Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

[SheepDog4Life]

At this point, the encounter is still consensual. "No, thank you." is an appropriate, acceptable, and lawful response. Failing to comply with a presumed-consensual encounter is not RAS, much less PC, of any unlawful behavior or action.

If I were a betting man, I would at least wager a cup of coffee that any existing precedent case law, SCOTUS or otherwise, states the opposite of what you do here. Unless and until the police officer escalates the encounter from consensual to a Terry stop, you are free to avoid the encounter, and doing so is not evidence constitution RAS/PC.

Splitting hairs... running evading would escalate... saying "No thank, you" and continuing to go about your business as you were is fine until he "orders" you to stop.

Too busy to look it up, but pretty sure the SCOTUS case, not Terry, was the cops said "hey, we'd like to talk to you" and the suspect ran. This is that.

Any part of what the cop says sounds like "hold it right there", or he remembers saying it even if he didn't, and you're likely in Terry-land.

Betting he doesn't have RAS is not a good bet.

 

[chipbennett]

Splitting hairs... running evading would escalate... saying "No thank, you" and continuing to go about your business as you were is fine until he "orders" you to stop.

Too busy to look it up, but pretty sure the SCOTUS case, not Terry, was the cops said "hey, we'd like to talk to you" and the suspect ran. This is that.

Any part of what the cop says sounds like "hold it right there", or he remembers saying it even if he didn't, and you're likely in Terry-land.

Betting he doesn't have RAS is not a good bet.

If you can find the SCOTUS case to reference, I'd be interested in reading it.

I agree that the outcome hinges on the phrasing of the police officer's words, and (per Terry), whether a reasonable person would think that he remains free to leave, based on the words/actions of the police officer. Courts have given police officers very wide latitude in how they can phrase their statements in consensual stops, even to the point of misleadingly implying that the encounter is not consensual when it really is (because as of yet the police officer has no RAS), and in the context of consensual encounters leading to what would otherwise be fifth amendment-protected utterances (i.e. getting a person to self-incriminate in an ostensibly non-consensual encounter that is actually consensual, which frees the officer of respecting fourth and fifth-amendment protected rights that would be invoked in a non-consensual encounter).

As a result, a person engaged in such an encounter must have commensurately wide latitude to interpret the police officer's words/actions.

"Sir, I'd like a word with you", then, is clearly an implication of a consensual encounter. (I'd "like" a lot of things, to which I am likewise not entitled...) A reasonable person would have no reason to believe, based only on those words, that he was being detained.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Illinois v Wardlow... man fled upon seeing cops... justified pursuing, stopping, etc. They didn't even ask to talk to him.

Stanton v Sims... cops didn't even have RAS, just three guys standing around near where a disturbance call had originated. Call was about people with bats doing damage... they did not have bats. They ran and Sims, the cop, was within "reason" to follow one of them into a house without a warrant.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Im just saying, when we’re justifying stops based on filling up gas cans and out of state plates, simply because of its proximity to violence, were on a slippery slope.

As far as I know, we don't know what else they were in possession of. As mentioned previously, if they had bottles, rags, other Molotov setups, etc. Then I'm fine with the arrests.

 

[dusty88]

We can disagree on this... IMO, these situations are exactly why there is RAS. ETA: Out of state, filling gas cans, on a route leading to a city that is literally being burned to the ground. That is solid RAS in my book.

My view: if the area is at risk, then announce that only residents or people that work in the area are allowed to enter.

If one guy from out of state can come, so can another.

unless you want to make "filling gas cans" a suspicious activity on its own?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

My view: if the area is at risk, then announce that only residents or people that work in the area are allowed to enter.

If one guy from out of state can come, so can another.

unless you want to make "filling gas cans" a suspicious activity on its own?

That sounds suspiciously martially lawy.

I'm fine with a reasonable curfew for protests... once the rioting starts, declare a riot... announce such and arrest all that remain for participating in a riot, failure to comply with a lawful order, etc.

 

[T.Lex]

That sounds suspiciously martially lawy.

Welcome to my side.

 

[chipbennett]

Illinois v Wardlow... man fled upon seeing cops... justified pursuing, stopping, etc. They didn't even ask to talk to him.

Stanton v Sims... cops didn't even have RAS, just three guys standing around near where a disturbance call had originated. Call was about people with bats doing damage... they did not have bats. They ran and Sims, the cop, was within "reason" to follow one of them into a house without a warrant.

From Illinois v Wardlow:

United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411,418. Officer Nolan was justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further. Such a holding is consistent with the decision in Florida v. Royer, supra, at 498, that an individual, when approached, has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Unprovoked flight is the exact opposite of "going about one's business." While flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, Terry recognized that officers can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct, 392 U. S., at 30, and thus accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way.

So, this says that unprovoked flight can constitute RAS (in the context of other circumstances). But that flight is not PC, and not sufficient to arrest for evasion of law enforcement. It is only sufficient to constitute RAS for a Terry stop. And the outcome is specific to the extant circumstances:

An individual's presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime. Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47 (1979). But officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation. Accordingly, we have previously noted the fact that the stop occurred in a "high crime area" among the relevant contextual considerations in a Terry analysis. Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 144, 147-148 (1972).In this case, moreover, it was not merely respondent's presence in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking that aroused the officers' suspicion, but his unprovoked flight upon noticing the police.

