Act Like Homeboy when Police try to Detain You

[Shotgun Man]

I really have to applaud the defendant's conduct and the court's decision.

For those who don't want to read the long text-- homeboy was parked in a 7-11 parking lot. Cops see him. They think he's acting suspiciously. They ask to him to stop. He keeps going. He is detained. He twice refuses a consent to search. He is searched anyway. Cops find a 9-mm pistol on him. They cuff him. A further search yields a .22 cal handgun.

Homeboy is prosecuted.

His lawyer brings a so-called 1538.5 motion to suppress the evidence, and damned if the trial judge didn't grant it. Prosecution appeals and the appellate court upholds decision of the trial court to suppress the evidence, although there is a colorful dissenter who opines:

"Detention is almost certainly the most powerful tool we have provided the police. I am convinced it saves more lives and prevents more crime every day than search warrants, computers, handguns and helicopters combined."

Sounds like the dissenter supports the second amendment, but I eschew his 4th amendment analysis in finding this detention reasonable.

Bottom line is homeboy is unlawfully carrying two loaded handguns yet he "walks" because he lawfully resisted his unlawful detention.

The police are to be applauded for telling the truth. Many police, I suspect, would testify that the defendant gave consent. Maybe these police officers, after learning the results in this case, will in the future refine their testimony and "testi-lie." I hope not.

The government wins whenever justice is done. In this case, justice was done.

The fourth amendment is not a dead letter.

I can't post the entire decision because of calguns character limit, however you can go to http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/ and type in "tisdale" and then click on People v. Perrusquia, 150 Cal. App. 4th 228.

What follows is the court of appeals factual summary.

FACTS

On January 13, 2006, Anaheim Police Officer Ryan Tisdale was on patrol near the corner of Harbor and La Palma. A 7-Eleven convenience store was located near that intersection, and Tisdale intended to stop there for a cup of coffee. Earlier that day at roll call, Tisdale and fellow officers had been briefed by detectives about a series of six armed robberies at 7-Eleven stores in Anaheim. The description provided was of a Black or Hispanic male in his [*231] late 20’s. The detectives wanted the patrol officers to do patrol checks and keep their eyes on 7-Eleven stores because they had been hit so often.

Further, based on his prior experience, Tisdale knew the area around that particular 7-Eleven was a high-crime area. During his patrols, he had had contacts in the area relating to assault with a deadly weapon and drug complaints. He also knew that numerous gangs were tied to the area, and he had frequently worked with gang detectives in the area during his patrol hours.

Tisdale entered the 7-Eleven’s parking lot at approximately 11:26 p.m. He noticed defendant's car as he entered the lot. It was parked facing La Palma, next to the exit. The car caught his attention [***3] because there were other spots available closer to the store's entrance, and someone was inside with the engine idling.

Tisdale stood behind the car and watched defendant. He could see defendant crouched low in the driver's seat. Defendant was leaning against the glass and Tisdale felt it looked suspicious. After 45 seconds or so, a second officer pulled into the lot and joined Tisdale, and they continued observing defendant. Defendant had not moved during this time. The two officers then began approaching, and as they reached the rear of defendant's car, Tisdale heard what he described as “kind of like a fumbling.” He then heard what he believed to be something dropping to the floor of the car with a “thud.”

Tisdale saw defendant look at him in the car's side mirror, and at that point defendant turned the car's engine off. Defendant exited the vehicle, and “aggressively, quickly” tried to pass Tisdale. Defendant was wearing baggy jeans and an untucked, long-sleeved baggy shirt. Tisdale asked defendant what was going on, and defendant [**488] replied to the effect that he was going to the store. Tisdale asked defendant to “hang on a second.” Tisdale asked for identification, and defendant [***4] appeared agitated. Defendant asked: “What's going on? I am just going to the store, I am just going to the store,” and Tisdale again asked for identification. Defendant retrieved his identification from the car, and Tisdale asked if he had any weapons. Defendant said he did not, and Tisdale asked if he could do a “quick pat-down search for weapons” and defendant answered no. Tisdale could not tell if defendant was armed without the patdown search. He repeated that he needed to do a quick patdown search, and defendant again answered no and started to walk away, not back to his car or toward the store, but to the adjacent street.

