# Legal question about detainment by law enforcement **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 26, 2018, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300 "2018-08-26T14:03:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/41 "2018-08-27T22:15:56Z")
> [@mmmiiikkkeee](#): > > A mentioned already many of them probably are… but so what? Thousands of unlawful acts occur daily, and only a handful of the most serious ones or ones that are noticed/complained about have anything done about them since the system can’t automatically spot and respond to every unlawful act committed. > > Those responsible for organizing and allowing such campaigns know they are skating over the line of legality (and obviously plenty of departments are more strict and won’t do these things), but are relying on the good people feel from it to keep any complaints from being made. I’ll bet if they did get complaints the programs would end very fast. > > Another possibility is that in these news stories and videos the officer simply tells the interviewer or driver what they want to hear (and isn’t 100% truthful)… we don’t know if he really did spot a burnt out license plate bulb but not mentioned it to keep the story or experience positive. OR, if such a stop to give out a gift card were to start going sour with the driver demanding a lawful reason for the stop why couldn’t the officer just fabricate a standard my-word-against-yours excuse? " I saw you swerving, you seemed to be driving aggressively, my computer says your plate belongs to a different vehicle, etc". It’s not necessarily about complaints. What if the driver is shit-faced drunk or the cop sees a dead body in the back seat? The stop was illegal and the fruits will/should be suppressed. ETA: And even if the cop arrests the guy for a brief period, the stop was so clearly illegal that he owes the murderer/DUI driver damages under 1983. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/42 "2018-08-28T00:57:24Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It’s not necessarily about complaints. What if the driver is shit-faced drunk or the cop sees a dead body in the back seat? The stop was illegal and the fruits will/should be suppressed. I doubt that the fruits will be suppressed with the dead body in plain view. > [@](#): > > At a suppression hearing, prosecutors conceded that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory detention, but argued that the evidence seized during the detention should not be excluded because “the existence of a valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the contraband.”[2] > > … > > On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court reversed, by a vote of 5-3. Writing for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito, held that the evidence was admissible because “the discovery of a valid arrest warrant was a sufficient intervening event to break the causal chain between the unlawful stop and the discovery of drug-related evidence on Strieff’s person.”[7] > **[Utah v. Strieff](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_v._Strieff)** > > Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. > In December 2006, South Salt Lake, Utah police began surveilling a suspected drug house. Police observed Edward Strieff leaving the house although they had not observed him entering it. An officer stopped Strieff on the street and conducted an investigatory detention; after asking Strieff for identification, officers di... So there was an illegal stop, but discovering that there was an arrest warrant was found my the majority of justices to make the evidence gathered admissible. Likewise, an investigation of why there is a dead body in plain view in a backseat after an unlawful stop should not render the evidence inadmissible. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/43 "2018-08-28T01:34:13Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I guess I am invisible. My post (#2) answered this. You’re correct; my apologies. And thank you for the cite. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/44 "2018-08-28T01:48:11Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > How they get away with it is that no one has complained. Except there are others involved beyond the rewarded drivers and the officer. These programs seem to be well publicized, usually around Christmas time. I am very confident that if any agency around here tried this the District Attorney or the State Attorney Generals Office would quickly approach the Chief or Sheriff of such agency and politely inquire if they are out of their freaking minds. But that’s here. YMMV in Podunk. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/45 "2018-08-28T02:00:19Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > I am a member of a couple Ohio-based message boards on concealed carry. And there are quite a few stories of LEOs demanding to see a CHL if they see someone “printing.” (Printing is when you can see the outline of the handgun under a person’s shirt. There is no law against printing, BTW.) The legal folks on these boards say it is within an LEO’s authority to do this. When Wisconsin finally got concealed carry and unlicensed open carry was codified (it was always legal but some statutes were made to prevent LEO’s from charging Disorderly Conduct for it) practically every cop in the state had to go through in-service training regarding the law. To the best of my memory nobody brought up the scenario of “printing”. Printing here is not illegal. And unlicensed open carry is legal. If someone is printing, is the weapon still considered concealed as it can technically be seen? So can I demand to see a CCL from someone printing? There are strict laws regarding law enforcement and hassling people carrying, crimi8nal laws that can land an officer in jail!:eek: For instance, I can talk to an OCer all I want, but I cannot detain him unless there are other circumstances. I also cannot just run someones name just out of curiosity to see if the have a Concealed Carry License. That in itself is a crime. I think I’ll rattle off an email to Assistant State Attorney General Dave Perlman and see what his opinion is regarding printing. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/46 "2018-08-28T02:37:17Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Except there are others involved beyond the rewarded drivers and the officer. > > These programs seem to be well publicized, usually around Christmas time. I am very confident that if any agency around here tried this the District Attorney or the State Attorney Generals Office would quickly approach the Chief or Sheriff of such agency and politely inquire if they are out of their freaking minds. > > But that’s here. YMMV in Podunk. Did I say the complaints had to come from the drivers or the officers? I did not. I do not live in Podunk, and I would be shocked if the NYPD ever started such a program. But what would shock me more is if the NYPD Commissioner started taking orders from any of the five District Attorneys with jurisdiction in NYC.\* You asked how they get away with it- and the answer is that nobody has complained - or at least no one has done so in an effective way. Not that no one has griped or that no one has asked the Sheriff if he was out of his mind - but nobody has gone to court and filed a lawsuit alleging that their constitutional rights were violated when they were stopped and detained without any cause. I’m not for one second saying the stops are not illegal and I am confident that if someone files that suit they would win. But there won’t be a precedent until someone files that suit- and that may never happen. Maybe where you live the police would end the program if the District Attorney or the State AG told them to stop- but that _still_ wouldn’t set a precedent. \*He would presumably consult with the NYPD Legal Bureau before starting such a program, but that’s not nearly the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/47 "2018-08-28T03:44:01Z")
> [@Spiderman](#): > > On another related tangent; what about cops breaking a law to enforce other ones. There’s one intersection (that I go across) where the cop tucks in on the side street to catch people running the red light. The problem is that to hide better & be close to the intersection he > > 1. Parks against traffic > 2. Close to the intersection, closer than the min 20’ requirement. > Both of which are parking infractions. Could one request his supervisor to have him cited or could one use that as a defense in court? > … Oh, this is silly. Do you think a speeder could claim the ticket was illegal, because ‘_I was going way over the limit, but the cop caught up to me, so he was speeding even faster_’? Or ‘_this bank robbery charge is illegal, because as I was running away with the loot, that cop assaulted me with his Taser_’? We, as a society, have chosen to authorize certain people (law enforcement officers) with a limited allowance to violate certain laws in order to prevent crime or capture people committing crimes. Even to violating our most serious law, the taking of a life, when necessary. As to the limits, every officer has supervisors who set the guidelines, based on their judgement comparing the law the officer is violating vs. the crime being committed. For example, there are lots of online videos of officers being instructed by a supervisor to break off pursuit when they feel it is becoming too dangerous to other drivers/pedestrians in the area. And after every time an officer fires his taser or gun, there is a review by his supervisor (and sometimes even by a DA or grand jury). In the specific case you mention: 1. parking against traffic is a minor issue (it’s even allowed in much of the world, like the UK, Australia, parts of Europe). 2. parking too close to the corner is also minor. Presumably, the supervisor has evaluated this and decided the risk of a crash from someone running a stop sign is more dangerous than these minor parking issues. In fact, there have probably already been some accidents at that intersection. That’s what it takes around here to get the police to devote resources to a specific intersection. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/48 "2018-08-28T04:41:19Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Maybe where you live the police would end the program if the District Attorney or the State AG told them to stop- but that _still_ wouldn’t set a precedent. When our AG puts out an official memoradium (as opposed to an advisement memoradium. The are not the same things) it has to be obeyed or LEO’s can be stripped of their certification almost immediately. And it doesn’t take a citizen complaint to get the ball rolling. If the AG hears about something he deems inappropriate he can act on his own. I’m just surprised nobody objectedd to these programs yet. If some other cop pulls me over with no cause I’m going to be pissed! Gift card be damned. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/49 "2018-08-28T05:08:29Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I doubt that the fruits will be suppressed with the dead body in plain view. > [Utah v. Strieff - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_v._Strieff) > > So there was an illegal stop, but discovering that there was an arrest warrant was found my the majority of justices to make the evidence gathered admissible. Likewise, an investigation of why there is a dead body in plain view in a backseat after an unlawful stop should not render the evidence inadmissible. I wholeheartedly disagree. The discovery of the arrest warrant was an objective factor in the middle of the investigation that, at least in that case, re-authorized the stop so to speak. Under your theory, there would never be an illegal search because once the cops find the incriminating evidence, the search is good. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/50 "2018-08-28T14:01:42Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I wholeheartedly disagree. The discovery of the arrest warrant was an objective factor in the middle of the investigation that, at least in that case, re-authorized the stop so to speak. How is that different than discovering, by merely having a view through car windows “in the middle of the investigation”, that there’s a dead body in the backseat? That’s not an objective factor? > [@](#): > > Exclusionary Rule > > … > > Exceptions > > … > > Independent Source Doctrine > > Evidence initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure. > > … > > Attenuation Doctrine > > In cases where the relationship between the evidence challenged and the unconstitutional conduct is too remote and attenuated, the evidence may be admissible. See Utah v. Strieff. Brown v. Illinois, cited in Strieff, articulated three factors for the courts to consider when determining attenuation: temporal proximity, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. > **[exclusionary rule](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule)** ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/51 "2018-08-28T15:18:30Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Under your theory, there would never be an illegal search because once the cops find the incriminating evidence, the search is good. > [@](#): > > A simple example helps to explain both the practical operation, and the controversial nature, of the exclusionary rule. Suppose the police stop a driver for speeding, and in the course of issuing the citation they discover cocaine in the glove compartment of the car. If the defendant did not consent to the search, and if the police did not have probable cause to believe illegal drugs could be found in the glove compartment, the search would be illegal under the Fourth Amendment. > > … > Note also that the rule does not automatically result in acquittal. Suppose the police found cocaine in both the glove compartment and the trunk, and the court ruled that the cocaine in the trunk was seized illegally but that the search of the glove compartment was legal. The suppression of the cocaine from the trunk would not protect the defendant from being convicted for possessing the cocaine in the glove compartment. > **[Exclusionary Rule | Encyclopedia.com](https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/exclusionary-rule)** > > EXCLUSIONARY RULE The exclusionary rule permits a criminal defendant to prevent the prosecution from introducing at trial otherwise admissible evidence that was obtained in violation of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/52 "2018-08-28T15:20:18Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > How is that different than discovering, by merely having a view through car windows “in the middle of the investigation”, that there’s a dead body in the backseat? That’s not an objective factor? > [exclusionary rule | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule) Why don’t you lay out the attenuation factors in Brown v Illinois and see what answer that gives you? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/53 "2018-08-28T15:30:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why don’t you lay out the attenuation factors in Brown v Illinois and see what answer that gives you? You can just answer the questions I asked instead of asking me to lay something out. Or you can lay them out. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/54 "2018-08-28T19:00:47Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > How is that different than discovering, by merely having a view through car windows “in the middle of the investigation”, that there’s a dead body in the backseat? That’s not an objective factor? Because the plain view doctrine requires that the officer be in a position which he has a legal right to be in. The stop of the vehicle in this hypothetical was illegal. The officer should not have been in a position to be able to look through the car windows. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/55 "2018-08-28T19:20:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why don’t you lay out the attenuation factors in Brown v Illinois and see what answer that gives you? This post seems kind of dickish, man. If you had a computer question, would you like me to respond with “Why don’t you list the fields in an TCP packet and see what answer that gives you”? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/56 "2018-08-28T19:50:50Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Because the plain view doctrine requires that the officer be in a position which he has a legal right to be in. The stop of the vehicle in this hypothetical was illegal. The officer should not have been in a position to be able to look through the car windows. The stop was illegal, but does the officer have the legal right to be outside of someone’s car and look through a rear window? Of course he/she does. The body is still in plain view. > [@](#): > > \*\*The contraband must be in plain view. \*\*The term ‘plain view’ means out in the open, or otherwise easily observable. Therefore, only objects visible from the officer’s point of view may be seized under the plain view doctrine. For example, if an officer observes contraband sitting on the stoop of a porch, objects concealed in a kitchen cabinet are (likely) not in the officer’s ‘plain view’. > > **The officer must have a legal right to be where he is when he sees the contraband.** This means that the officer can’t trespass or otherwise illegally infringe on your right to privacy in order to spot the contraband, or get a better vantage point in order to discover contraband. > > **The ‘incriminating’ character of the contraband must be ‘readily apparent’ to the officer.** Only objects that are clearly indicative of criminal activity fall under the plain view doctrine. The officer may rely on his experience in determining whether the object is contraband. For example, an empty two-liter soda bottle with residue at the bottom may seem innocent to the untrained eye, but an experienced narcotics officer may recognize the bottle as evidence of methamphetamine production. [https://study.com/academy/lesson/plain-view-doctrine-definition-cases.html](https://study.com/academy/lesson/plain-view-doctrine-definition-cases.html) Even though the stop was unlawful, the officer wasn’t trespassing or otherwise illegally infringing on a right to privacy. Also: > [@](#): > > The Fourth Amendment protects against ‘unlawful searches and seizures.’ If you are suspected of a crime, and a police officer wants to search your home, the officer will need a search warrant signed by a judge before he can enter your home and conduct a search. > > The plain view doctrine is an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. So let’s suppose the officer witnesses the body and gets a warrant. The plain view doctrine is now irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/57 "2018-08-28T19:54:49Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You can just answer the questions I asked instead of asking me to lay something out. Or you can lay them out. I’ll answer your question, but I predict you won’t accept my answer. ANSWER: the dead body is admissible when the stop of the car is legal because of the plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine generally holds that when an officer is legally in a position from which he can view something for which the illegal nature is immediately apparent and sufficient to give rise to probable cause, then no search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has taken place. By the same token, if the stop is illegal, the dead body is NOT being viewed by an officer legally in a position to view the body, and the plain view doctrine is not triggered. This is consistent with the overall prophylactic intent of the exclusionary rule: to deter police misconduct. When the police learn that an arrest warrant exists, and when the way they have learned this is the result of a stop that was ultimately not supported by reasonable suspicion BUT is not the result of flagrant misconduct, the relationship between the immediate police conduct and the cause of the arrest is very thin. It’s _attenuated_. > [@SCOTUS](#): > > "We need not hold that all evidence is `fruit of the poisonous tree' simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is `whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint’. " (Brown, quoting Nardone v. US). There are three factors to be weighed in determining whether the attenuation doctrine may be properly applied: the temporal proximity between the police misconduct and the discovery of the evidence at issue, the presence of intervening circumstances, and the “…the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” The existence of a valid arrest warrant that pre-dated the stop is a good example of “intervening.” The temporal proximity leans against the government. And in the Utah case, the court specifically found that while the officer was ultimately mistaken in his traffic stop, he was not intentionally or flagrantly violative of the Fourth Amendment. So that factor favors admission. This is why the dead body is handled differently than the arrest warrant. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/58 "2018-08-28T19:57:16Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > The stop was illegal, but does the officer have the legal right to be outside of someone’s car and look through a rear window? Of course he/she does. The body is still in plain view. > [Plain View Doctrine | Definition, Cases & Examples | Study.com](https://study.com/academy/lesson/plain-view-doctrine-definition-cases.html) > > Even though the stop was unlawful, the officer wasn’t trespassing or otherwise illegally infringing on a right to privacy. > > Also: > > So let’s suppose the officer witnesses the body and gets a warrant. The plain view doctrine is now irrelevant. It is fruit of the poison tree. The only reason the officer was able to see inside my car window was the fact of his illegal stop. Same as if he later got a warrant to search my car based upon his illegal view. Change the facts a little. Say the windows were tinted and the officer could not get a good view, so he takes his baton and breaks the back window giving him an unobstructed view. Would you still say plain view? What if he smashed the front door of my house and saw a pile of cocaine on the kitchen table? Plain view? What if he forced me at gunpoint to empty the contents of my glovebox on the ground in front of him? Would you argue that he has a right to stand there and a right to look at the ground, so plain view? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/59 "2018-08-28T20:00:08Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This post seems kind of dickish, man. > > If you had a computer question, would you like me to respond with “Why don’t you list the fields in an TCP packet and see what answer that gives you”? If my question were, “How does a computer know in what sequence to reassemble TCP packets?” then sure – especially if you had already told me that TCP packets are sequenced and acknowledged, and I had rejected that claim for some unknown reason and insisted that TCP and UDP were handled similarly. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/60 "2018-08-28T20:13:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When the police learn that an arrest warrant exists, and when the way they have learned this is the result of a stop that was ultimately not supported by reasonable suspicion BUT is not the result of flagrant misconduct, the relationship between the immediate police conduct and the cause of the arrest is very thin. It’s _attenuated_. Correct. And I think when you look at it from a personal privacy perspective it makes sense. In the first example, the driver has a right to travel on the highways without police interference unless the police have a reasonable articulable suspicion of law breaking. Yes, the driver has committed a murder, but the government does not know that and cannot discover it by violating the Fourth Amendment. In the arrest warrant case, the government had previously found probable cause to arrest the man. The man had no right to be free from government interference because of this previous determination. This restriction on his freedom was not caused by the illegal actions of the officer. Now, of course, the police did kick the ball back into the fairway, so to speak, by the way that they discovered the existence of the arrest warrant, and that was enough to convince three Justices to dissent from the holding. However, the big difference between the two cases was that in the hypo, the driver had every right to his privacy, and in the second, the man had no right because of a previous determination of probable cause unrelated to the officer’s illegal conduct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300.md?page=4)