Is Charles Co. Racist?

[MMDad]

What Ken is saying is that the police do NOT need probable cause nor a warrant to search a person for weapons. They are allowed to search a suspect for weapons for their safety if the suspect is in close proximity to them, or if they are detained, which is different than under arrest.

I understand that, and it is probable cause. They can't walk up to you and pat you down without a reason. The reason is also known as probable cause. In this case, someone is believed to be intoxicated. They would have reason to continue their investigation, and may even have cause to search, but they apparently did not feel that they had a reason until they had conducted sobriety tests. At that time, they conducted a search and look what happened.

They treated this suspect exactly as they would treat any DUI suspect. They did it right, and the thug deserves what he got.

 

[Shannie0308]

I understand that, and it is probable cause. They can't walk up to you and pat you down without a reason. The reason is also known as probable cause. In this case, someone is believed to be intoxicated. They would have reason to continue their investigation, and may even have cause to search, but they apparently did not feel that they had a reason until they had conducted sobriety tests. At that time, they conducted a search and look what happened.

They treated this suspect exactly as they would treat any DUI suspect. They did it right, and the thug deserves what he got.

Someone who understands me. Thank You!!!

 

[Nupe2]

Someone who understands me. Thank You!!!

Would you two get a room?!

 

[camily]

Someone who understands me. Thank You!!!

That's scary.

 

[MMDad]

That's scary.

 

[Shannie0308]

That's scary.

Well I dont know him. So it may be. But he gets my point!

 

[camily]

OK ok, I was just jealous.

 

[Ken King]

What Ken is saying is that the police do NOT need probable cause nor a warrant to search a person for weapons. They are allowed to search a suspect for weapons for their safety if the suspect is in close proximity to them, or if they are detained, which is different than under arrest.

Exactly, officer safety is a valid reason to conduct a search for weapons whether there is probable cause or an impending arrest for violating a law (Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972), Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)).

 

[MMDad]

Well I dont know him. So it may be. But he gets my point!

She knows me as well as anyone on these boards does, so trust her. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[Pete]

I understand that, and it is probable cause. They can't walk up to you and pat you down without a reason. The reason is also known as probable cause. In this case, someone is believed to be intoxicated. They would have reason to continue their investigation, and may even have cause to search, but they apparently did not feel that they had a reason until they had conducted sobriety tests. At that time, they conducted a search and look what happened.

They treated this suspect exactly as they would treat any DUI suspect. They did it right, and the thug deserves what he got.

Yes they can walk up and pat you down if they feel the need to for officer safety. Even witnesses at a crime scene or some agitated person who flags them down to report a crime.

The person does not have to be a suspect at all, nor do they have to have probable cause to think they committed a crime. There is a court case that set the precedent, when I am not too lazy I will look for it.

 

[Shannie0308]

Yes they can walk up and pat you down if they feel the need to for officer safety. Even witnesses at a crime scene or some agitated person who flags them down to report a crime.

The person does not have to be a suspect at all, nor do they have to have probable cause to think they committed a crime. There is a court case that set the precedent, when I am not too lazy I will look for it.

:shrug: I don't know. If I wasn't pregnant and lazy I would drag out my textbooks and do my best to prove you wrong. I graduated with my BA in Criminal Justice this past winter. I studied this for 4+ years, and I really don't agree with what you all are saying. But who knows, I wasn't a straight A college student. I can be wrong. But it's all good, I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Pandora]

There is a court case that set the precedent, when I am not too lazy I will look for it.

Find it.

 

[Pete]

Under Terry v. Ohio police conducting a lawful investigatory stop with the proper suspicion are allowed to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of the suspect for disclosure of weapons as long as the officer has a reasonable fear for his safety.

 

[MMDad]

Yes they can walk up and pat you down if they feel the need to for officer safety. Even witnesses at a crime scene or some agitated person who flags them down to report a crime.

The person does not have to be a suspect at all, nor do they have to have probable cause to think they committed a crime. There is a court case that set the precedent, when I am not too lazy I will look for it.

We are trying to say the same thing, just using different words. I agree with you.

There has to be a reason, or probable cause. Behavior, location, circumstances, etc. But absent a reason they can't. Yes, officer safety is a reason as long as the officer can convince a judge that there was a perceived threat.

Example, I was walking home from work in San Jose at three AM and was stopped. The officer patted me down, then she asked a few questions and sent me on my way. I believe this was legit because of the circumstances. At noon, it probably wouldn't have been. She had probable cause to search me in order to protect her own safety.

 

[MMDad]

Under Terry v. Ohio police conducting a lawful investigatory stop with the proper suspicion are allowed to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of the suspect for disclosure of weapons as long as the officer has a reasonable fear for his safety.

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Shannie0308]

Under Terry v. Ohio police conducting a lawful investigatory stop with the proper suspicion are allowed to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of the suspect for disclosure of weapons as long as the officer has a reasonable fear for his safety.

proper suspicion = probable cause. :shrug:

 

[Pete]

That's all I'm trying to say.

I misunderstood because you kept linking it to "probable cause". Suspicion is not probable cause.

2 guys are sitting in a parking lot watching a store. Have ben there for a long time. There is no evidence of a crime, no sign of a crime, thus no probable cause to think they commited a crime. The policeman can investigate the "suspicious behavior" and in so doing can pat them down if he feels the need to for his own safety.

 

[Pete]

proper suspicion = probable cause. :shrug:

I don't think so.

 

[Shannie0308]

Alright I pulled out the text

A search can be justified and therefore considered legal if any of the following conditions are met:

*A search warrant has been issued
*Consent is given
*An officer stops a suspicious person and believes the person may be armed, hence probable cause
*The search is incidental to a lawful arrest
*An emergency exists.

If any one of these preconditions exists a search will be considered reasonable and therefore legal.

 

[mrweb]

If an officer can see a weapon, drugs, or a number of other offensive things in plain sight, and/or within reach of a suspect THAT is probable cause to search the person, and immediate area.

I don't know about Maryland, but in Virginia, that included me being able to reach under the driver's seat, glove compartment, etc. However, it didn't include a purse or briefcase. Go figure.