At that point, the other officer, who had been standing back while Tisdale was talking to defendant, intervened and both officers took hold of defendant's arms and wrists. After Tisdale took defendant's right wrist, he touched [*232] defendant's waistband and immediately felt the handle of a gun. Tisdale pulled out the gun, a loaded nine-millimeter automatic, and dropped it on the ground. He then moved defendant toward a grassy area in front of defendant's car and he and the other officer took defendant to the ground.

After defendant was handcuffed, Tisdale asked [***5] if he had any other weapons on him, and defendant answered yes. Defendant said he had an additional revolver in his waistband, and Tisdale retrieved a loaded .22-caliber gun. Tisdale then conducted an additional search for other weapons and called gang detectives. A subsequent search through defendant's pockets revealed a small bag containing a substance that appeared to be methamphetamine and a glass smoking pipe.

Defendant was charged with two counts of having a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 12025), one count of possessing a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1), one count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and two counts of carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in public (§ 12031). Defendant moved to suppress the evidence pursuant to section 1538.5.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate granted the motion. The court stated: “[T]he test being were the officers … able to articulate specific facts from which an ordinary person would believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed, that basically this situation here would [***6] lead an ordinary officer under the circumstances to a common sense belief that this is something he should look at and investigate and should the circumstances have worked out different where the defendant didn't at some time exercise his right not to talk to the officers, the argument would then be that the show of authority was insufficient to have caused his submission and this is consensual. [¶] On these circumstances here, he did exercise his option at the time to not consensually remain and at the time, while the officers may have had a hunch that something was going on and justifiably wanted to talk to him about it further, they cannot state an articulable set of facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime was being committed or was about to be committed so therefore the laying on of hands at that time was without reasonable cause and so the motion was granted.” Given that the motion was granted, the district attorney was unable to proceed, and the court dismissed the case.

ETA: For all you cops out there, when you find a loaded weapon on a suspect is the protocol to drop it to the ground like Tisdale did? I think I would tuck it into the small of my back. Less risk of an accidental discharge I would think, plus you're in more control of the weapon, but I don't claim to know.

[saigon1965]

Why didn't the LEO use probable cause? would that have worked?

[Shotgun Man]

Why didn't the LEO use probable cause? would that have worked?

They (the cops and the DA) tried to say they had probable cause to detain the suspect, but the courts disagreed, stating that the defendant's conduct did not amount to probable cause to detain him.

[saigon1965]

Got it thanks. I re-read the last paragraph.

[heavyrecoil]

I can't really say that I think it's a good thing that some dirtbag with two loaded guns on his person in the 7-11 parking lot that the cops thought might be an armed robbery suspect was excused on a technicality...

[LAK Supply]

It's sometimes unfortunate when a shady character is free on technicality; however, he may not be a dirtbag at all. We don't know, and the cops had no reason to stop him. The police need to be held accountable to law, and too often they're not. The next "dirtbag" they want to stop and search could be the guy with the HK or Glock sticker on the back window.

I don't think the cop making the statement was in any way making a pro-gun statement... everything he referenced in his little spiel was a common police tool. I would have to lean towards his reference to handguns being related to police work.

[heavyrecoil]

I'm thinking that some dude with two loaded handguns carried illegally upon his person + meth + pipe = dirtbag, and probably up to no good.

[CALI-gula]

Whatever. He got off this week. Wait 'til next week. Good guy or not, bad guy or not - they ASSUME he's a bad guy, so now they know his car, where he lives, what other vehicles he may own, where he works (if he works), where he likes to hang out, and that he's prone to carrying guns illegally.

I would HATE to be him - he won the battle, but he'll lose the war. Best for him to move far from that area as soon as he can and start a new life elsewhere.

.

[tombinghamthegreat]

I'm thinking that some dude with two loaded handguns carried illegally upon his person + meth + pipe = dirtbag, and probably up to no good.

Regardless of your view the guy who was a criminal got away with carrying two loaded handguns while the lawbiding citizens that open carry are being harassed and detained for exerising their rights. Does not seem like the government is up to no good.

[Fate]

I can't really say that I think it's a good thing that some dirtbag with two loaded guns on his person in the 7-11 parking lot that the cops thought might be an armed robbery suspect was excused on a technicality...

Better to let a billion criminals walk free on "technicalities" (as you call the CONSTITUTION) than to allow the government or its agents to trample on the liberty and freedom guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights.

