How do the cops know if someone is a felon or not?
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
How do the cops know if someone is a felon or not?
"There are no finger prints under water."
[quote=FromMyColdDeadHand;488051]http://shaunkaufmanlaw.com/2012/06/0...without-cause/
At least one lawyer gets it right.
sorry your lawyer is a moron
Self control: The minds ability to override the body's urge to beat the living sh.. out of some ass.... who desperately deserves it.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
Obama, so full of crap it is a miracle Air Force One can even get off the ground,
I agree to a point. There are very well established and recognized exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.
Exigency is one of the most often utilized, however it should be used with the understanding that the officer's judgment regarding what constitutes exigency may not jive with a judges ideas on what constitutes exigency.
In many cases, it is better to make a constructive seizure when possible and secure the container, building, room, etc... until a warrant can be obtained.
As for the fleeing felon, all I can say is that you normally have to identify your fleeing felon before you may be involved in a "hot pursuit."
The circumstances as described in this incident sound more like a localized dragnet, which most, if not all courts have determined to be unconstitutional.
The most effective method for avoiding the need for obtaining a warrant or conducting dragnet searches is to simply obtain a willing, knowing, and voluntary consent. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing better than a well obtained consent search.
Be safe.
Not every judge. Often depends on your jurisdiction and the local bench.Originally Posted by rockhound
last time i checked bank robbery was a major felony.
they would not have used exigent circumstances to check for a person with unpaid parking tickets
they would have done the same thing if a kidnap victim was in the car with someone at the intersection,
they did not go int saying lets check everyone at the instersection to see if we can find a guilty person,
they has credible information that this bank robber is in a car at that intersection at that time.
By Erin McLaughlin
Jun 4, 2012 8:20pm
Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber
80 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print
Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
Self control: The minds ability to override the body's urge to beat the living sh.. out of some ass.... who desperately deserves it.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
Obama, so full of crap it is a miracle Air Force One can even get off the ground,
If I was one of the 18 other people who got my day wasted and my rights violated i would whole-heartedly disagree and be happy to put the $$ up to file the lawsuit.
Now I assume all those people gave consent...but if just 1 of them did not:
Would would you say to the police telling you they want to search your home because they believed a murdered lived in the town of bailey and they had reason to believe he was in ONE of the homes. they don't know which one, just reason to believe he is in one of them.
I just don't like the fact that these other people were detained for 2 hours with or without their consent to search their vehicles, and the facts are not out whether they gave their consent or not.
just to clarify my position: the fleeing felon will excuse the need for a warrant, NOT A LLAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP IN CIVICS CLASS, also just have a screen name doesn't mean you are correct.
jump up and down all you want the cops handled this appropriately
Miller: Jenna, the courts often discuss exigencies that can excuse the need for obtaining a search warrant. What does the court mean by exigency?
Solari: An exigency is something that requires immediate attention; for instances, preventing the destruction of evidence, or preventing the escape of a fleeing felon, or preventing harm to somebody. If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant. The exigency actually excuses the warrant requirement for that officers’ initial entry.
Miller: I believe you mentioned three exigencies or three exigent circumstances that might excuse the need for a warrant.
Solari: Right. There are three re-occurring types of exigencies which allow police officers to make warrantless entries into REP areas. One occurs when an officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm.
as far as civics and most of my other courses i got an A, and civics probably did not cover this but a first year criminal law class would.
Dude, dial back the formatting. Makes your post almost unreadable.
[quote=rockhound;488249]Great point. Win many debates that way? Is Nah-ninny-Nah-nah, liar-liar-pants-on-fire your back up arguement?
Two options here. Either they did a time-distance calculation from a third grade text book or they had a GPS locator to guide them.
The first is pretty flimsy excuse to point guns at innocent people. In the video I saw a cop had his finger on the trigger of his shotgun. Uncool. In the second, why exactly did they pull the trigger then? A couple of minutes and you can get to the exact car by process of elimination.
I'll stop buying black rifles when my wife stops buying black shoes.
the point is with exigent circumstances (FLEEING FELON) your rights were not violated. one of three reason the cops can bypass a search warrant
you can be pissed off, you are going to waste your money hiring a lawyer.
they were chasing an armed felon, public safety outweighs your constitutional rights in this case.
would i like it? no, but these rules exist for a reason otherwise every fleeing felon would just run into a home, a car, a restaurant, the the cops would have to leave the chase and go get a warrant to enter and search while they get away
every BG in town would get ten chances to run away,
Honestly i dont even see what the argument is here, seems like no matter what the police do these days they are wrong,
the 4th amendment does protect you except in three instances of exigent circumstances.
if the cops were chasing a jaywalker then you would have a real argument.
handcuffing is as much for the safety of the public as it is the officers.
Self control: The minds ability to override the body's urge to beat the living sh.. out of some ass.... who desperately deserves it.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
Obama, so full of crap it is a miracle Air Force One can even get off the ground,
read the previous posts about exigent circumstances and you will see why
this wasn't my only post
just saying he get it is just as dumb as my response.
he says the rights were violated, but does not address the exigent circumstances that allow the police to legally do what they did.
Self control: The minds ability to override the body's urge to beat the living sh.. out of some ass.... who desperately deserves it.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
Obama, so full of crap it is a miracle Air Force One can even get off the ground,
The Aurora PD did what they did.
The citizens and others who were detained will do what they will do.
The only way we will ever determine whether what was done was legal or not legal, would be if one of the 40 or so people who have standing were to file some form of legal action against the officers and city of Aurora claiming a violation of their rights. Then a court would make a determination what if any rights were violated.
No one here, on this board can say what rights were violated OR what was legal. All we can do is discuss our opinions based on what we know.
The post by the lawyer seemed to me to be a pandering ad by an ambulance chaser to see if he could drum up some business. Unless the attorney who posted that ad had access to all of the information available, there is no way he could offer anything other than his legal opinion.
Find me five lawyers, and I can get at least six different legal opinions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote