good for citizen to know

good for citizen to know

Posted in the Carthage Forum


Nashville, TN

#1 Feb 6, 2013
A man and his wife traveling in a car with the wife driving encountered a police officer using a radar device. The husband knew this because he had a radar detector. He gave the officer "the finger" to express his disapproval of what the officer was doing. The officer stopped the vehicle, which had not been speeding or committing any traffic violations. When both occupants got out, they were ordered to get back in the car, which they did. Subsequently, the husband again got out of the vehicle, seeking to speak to the three officers present, and repeated twice that he felt "like an ass." He was arrested for disorderly conduct. Reversing summary judgment for the defendant officers, a federal appeals court ruled that the vehicle stop was not lawful, and that qualified immunity for the officers was improper, since a reasonable officer would not have thought that the mere insult of "giving the finger" provided a basis for initiating a law enforcement process, or that there was probable cause for a disorderly conduct arrest. A malicious prosecution claim also should not have been rejected on the basis of summary judgment for the defendants. Swartz v. Insogna,#11-2846, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 186 (2nd Cir.).

Nashville, TN

#2 Feb 6, 2013
An officer pulled over a motorist, informing him that his vehicle did not have a required inspection sticker, then discovering that his driver's license was suspended and that his vehicle registration was expired. The officer told the driver to exit the car, and searched his person as well as the vehicle, despite the driver's refusal to consent to the car search, and later conducted an inventory search of the car. The driver claimed that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The officer argued that, before conducting the first search of the vehicle, he had observed that the driver had bloodshot eyes as well as seeing a marijuana seed in the vehicle, which was disputed. The appeals court ruled that the officer was not entitled to summary judgment as to the first vehicle search, Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the officer would not have had probable cause to conduct the first vehicle search on the basis that there were drugs in the car. Gomez v. Markley, #08-3515, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13591 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).

Nashville, TN

#3 Feb 6, 2013
U.S. Supreme Court rules that a passenger in a car subjected to a traffic stop by a police officer is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes, as much as the driver is, and therefore may challenge the constitutionality of the stop. While the case arose in the context of a criminal prosecution, its reasoning would also be applicable in a federal civil rights lawsuit brought under the same circumstances. Brendlin v. California, No. 06-8120 127 S. Ct. 2400 (2007).

Nashville, TN

#4 Feb 6, 2013
Drug suspect's arrest, pursuant to arrest warrant was lawful, and so was the search of the car he was going towards at the time of his arrest, which an informant had told officers had previously had marijuana in it. A search of his second car, found parked in a lot in his apartment complex, if conducted, was not legal, since the officers lacked a warrant, probable cause, a concern for officer safety, or consent to search it. Mack v. City of Abilene, No. 05-10844, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 21033 (5th Cir.). [2006 LR Oct]

Nashville, TN

#5 Feb 6, 2013
It was clearly established prior to August of 1999 that a traffic stop of a vehicle was not permitted without some reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, so that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that they stopped a vehicle merely because it was observed at an "odd hour" driving through a "high crime" area in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Holeman v. City of New London, No. 3:00CV1608 (DJS), 330 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D. Conn. 2004).[N/R]

Nashville, TN

#6 Feb 6, 2013
Boat owner was properly awarded $100,000 in damages for unfruitful search of his boat for drugs; affidavit for search warrant failed to provide probable cause since it did not show the basis for a belief in the reliability and veracity of the informant, or the basis of his purported knowledge, nor did the agent submitting the affidavit attempt to independently investigate the information. Maudsley v. State of New Jersey, 816 A.2d 189 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]

Jamestown, TN

#7 Feb 6, 2013
You can't just cherry pick case law. The particulars of one case may not match those of another. Not to mention that each side can usually find supporting case law, meaning it's rarely black and white.

In addition, each state usually has it's own case law as guidance. While they may look to other states in the rare case that something has yet to be addressed in their own, they usually don't give much credence to the decisions of other state courts.

Knowledge is good, but giving people just enough to hang themselves isn't doing them a favor.

Nashville, TN

#8 Feb 7, 2013
the officer should have went to federal prison for this

Nashville, TN

#9 Feb 7, 2013
330 F.3d 791

Robert SPURLOCK; Ronnie Marshall, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
Tommy P. THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6356.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued May 2, 2003.

Decided and Filed May 30, 2003.

Nashville, TN

#10 Feb 10, 2013
Tenn. Code Ann.§ 40-7-109 states “Arrest by a private person – grounds.
–(a) a private person may arrest another:(1) for a public offense committed in the
arresting person’s presence ....” The [d]efendant argues that a private citizen
cannot stop someone for speeding. They rely on 61A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 1327
for the proposition that “in the absence of express statutory authorization, a traffic
violation must be in such a nature that it constitutes an actual breach of the peace as
defined at common law in order to authorize a citizen to arrest another citizen.”
(Citing State ex rel. State v. Gustke, 205 W.Va. 72, 516 S.E.2d 283 (1999)). In State
v. Durham, 1995 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 911, the Court of Criminal Appeals
pointed out that Tenn. Code Ann.§ 40-7-109 says “anypublic offense” and found the
argument that the offense in that case was a misdemeanor to not be “a meaningful
distinction.” Based on State v. Durham, this Court finds Tenn. Code Ann.§ 40-7-
109 to encompass all misdemeanors if committed in public and in the presence of the
private person making the arrest. Speeding is a violation of the law, and pursuant to
Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39-11-109 is a misdemeanor.

If you see an officer or anyone breaking the law you have the right as a private citizen to arrest them people please look into your rights if you see an officer speeding write him a ticket take it to the clerk and prosecute him like he would you

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Carthage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
girls dating old men for money drugs ect (Jan '12) 31 min Atoz 36
does anyone know anything about 6 hr jus wanting to know 1
Gordonsville Taco Bell 6 hr Consumer Chooses 6
Running for office on disability 17 hr WHAT 14
Who is Guerra Sat Hearsay 4
News Deputy indicted in TBI drug evidence theft case... (Oct '17) Fri Answer 52
Cop on disability Thu Walkntall 4

Carthage Jobs

Personal Finance

Carthage Mortgages