[MrTuffPaws]

I am glad to hear this. It is nice to see that police still have to play by the rules.

Rights come with a cost, and I am more than willing to pay having some "dirtbag" walk, then seeing my constitutional rights violated in the name of safety.

[heavyrecoil]

tombingham-

No disagreement here, I think open and/or concealed carry is great for legit, law-abiding citizens with the proper permits/license-- however, I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

bdgfate-

Puh-leaze, give me a break! This guy had meth in his possession and two loaded handguns. How would you feel if your wife/girlfriend or someone else that you care about went to shop in that store, this derelict robbed it, and she got shot? Would you still be so concerned about his rights? How much time have you spent out on the street around criminals? Ever had a "bad feeling" about someone? In this case, the officers were right: this guy was up to no good. Just because some jackass lawyer got him off on a technicality doesn't mean he's innocent.

[Mikeb]

'm thinking that some dude with two loaded handguns carried illegally upon his person + meth + pipe = dirtbag, and probably up to no good.

You guys are so suspicious... he was probably just going to the store for milk for the baby and maybe some asprin for his grandmothers rumatisum... what about the children...
Mikeb
Oakland i(n a neighborhood I bet alot of you would avoid driveing through)

[TonyNorCal]

Your arguments are flawed in that you're using an 'ends justifies the means' tactic.

What if it had turned out the guy in question was unarmed and had no contraband? Would his search have been ok then?

Claiming that it's ok to violate one's rights and the consitution in order to get a bad guy off the streets leads to a society most of us would not want to live in. You can't use the outcome to justify what were illegal means to begin with.

It's not acceptable to violate someone's rights and then argue after the fact that it's justified because he was a bad guy. By an extension of that reasoning it's also acceptable to search anyone, in violation of their rights, because 'hey, it might take a bad guy off the street."

Would you be cool with being braced and up and searched by the police, despite your objections, when you go out to the store? Why not? If we just let the police do that we'd catch way more bad guys.

tombingham-

No disagreement here, I think open and/or concealed carry is great for legit, law-abiding citizens with the proper permits/license-- however, I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

bdgfate-

Puh-leaze, give me a break! This guy had meth in his possession and two loaded handguns. How would you feel if your wife/girlfriend or someone else that you care about went to shop in that store, this derelict robbed it, and she got shot? Would you still be so concerned about his rights? How much time have you spent out on the street around criminals? Ever had a "bad feeling" about someone? In this case, the officers were right: this guy was up to no good. Just because some jackass lawyer got him off on a technicality doesn't mean he's innocent.

[tophatjones]

This is a victory for all civilians. No one should be above the law, including law enforcement. If LEO were allowed to legally search anyone based on "suspicious behavior" as opposed to probable cause, we'd see a lot more searches based on character profile. Hell, one day your character may fit a profile, however mundane you deem your own character to be.

[Spelunker]

Rights are rights and the cops violated his. We dont know what his intentions were good or bad. I have had my rights violated by the police before (what started me looking at this part of the forum, I didn't know my rights had been violated at the time) and I believe all police should abide by the laws no matter how many scumbags get away. I'm sure they could have gone about it in a different way to bust this guy but they took the easy way out and now this scumbag is free again. This is the cops fault and should be used as a lesson to teach officers to abide by the law to get these guys put away. Just wait till you are harassed by the cops and you will know the anger and frustration I am feeling.

[jdberger]

Well...you know what... I have been detained and searched by the police-- as a "suspected bank robber," just because I happened to be walking around in a particular area (while waiting for new ARB locking differentials to be installed on my truck) where a series of crimes occurred, and I vaguely fit the profile of the suspects (one time when being a somewhat tall white male worked against me...). It seemed kind of ridiculous to me, especially since I have a government security clearance and work for our county's 911 ambulance service provider-- but, when the smoke cleared, and it was determined that they had the wrong man, I figured "no harm, no foul." This guy, most likely hopped up on speed and sitting in his car with two illegal loaded handguns and planning to rob the 7-11, aroused the suspicion of the local police. When they busted him, rather than being a man, and taking responsibility for his (stupid) actions, he found some lawyer to argue that he was picked up unlawfully, and got him released somehow. How is this a victory for any law-abiding person? I understand that we want to protect our right to bear arms, and our other constitutional rights, but being a super-zealot, and defending people like this just turns off the majority of normal citizens.

