No, it’s not. It’s reasonable suspicion of public lewdness. He has nothing from that report to make him think that money was involved.
The fact that the two were of different ethnicities is not legally relevant.
Rosa made a pre-meditated attempt to buck the system, so in some ways she was more of a “fool”.
moving beyond fascism to racism and sexism, huh?
Again, you’re more than welcome to think that.
But you cannot seize someone in violation of the Fourth Amendment because of it.
Which is not knowledge the police have in the totality of the circumstance. Fucking dummy.
If the police could act upon the possibility that each scene they were coming upon was a potential felony, there would be no point in making any distinction, would there?
Or is that your dream outcome?
As **Bricker **pointed out to you, unless the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that she had a previous conviction, he has no reasonable suspicion a felony has been committed.
They’ll do that.
And now you know the actual law on the matter. So, WINNING!
How so?
This is where cops simply can’t win. If a wanted felon, say a multiple murderer, was stopped on the street for public lewdness, and the cops let him go because he couldn’t ask him for id to determine he was a multiple murderer, would you find that acceptable? Or would you call the cops a bunch of incompetent morons?
There was an open-carry case in which an officer tried to use similar logic: “I had to run his ID to make sure he wasn’t a convicted felon, since convicted felons cannot possess guns.”
The court rejected the logic there, too, pointing out that the officer had to have some reason to believe the man was a convicted felon first, in order to trigger reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop.
All the more reason for him to verify her identity.
But not legally justified.
Me - no. I would not call them incompetent, because I’m not comfortable with police states.
How about you? Guess what - there are in fact multiple murderers out there walking free. Would you prefer to be stopped and questioned whenever you go out in public because of that fact? How are the cops to know you aren’t one?
I’d absolutely find that acceptable. If the cops asked him for ID and he refused, and they had no reasonable suspicion, then they’d certainly have to let him go.
In fact, I’d prefer they did.
What if they didn’t, ran his ID, and discovered he was wanted for questioning in a multiple murder? And then, after they arrest him and Mirandize him, he confesses… only to challenge the legality of his initial detention, and the confession as well because it arose from the illegal detention? The police have hurt their chances to successfully prosecute a murderer because the cops couldn’t obey the law.
And you’re OK with that?
If they had enough evidence to suspect him and arrest him in the first place, then they could almost certainly convict with or without a confession.
Surprised to see Smapti standing up for people who broke the law here.
As long as nobody’s making out, sure.
The point was, what is known by the participants at the time of the encounter. Judges and lawyers can hash out the fine legal points AFTER the incident. If the cops were wrong, charges are dropped in court. Like I said, cops and citizens should NOT be arguing legal points at every street level encounter.