Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
FYI- Traffic Stops
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="yukonjack" data-source="post: 3247780" data-attributes="member: 2939"><p>The problem is that you left out one important part of decision.</p><p></p><p>Page 4, paragraph 1 of the "OPINION" states,</p><p></p><p></p><p>"Our question is whether law enforcement officers may extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense. We conclude that they may not do so. As a result, we reverse.</p><p></p><p>Pay attention to this part, "absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense."</p><p></p><p>A blanket statement that cops can't ID a passanger is wrong. As you can see if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime he can ask for ID. What if that reasonable suspicion is developed while he's questioning the driver?</p><p></p><p>Yes, police officers are taught the law in the academy. But not to the degree that at an attorney is taught. This is a fairly new opinion and may not have filtered all the way down to the cop on the street.</p><p></p><p>Also this is an opinion from the 9th Circuit in San Francisco a very left leaning court. I don't know if it has been appealed to the Supreme Court but that's a possibility.</p><p></p><p>Like I said it's your personal choice what to do. To me the issue of a passanger in my car ID'ing himself isn't that big of an issue. Get it done and get it over with.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/11/17-10217.pdf" target="_blank">https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/11/17-10217.pdf</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="yukonjack, post: 3247780, member: 2939"] The problem is that you left out one important part of decision. Page 4, paragraph 1 of the "OPINION" states, "Our question is whether law enforcement officers may extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense. We conclude that they may not do so. As a result, we reverse. Pay attention to this part, "absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense." A blanket statement that cops can't ID a passanger is wrong. As you can see if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime he can ask for ID. What if that reasonable suspicion is developed while he's questioning the driver? Yes, police officers are taught the law in the academy. But not to the degree that at an attorney is taught. This is a fairly new opinion and may not have filtered all the way down to the cop on the street. Also this is an opinion from the 9th Circuit in San Francisco a very left leaning court. I don't know if it has been appealed to the Supreme Court but that's a possibility. Like I said it's your personal choice what to do. To me the issue of a passanger in my car ID'ing himself isn't that big of an issue. Get it done and get it over with. [URL]https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/11/17-10217.pdf[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
FYI- Traffic Stops
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