Illegal search is just that...sorry. How'd you like to get pulled over by the local Sherrif everytime you leave the range?

You MIGHT be suspicious. You PROBABLY have guns in your car. You MIGHT be heading to rob a bank or shoot up an orphanage....

There has to be some sort of reasonable suspicion.

Kudos to those cops who were man enough to speak the truth.

What's that Ben Franklin quote, again? :rolleyes:

[Spelunker]

they probably told the truth because they knew they had been recorded by the 7-11 security cameras

[JarenC81]

This guy, most likely hopped up on speed and sitting in his car with two illegal loaded handguns and planning to rob the 7-11, aroused the suspicion of the local police. When they busted him, rather than being a man, and taking responsibility for his (stupid) actions,

You think he's high and he may rob the 7-11? So, what are the actions he's supposed to be taking responsibility for. And the part about the illegally loaded handguns? Gun grabbers salivate at the mouth when describing how all people with loaded handguns are just waiting for the right moment to strike.

I think it's right that police have to articulate why they are stopping and searching you. And it has to be a better reason than merely existing.

[compulsivegunbuyer]

All the more reason to say no when asked anything by LE.

Do you have anything I should know about? NO

Can I do a search? NO

Where are you comming from? None of your business!

You don't have to answer any questions or consent to anything. So why would you? Here is my licence and registration. Nothing more needs to be said. If you let them fish you for any more info than that, then your an idiot, and you deserve whatever legal ramifications that come down on you.

[gimebakmybulits]

I understand that we want to protect our right to bear arms, and our other constitutional rights, but being a super-zealot, and defending people like this just turns off the majority of normal citizens.


I don't think anyone was defending the "person" but rather the rule of law.

Given your argument, better BWO should suffer by paying all his legal fees (as he is) than a bad guy be free.

[CitaDeL]

I'm thinking that some dude with two loaded handguns carried illegally upon his person + meth + pipe = dirtbag, and probably up to no good.

Handguns carried illegally? Have we no 2nd ammendment protection? (Yes, I understand California has 'laws' on the books, but the Constitution says such laws are void...) And is that right to keep and bear arms predicated upon our adhereance to other laws, including those governing controlled substances or prohibited paraphinalia?

Im of the belief that your rights are not harmed by violation of other laws, and enhancements tacked on for being in the possession of a firearm are anti-Constitutional.

Also, I see it as the court did, the search was conducted on a hunch- not reasonable articulable suspicion. The officers looked at this guy and figured if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...it must be a duck, up to no good.The problem is, there was nothing to indicate that this duck was committing or about to commit a crime. I dont care who you are, if the police cannot articulate specifics about their suspicions, and there is no apparent crime, contact with them would be voluntary--- (not like the BG here would really know this or how to conduct themselves if they did).



Regardless of your view the guy who was a criminal got away with carrying two loaded handguns while the lawbiding citizens that open carry are being harassed and detained for exerising their rights. Does not seem like the government is up to no good.


+1

Anytime agents of the state inject themselves into someone's perfectly lawful activity (even if the person is a minority sitting in front of a 7-11 in a high crime area looking like a thug) we are put in jeopardy of incrementally losing our freedom- of assembly, of movement, of our right to be secure in our person, papers and effects, of our right to remain silent...

[Fate]

bdgfate-

Puh-leaze, give me a break! This guy had meth in his possession and two loaded handguns. How would you feel if your wife/girlfriend or someone else that you care about went to shop in that store, this derelict robbed it, and she got shot? Would you still be so concerned about his rights? How much time have you spent out on the street around criminals? Ever had a "bad feeling" about someone? In this case, the officers were right: this guy was up to no good. Just because some jackass lawyer got him off on a technicality doesn't mean he's innocent.

Thank you for succinctly explaining how California's obscene laws came into existence. You have been brainwashed.

And regarding the bold part of your quote, please see my top signature line. Yes, I am concerned about his rights, criminal or not. For as his rights are treated by those in authority, so might be my own. I'm unwilling to budge on that, even if it prevented personal tragedy. At 42, I've seen a lot of bad things done by bad people to innocent victims. I currently live in one of LA's "gang reduction zones" and have lots of daily contact with a lot of "bad people" ranging from gang-bangers to meth addicts and aggressive homeless nomads. I wish I lived in gated Beverly Hills, secluded from danger. But I don't. That still doesn't mean I'm for accepting violation of basic rights to feel safer.

