re: Has a photo of the tyrant that arrested the legally blind man in FL been posted?

He can be arrested for refusing the identify himself if there is reasonable suspicion, and they aren’t required to notify you of that suspicion at the time. They would just have to prove it later in court.

In the police report they say he jwalked. So unfortunately this guys only hope is to say he was discriminated because of the stick. Which is probably a winning case tbh.

I wasn’t aware that LA is also a stop and identify state. That needs to be changed.

quote:

---

You can be stopped for RS but you need PC for an arrest. However, if jaywalking is a legitimate citable violation then he has to identify himself.

---

That’s what I mean

If the jaywalking is the reasonable suspicion then he must identify himself. If he doesn’t identify himself he can be arrested.

That’s how the court will see it.

He would have to prove they didn’t have reasonable suspicion which is a very low bar.

But they will probably settle with him because of the disability discrimination issue.

95% of people in this thread think they can do what this guy did and win in court. They are wrong.

He has a slam dunk 4A case. You're saying no?

quote:

---

They violated his 4th amendment rights and then proceeded to arrest him because they had their feelings hurt. A mediocre lawyer would win a civil suit here.

---

I don’t like what they did but they have legal justification for it.

quote:

---

I don’t like what they did but they have legal justification for it.

---

No they don't

Even if he was jaywalking they weren't even addressing that and that's not an arrestable offense. If this guy files a civil suit he's winning it.

It's not about his disability. It was about her reason for a stop... the weapon stop ceased when she ascertained it wasn't an .50 cal.

He'll win 6 figs

quote:

---

No they don't Even if he was jaywalking they weren't even addressing that and that's not an arrestable offense.

---

They don’t have to address it or notify you to ask for his identification.

He lives in a stop and identify state

quote:

---

REASONABLE SUSPICION IN ACTION Officer Haulk is downtown, wearing plain clothes at 2:30 in the afternoon. He notices two men, Joe and Calvin, standing at a street corner. Something about them doesn't seem right to him, so he continues to watch them from a distance. He sees Calvin walk down the street, past some stores. Calvin pauses and looks in a store window, then turns around and rejoins Joe. Joe then walks to the same store window, looks in, and returns to Calvin. Joe and Calvin trade off walking to the same window and looking in it until each has done so six times. Officer Haulk sees a third man walk up to Calvin and Joe and engage them in conversation, then walk away. Calvin and Joe continue their pacing for another ten minutes, then walk in the direction of the third man. Suspecting that they are "casing a job" before committing a robbery, Officer Haulk approaches the three men and identifies himself as a police officer. He asks for their names and receives a mumbled, unintelligible response. Haulk then grabs Calvin, spins him around, and pats him down; he finds a pistol in Calvin's jacket pocket. He also pats down the other two men, finding another gun on Joe. Before Calvin's trial for gun possession, his lawyer brings a motion to suppress evidence of the gun in his jacket. The court rules that Officer Haulk was entitled to approach the men and ask them their names. It further finds that, because he limited his search to a pat-down and had a reasonable suspicion that Calvin was armed and dangerous, Haulk was justified in grabbing and searching him. Accordingly, the court denies the motion to suppress. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).)

---

LINK

quote:

---

The police report says he jwalked

---

And she should've kept it at that.