion. A citizen calling the police, and the police dept dispatching an officer obviously means they believed there was a reasonable suspicion worthy of investigating. Now whether there was or not is certainly debatable but that's what the officer was there to determine and he has every right to temporarily detain the individual per the scotus.
EXACTLY. But I'll modify your post a bit. It is not "we" that have created this. It is the liberal PC culture that has done this. Double standards all over.
This is so incredibly incorrect that I'm not sure where to begin, but I'll try:
First, you somehow believe that a dispatcher, likely working for a private/public firm and without any real ties to law enforcement, is making a legal determination of "reasonable suspicion" prior to dispatching an officer. The is beyond ridiculous, of course a community like WDM is sending out an officer to calls.
Then, you believe that it just requires a "reasonable level" of "suspicion," which is false, even though its been posted to educate you in this thread numerous times. It is first, suspicion of criminal activity. Not just suspicion of something that is then reasonable. It is then suspicion that is readily articulable, meaning they can state the basis for it, as opposed to "something feels off, or I don't think...." and then it is reasonable within the context of those two findings.
He does NOT have "every right" to temporarily detain, if "whether or not there was reasonable suspicion is certainly debatable." Your own post admits the finding of "reasonable suspicion" is debatable. If it is debatable, the officer would not have the SCOTUS-affirmed right you claim they do. The officer may investigate further, of course, and may approach the person, but not detain until he actually has that articulable, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity having occurred or continuing to occur.
You simply keep repeating it to somehow convince yourself and others that it is true. This whole thread is debating whether there was, or was not, sufficient level of suspicion to detain. Unless you have facts you want to present to support there being such, stop posting the same ignorant claim.
Frankly, the only thing "PC" that I see in this thread is people supporting a neighborhood calling police over a person going door to door as "suspicious".
THAT is PC. The Constitution is never PC.
True. And to my earlier post, that appears to be what people care more about these days, doing what is easiest for officers and quickest to get on your way.
Sometimes we should be assholes to protect our rights.
This was most definitely not one of those times.
Yes he does. You should do some actual research before spouting off like this.
https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_searches/arrest-detention.htm
Why not actually respond to what I wrote in my post?
(1) you claimed that dispatch is making a level-of-suspicion determination prior to dispatching an officer. Does your link support that?
(2) you claim that when the level-of-suspicion is debatable, the officer has a right to detain a person to determine that level of suspicion. Does your link support that?
Not to mention your citation is to a website called "freeadvice.com" and contains no specifics in relation to 4th amendment jurisprudence. Pathetic attempt.
Look people, this really isn't all that complicated.
Many of you are putting your outrage at a neighbor calling the police on a black guy in the neighborhood on the shoulders of the DM PD. Once he was sent there, he has every legal right per the scotus to temporarily detain the individual to determine if any crime has been committed. This isn't debatable, its fact.
Its not like the cop was just driving the neighborhood and got out to check on this guy.
He was sent there to investigate. Period, end of story.
Save your outrage for whoever called the cops in the first place.
Many of you are putting your outrage at a neighbor calling the police on a black guy in the neighborhood on the shoulders of the DM PD. Once he was sent there, he has every legal right per the scotus to temporarily detain the individual to determine if any crime has been committed. This isn't debatable, its fact.
Its not like the cop was just driving the neighborhood and got out to check on this guy.
He was sent there to investigate. Period, end of story.
Save your outrage for whoever called the cops in the first place.
Which post put the outrage on the neighbor? I'll wait.
Then, you did exactly what I just asked you not to do, and repeated your same ignorant, completely incorrect drivel. But you then went on to claim its a "fact" and "isn't debatable." You are too pathetic to draw any more responses from me. If you ever want to educate yourself and actually discuss it, let me know.
Latest posts
-
-
Iowa Football Signees and Recruits to Compete at 2024 State Track
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