[Shotgun Man]

tombingham-

No disagreement here, I think open and/or concealed carry is great for legit, law-abiding citizens with the proper permits/license-- however, I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

bdgfate-

Puh-leaze, give me a break! [...]

Just because some jackass lawyer got him off on a technicality doesn't mean he's innocent.

I don't see why the lawyer is jackass. He was just doing his job. Hell, he might be sued and disbarred if he didn't bring the motion to suppress.

That's kind of an unnecessary condemnation. A lawyer takes takes an oath to zealously represent his client's interest and to uphold the constitution of the united states.

It is a sacred oath, no different than that taken by our esteemed armed forces.

[LAK Supply]

Puh-leaze, give me a break! This guy had meth in his possession and two loaded handguns. How would you feel if your wife/girlfriend or someone else that you care about went to shop in that store, this derelict robbed it, and she got shot? Would you still be so concerned about his rights? How much time have you spent out on the street around criminals? Ever had a "bad feeling" about someone? In this case, the officers were right: this guy was up to no good. Just because some jackass lawyer got him off on a technicality doesn't mean he's innocent.

The guy may have been a dirtbag, but he did not rob a store. If he did and the police were not there (as is the case 99.999% of the time) those laws that made his "loaded handgun" possession illegal also make illegal the right of your wife/girlfriend to carry protection for herself.

So, in this case maybe a POS got out of something.... or maybe he was just sitting there because he did too much and was not able to drive. Maybe he wanted a beer to calm his crankster nerves.... who knows.... You don't and I don't. I do know that the "tools" the cops use to bust somebody like him will be turned around on somebody like you if they ever have the chance. Oh yeah.... and your wife/girlfriend is dead on 99,999 times out of 100,000 because the sick state of CA has the laws that the police busted him on and they all too frequently get away with "enforcing" them illegally.

[Mikeb]

Maybe it is time to admit that the police exist to take notes and write reports. They have no responsability to protect us. THe only problem with that is we are allowed no means to protect ourselves. I'm glad they decided to shake thise guy, and low and behold look what dropped out... and in a way it all worked out. He walked and I hope he had to PAY his lawyer.
I am concerned about our right to KABA. I live on one side of the street and have a shop on the other.... there may have been times when I carried a loaded hand gun across the public street late at night. If I had been shaken down, busted and forever more been prohibited from owning guns... I would be pissed. But It sounds to me like these officers were keeping thier eys open and trying to protect thier community... I have to thank them for that.
Mike

[1911_sfca]

Maybe it is time to admit that the police exist to take notes and write reports. They have no responsability to protect us. ... But It sounds to me like these officers were keeping thier eys open and trying to protect thier community... I have to thank them for that.

You've got some cognitive dissonance going on there buddy...

[1911su16b870]

ETA: For all you cops out there, when you find a loaded weapon on a suspect is the protocol to drop it to the ground like Tisdale did? I think I would tuck it into the small of my back. Less risk of an accidental discharge I would think, plus you're in more control of the weapon, but I don't claim to know.

Tactically I do not want to have a weapon on the ground where in a fight a suspect may be able to access it. I would clear the action and store it on my person.

[homerm14]

they probably told the truth because they knew they had been recorded by the 7-11 security cameras

Yes, because we all lie unless we think we will be caught.:confused:

[futureExpat]

I really have to applaud the defendant's conduct and the court's decision.

For those who don't want to read the long text-- homeboy was parked in a 7-11 parking lot. Cops see him. They think he's acting suspiciously. They ask to him to stop. He keeps going. He is detained. He twice refuses a consent to search. He is searched anyway. Cops find a 9-mm pistol on him. They cuff him. A further search yields a .22 cal handgun.

Homeboy is prosecuted.

His lawyer brings a so-called 1538.5 motion to suppress the evidence, and damned if the trial judge didn't grant it. Prosecution appeals and the appellate court upholds decision of the trial court to suppress the evidence, although there is a colorful dissenter who opines:

"Detention is almost certainly the most powerful tool we have provided the police. I am convinced it saves more lives and prevents more crime every day than search warrants, computers, handguns and helicopters combined."