All of the factors weighed in the determination of RAS, not merely the unprovoked flight.

I still think that it is a bad opinion, and constitutionally untenable, to claim that "unprovoked flight", alone, is RAS of unlawful activity. And it appears that the concurring opinion in this case agrees with me:

The State of Illinois asks this Court to announce a "bright-line rule" authorizing the temporary detention of anyone who flees at the mere sight of a police officer. Brief for Petitioner 7-36. Respondent counters by asking us to adopt the opposite per se rule-that the fact that a person flees upon seeing the police can never, by itself, be sufficient to justify a temporary investigative stop of the kind authorized by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). Brief for Respondent 6-31.

The Court today wisely endorses neither per se rule. Instead, it rejects the proposition that "flight is ... necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity," ante, at 125, adhering to the view that "[t]he concept of reasonable suspicion ... is not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules," but must be determined by looking to "the totality of the circumstances-the whole picture," United States v. Sokolow

Regarding Stanton v Sims, I believe you are mis-stating (or mis-interpreting) the facts and resulting decision. To wit:

Stanton did not see Patrick with a baseball bat, but he considered Patrick’s behavior suspicious and decided to detain him in order to investigate. Ibid.; see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968) . Stanton exited his patrol car, called out “police,” and ordered Patrick to stop in a voice loud enough for all in the area to hear. App. to Pet. for Cert. 7. But Patrick did not stop. Instead, he “looked directly at Stanton, ignored his lawful orders[,] and quickly went through [the] front gate” of a fence enclosing Sims’ front yard.

In this case, the police officer gave a lawful and unambiguous order for the suspect to stop, clearly indicating an intent to detain. As such, the facts of this case have no bearing on our discussion. The suspect fled a lawful command to stop.

Note also that this case is one primarily of qualified immunity, not a fourth amendment violation. In fact, the Court avoided the fourth amendment question entirely:

To summarize the law at the time Stanton made his split-second decision to enter Sims’ yard: Two opinions of this Court were equivocal on the lawfulness of his entry; two opinions of the State Court of Appeal affirmatively authorized that entry; the most relevant opinion of the Ninth Circuit was readily distinguishable; two Federal District Courts in the Ninth Circuit had granted qualified immunity in the wake of that opinion; and the federal and state courts of last resort around the Nation were sharply divided.

We do not express any view on whether Officer Stanton’s entry into Sims’ yard in pursuit of Patrick was constitutional. But whether or not the constitutional rule applied by the court below was correct, it was not “beyond debate.” al-Kidd, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 9). Stanton may have been mistaken in believing his actions were justified, but he was not “plainly incompetent.”

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Chip, in general, you are correct. But... (besides we are digressing far from the actual stop in Kenosha)

If you are dealing with an honest, intelligent cop, he would then order you to stop if he had RAS and let you walk away if he did not. This is the vast majority of cops, IMO.

If you are dealing with an honest, but dim cop, he will think he DID ORDER you to stop, and will proceed accordingly. Unfortunately, there are a fair number of these. When you explain, the Terry stop, if it is one, will proceed, but with him feeling stupid, which is not good.

If you are dealing with a power-tripping, roid-raging cop, he might just face-plant you while cuffing you for daring not to cede to his authority trip. Charge you with RLE and you'll get to explain to the judge, with broken teeth and facial bruising, that the cop's version was not reality. Unfortunately, there are these bad cops out there, the percentages are very low but any percent of 750,000 is a lot of them, and you nor I know when the roulette wheel has landed on the double zeroes until it's too late.

ETA: I was typing while you were, I agree you on the opinions, but they are the "law" right now. The second opinion, IMO, the cop did not have lawful RAS to order someone to stop who was just standing around... if he had a bat or other club in his hands, then different story.

 

[Leadeye]

Modern gas cans have become so over engineered that it's really hard to get the gas out of them.

 

[dusty88]

That sounds suspiciously martially lawy.

I'm fine with a reasonable curfew for protests... once the rioting starts, declare a riot... announce such and arrest all that remain for participating in a riot, failure to comply with a lawful order, etc.

Okay, that solution might also work

but I think we just aren't being honest to find a reason to suspect one particular busload of people with gas cans and still figure out how it won't be us "good guys" someday

There is a part of me that is happy these people received somewhat of a midwest message that "we'll notice when people come around possibly looking to cause trouble" but the fully honest part of me also wants to be sure we aren't encouraging any abuse

 

[larcat]

Since both parties are united on this sort of thing is must be good, right?

Okay, that solution might also work

but I think we just aren't being honest to find a reason to suspect one particular busload of people with gas cans and still figure out how it won't be us "good guys" someday

There is a part of me that is happy these people received somewhat of a midwest message that "we'll notice when people come around possibly looking to cause trouble" but the fully honest part of me also wants to be sure we aren't encouraging any abuse

 

[BugI02]

Well I did just work really hard to put BOR back in his place!