Sounds like the dissenter supports the second amendment, but I eschew his 4th amendment analysis in finding this detention reasonable.

Bottom line is homeboy is unlawfully carrying two loaded handguns yet he "walks" because he lawfully resisted his unlawful detention.

The police are to be applauded for telling the truth. Many police, I suspect, would testify that the defendant gave consent. Maybe these police officers, after learning the results in this case, will in the future refine their testimony and "testi-lie." I hope not.

The government wins whenever justice is done. In this case, justice was done.

The fourth amendment is not a dead letter.

I can't post the entire decision because of calguns character limit, however you can go to http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/ and type in "tisdale" and then click on People v. Perrusquia, 150 Cal. App. 4th 228.

What follows is the court of appeals factual summary.

FACTS

On January 13, 2006, Anaheim Police Officer Ryan Tisdale was on patrol near the corner of Harbor and La Palma. A 7-Eleven convenience store was located near that intersection, and Tisdale intended to stop there for a cup of coffee. Earlier that day at roll call, Tisdale and fellow officers had been briefed by detectives about a series of six armed robberies at 7-Eleven stores in Anaheim. The description provided was of a Black or Hispanic male in his [*231] late 20’s. The detectives wanted the patrol officers to do patrol checks and keep their eyes on 7-Eleven stores because they had been hit so often.

Further, based on his prior experience, Tisdale knew the area around that particular 7-Eleven was a high-crime area. During his patrols, he had had contacts in the area relating to assault with a deadly weapon and drug complaints. He also knew that numerous gangs were tied to the area, and he had frequently worked with gang detectives in the area during his patrol hours.

Tisdale entered the 7-Eleven’s parking lot at approximately 11:26 p.m. He noticed defendant's car as he entered the lot. It was parked facing La Palma, next to the exit. The car caught his attention [***3] because there were other spots available closer to the store's entrance, and someone was inside with the engine idling.

Tisdale stood behind the car and watched defendant. He could see defendant crouched low in the driver's seat. Defendant was leaning against the glass and Tisdale felt it looked suspicious. After 45 seconds or so, a second officer pulled into the lot and joined Tisdale, and they continued observing defendant. Defendant had not moved during this time. The two officers then began approaching, and as they reached the rear of defendant's car, Tisdale heard what he described as “kind of like a fumbling.” He then heard what he believed to be something dropping to the floor of the car with a “thud.”

Tisdale saw defendant look at him in the car's side mirror, and at that point defendant turned the car's engine off. Defendant exited the vehicle, and “aggressively, quickly” tried to pass Tisdale. Defendant was wearing baggy jeans and an untucked, long-sleeved baggy shirt. Tisdale asked defendant what was going on, and defendant [**488] replied to the effect that he was going to the store. Tisdale asked defendant to “hang on a second.” Tisdale asked for identification, and defendant [***4] appeared agitated. Defendant asked: “What's going on? I am just going to the store, I am just going to the store,” and Tisdale again asked for identification. Defendant retrieved his identification from the car, and Tisdale asked if he had any weapons. Defendant said he did not, and Tisdale asked if he could do a “quick pat-down search for weapons” and defendant answered no. Tisdale could not tell if defendant was armed without the patdown search. He repeated that he needed to do a quick patdown search, and defendant again answered no and started to walk away, not back to his car or toward the store, but to the adjacent street.

At that point, the other officer, who had been standing back while Tisdale was talking to defendant, intervened and both officers took hold of defendant's arms and wrists. After Tisdale took defendant's right wrist, he touched [*232] defendant's waistband and immediately felt the handle of a gun. Tisdale pulled out the gun, a loaded nine-millimeter automatic, and dropped it on the ground. He then moved defendant toward a grassy area in front of defendant's car and he and the other officer took defendant to the ground.

After defendant was handcuffed, Tisdale asked [***5] if he had any other weapons on him, and defendant answered yes. Defendant said he had an additional revolver in his waistband, and Tisdale retrieved a loaded .22-caliber gun. Tisdale then conducted an additional search for other weapons and called gang detectives. A subsequent search through defendant's pockets revealed a small bag containing a substance that appeared to be methamphetamine and a glass smoking pipe.

Defendant was charged with two counts of having a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 12025), one count of possessing a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1), one count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and two counts of carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in public (§ 12031). Defendant moved to suppress the evidence pursuant to section 1538.5.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate granted the motion. The court stated: “[T]he test being were the officers … able to articulate specific facts from which an ordinary person would believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed, that basically this situation here would [***6] lead an ordinary officer under the circumstances to a common sense belief that this is something he should look at and investigate and should the circumstances have worked out different where the defendant didn't at some time exercise his right not to talk to the officers, the argument would then be that the show of authority was insufficient to have caused his submission and this is consensual. [¶] On these circumstances here, he did exercise his option at the time to not consensually remain and at the time, while the officers may have had a hunch that something was going on and justifiably wanted to talk to him about it further, they cannot state an articulable set of facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime was being committed or was about to be committed so therefore the laying on of hands at that time was without reasonable cause and so the motion was granted.” Given that the motion was granted, the district attorney was unable to proceed, and the court dismissed the case.

ETA: For all you cops out there, when you find a loaded weapon on a suspect is the protocol to drop it to the ground like Tisdale did? I think I would tuck it into the small of my back. Less risk of an accidental discharge I would think, plus you're in more control of the weapon, but I don't claim to know.



If a LEO walks up to you "out of the blue" & asks for I.D. by law must you comply?

[Mikeb]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb View Post
Maybe it is time to admit that the police exist to take notes and write reports. They have no responsability to protect us.
...
Quote:
But It sounds to me like these officers were keeping thier eys open and trying to protect thier community... I have to thank them for that.

__________________
DON'T TAZE ME, BRO! ...

You've got some cognitive dissonance going on there buddy...

Looking back at what I wrote I should have said
In a time when police often exist to take notes and write reports, and aren't legaly required to protect us.

The guy walked... you win a few and lose a few. But I still appreciate that the officers on the street tried. This story doesn't sound like abuse of authority.

cognitive dissonance....if that means a clash of understanding. Yeah I probably have some of that going on. After all things aren't allways simple.
thanks for pointing that out...it made me think.
Mike

[CitaDeL]

If a LEO walks up to you "out of the blue" & asks for I.D. by law must you comply?

In most cases, no.

If you are driving a motor vechicle or being detained on foot for a vehicle code infraction, you are supposed to provide your driver's license.

But there is no law compelling anyone to provide photo ID under any other circumstance

When police come to you asking for ID, they are often starting on a basis of voluntary interaction... to require you to provide ID however, they will have to have some reasonable articulable suspicion that you have commited or are about to commit a crime.

This is where you have to know what your rights are and how to assert them.

I have been putting this to the test by open carrying without any form of ID.

[Lounge Machine]

Better to let a billion criminals walk free on "technicalities" (as you call the CONSTITUTION) than to allow the government or its agents to trample on the liberty and freedom guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights.

Yes.

[recshooter]

The cops should have let it play out a little further...then there would be no "what ifs."

Over-eager cops=guy walks

With a bit of patience they could have upheld the constitutional rights of the man, and/or got some real charges on him-win-win situation.

[Pappy91W]

Better to let a billion criminals walk free on "technicalities" (as you call the CONSTITUTION) than to allow the government or its agents to trample on the liberty and freedom guaranteed us by our Bill of Rights.

Agreed.

While I never like to hear about a scumbag going free, we are a nation of laws and rights designed to protect the PEOPLE from unreasonable search and seizure. I am unwilling to give up any freedom to expedite the detection and apprehension of low lifes, that being said, there are plenty o' smart cops that will "get the goods" on this low life and all WITHIN the law and the scope of reasonable suspicion creating righteous probable cause to where this low life will find his way into our prison system, and within the scope of the law. There's doing it RIGHT and making it stick versus playing it shady, The Police, in being vested with public trust, must be the GOOD GUYS to maintain that public trust, the judge was RIGHT to rule as was done, obedience to what is reasonable is NOT a technicality, it is the parameters of doing it right. Cops, this is an example of setting the hook before the fish is ON, linger a bit! Let that fish suck the hook down in true fashion, be righteous, then when the turd biscuit having satisfied the established parameters, set the hook and you're solid! Crap bag goes to the pokey, all is well, for the judge won't be second guessing you, and, you'll have earned the respect of the public that trusts you to do the right thing.

Bad guys get away sometimes, but not every time, not forever. Crime breeds stupid, stupid gets caught.