ETA: Man, I hope this taken as the humor it is supposed to be...

For some reason the lights are flickering


View attachment 90687

 

[singlestacksig]

Modern gas cans have become so over engineered that it's really hard to get the gas out of them.

What type of gas cans were they filling? How much did they get & have already in the bus?
WI has a limit on how much gas you can have in 1 car ..

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2012/chapter-347/section-347.49/

 

[BigRed]

Modern gas cans have become so over engineered that it's really hard to get the gas out of them.

Agreed..... that's why they make these:

https://ezpourspout.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8PXqyrfI6wIVh7zACh35mAJdEAAYASAAEgIjWfD_BwE

Illustrating yet again, "newer" often does not mean "better".

 

[BugI02]

In our zeal, we should be mindful of our own precarious situation going forward.

In a bug out scenario, how many of us would be "out of state" and filling up jerry cans?

I don't give 2 ****s about Riot Kitchen or where they came from or why they picked that name instead of the Protection Squadron or whatever.

Just saying that the tradeoff of security for liberty can be a bad bargain.

If you're filling your jerricans while or after the SHTF, you aren't really a prepper. Like the people trying to stock up on firearms/ammo at this late juncture. The 'prep' in prepper is for 'prepared'

 

[BugI02]

Location location location...

Whenever I get multiple jerry cans of gas I always run from police too.
Who doesn’t right? It’s all good fun.

And having a vehicle full of tens or perhaps a hundred gallons of gas, in loose containers, is the perfect time to drive recklessly in an attempt to flee and evade, also. What could go wrong?


Edit: And did I mention fireworks also onboard? Have we learned nothing from Beirut?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Okay, that solution might also work

but I think we just aren't being honest to find a reason to suspect one particular busload of people with gas cans and still figure out how it won't be us "good guys" someday

There is a part of me that is happy these people received somewhat of a midwest message that "we'll notice when people come around possibly looking to cause trouble" but the fully honest part of me also wants to be sure we aren't encouraging any abuse

Let me know where this causes heartburn for you... genuinely, I don't understand where the issue lies, because this IS how it's supposed to work.

A caravan of a bus, a "bread" truck and a mini-van, presumably with plates from Washington/Oregon is filling up jerry cans with gasoline along a route that takes them to nearby Kenosha, which has literally been burning to the ground from riots. Those plates indicate these folks are from places that have experienced the same with molotov cocktails being de joure.

To me, this absolutely is a Terry stop with the context above. This is without even knowing that they have the name "riot" in their organizational name. This is a reasonably articulated suspicion for talking to these people. It is not a reason to arrest them, nor to detain them beyond asking them some questions.

They have the right to answer NOTHING.

They have the right to refuse consent to search. The police at this point have no right to search their vehicles beyond what is plainly visible.

Then one of the drivers "freaks out", locks the doors to the vehicle and attempts to scoot on out of there. That is something he/she does not have the right to do because it is a lawful Terry stop and are now not complying with lawful orders.

Now this is a legitimate ARREST for resisting law enforcement and attempting to flee LE.

Now with the ARREST of the driver, the police have PC to search the vehicle(s)... then the rest follows with what they find.

 

[dusty88]

Let me know where this causes heartburn for you... genuinely, I don't understand where the issue lies, because this IS how it's supposed to work.

A caravan of a bus, a "bread" truck and a mini-van, presumably with plates from Washington/Oregon is filling up jerry cans with gasoline along a route that takes them to nearby Kenosha, which has literally been burning to the ground from riots. Those plates indicate these folks are from places that have experienced the same with molotov cocktails being de joure.

To me, this absolutely is a Terry stop with the context above. This is without even knowing that they have the name "riot" in their organizational name. This is a reasonably articulated suspicion for talking to these people. It is not a reason to arrest them, nor to detain them beyond asking them some questions.

They have the right to answer NOTHING.

They have the right to refuse consent to search. The police at this point have no right to search their vehicles beyond what is plainly visible.

Then one of the drivers "freaks out", locks the doors to the vehicle and attempts to scoot on out of there. That is something he/she does not have the right to do because it is a lawful Terry stop and are now not complying with lawful orders.

Now this is a legitimate ARREST for resisting law enforcement and attempting to flee LE.

Now with the ARREST of the driver, the police have PC to search the vehicle(s)... then the rest follows with what they find.

All fair points. And the focus here is partially on "rules of engagement" between a citizen and LEO. In other words, if you are educated on those rules you cooperate quietly but decline search. If you are not as educated or nervous, you escalate to a situation where you are pursued, searched, or detained.

So my thought is : a situation where a citizen even has to know those "rules of engagement" to get the best outcome is a situation we should be trying to avoid unless it's necessary.

 

[ditcherman]

Modern gas cans have become so over engineered that it's really hard to get the gas out of them.

Surely you are not suggesting that *gasp* these fine folks are using illegal gas cans? Oh the horror.




Illegal gas cans...marshall law much?