- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 10/18/16 at 4:56 pm to AnonymousTiger
Watch the video of the black guy watching sovereign citizens being arrested. It's hilarious.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:02 pm to jbgleason
I'm pretty strong law and order with a heavy dose of individual liberty.
The problem with all of these people is that they are taking their anger out on the wrong group of people.
LEO don't make the laws or interpret the laws. If free-girl has a beef with someone it's the CA State Legislature and/or the Judge assigned to her case.
Like LEO usually says... take it up with the Judge. Then if that doesn't work out, take it up with your representatives.
The problem with all of these people is that they are taking their anger out on the wrong group of people.
LEO don't make the laws or interpret the laws. If free-girl has a beef with someone it's the CA State Legislature and/or the Judge assigned to her case.
Like LEO usually says... take it up with the Judge. Then if that doesn't work out, take it up with your representatives.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:02 pm to AnonymousTiger
That video was so god damn rewarding to watch.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:02 pm to Sao
OK. You stick by that. I will refer to the below however.
The US Supreme Court started giving guidance on this issue in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 US 408 (1997). This case is the sister case to Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977). The Court in the Mimms case held that an officer can order the driver out of his vehicle for officer safety reasons. The Wilson case gave the officer equal control over the passenger. The passenger can be ordered from the vehicle and kept out until the completion of the traffic stop. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. For safety reasons the officer is allowed to control the movement of the passengers. A passenger is already seized for 4th Amendment purposes because of the traffic stop. The controlling of movement by ordering the passenger back into the vehicle, or out of the vehicle, or to sit on the curb are all minimal additional intrusions. Weighing this against the officer’s safety, the Court held that the intrusion was reasonable. If the passenger is already seized by virtue of the traffic stop, the officer does not need further reasonable suspicion under Terry to control the movement of that person. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Oklahoma case of US v. Barnes, 156 F.3d 1244 (1998) that a passenger in a vehicle can be detained, ordered from the vehicle, and made to stand by a fence for the officer's safety, the passenger's safety, and to minimize distraction to the dog during a sniff of the vehicle. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in US v. Williams, 419 F.3d 1029 (2005) that the officer can order a passenger in a vehicle, who was trying to exit and leave a traffic stop, back into the vehicle. “Allowing a passenger, or passengers, to wander freely about while a lone officer conducts a traffic stop presents a dangerous situation by splitting the officer’s attention between two or more individuals, and enabling the driver and/or the passenger(s) to take advantage of a distracted officer.” The need for the officer’s safety and ability to exercise control over the occupants in a vehicle stopped on traffic outweigh the minimal intrusion into the passenger’s liberty. Finally, in Arizona V. Johnson, 000 US 07–1122 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that, ""A reasonable passenger would understand that during the time a car is lawfully stopped, he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will."
Police officers have the authority during lawful traffic stops to control all occupants of the vehicle. The officer can prevent passengers from exiting and leaving the scene. The officer can make a passenger get out of the vehicle, sit on the curb, stand by a fence, or follow any other reasonable request to ensure the officer's and passenger's safety. The officer's authority to control the occupants of a stopped vehicle ends when the officer no longer needs to control the scene and advises the occupants they are free to leave.
The US Supreme Court started giving guidance on this issue in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 US 408 (1997). This case is the sister case to Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977). The Court in the Mimms case held that an officer can order the driver out of his vehicle for officer safety reasons. The Wilson case gave the officer equal control over the passenger. The passenger can be ordered from the vehicle and kept out until the completion of the traffic stop. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. For safety reasons the officer is allowed to control the movement of the passengers. A passenger is already seized for 4th Amendment purposes because of the traffic stop. The controlling of movement by ordering the passenger back into the vehicle, or out of the vehicle, or to sit on the curb are all minimal additional intrusions. Weighing this against the officer’s safety, the Court held that the intrusion was reasonable. If the passenger is already seized by virtue of the traffic stop, the officer does not need further reasonable suspicion under Terry to control the movement of that person. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Oklahoma case of US v. Barnes, 156 F.3d 1244 (1998) that a passenger in a vehicle can be detained, ordered from the vehicle, and made to stand by a fence for the officer's safety, the passenger's safety, and to minimize distraction to the dog during a sniff of the vehicle. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in US v. Williams, 419 F.3d 1029 (2005) that the officer can order a passenger in a vehicle, who was trying to exit and leave a traffic stop, back into the vehicle. “Allowing a passenger, or passengers, to wander freely about while a lone officer conducts a traffic stop presents a dangerous situation by splitting the officer’s attention between two or more individuals, and enabling the driver and/or the passenger(s) to take advantage of a distracted officer.” The need for the officer’s safety and ability to exercise control over the occupants in a vehicle stopped on traffic outweigh the minimal intrusion into the passenger’s liberty. Finally, in Arizona V. Johnson, 000 US 07–1122 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that, ""A reasonable passenger would understand that during the time a car is lawfully stopped, he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will."
Police officers have the authority during lawful traffic stops to control all occupants of the vehicle. The officer can prevent passengers from exiting and leaving the scene. The officer can make a passenger get out of the vehicle, sit on the curb, stand by a fence, or follow any other reasonable request to ensure the officer's and passenger's safety. The officer's authority to control the occupants of a stopped vehicle ends when the officer no longer needs to control the scene and advises the occupants they are free to leave.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:06 pm to AnonymousTiger
Just some more sovereign citizen bullshite.
And the chick talks like a chihuahua.
And the chick talks like a chihuahua.
This post was edited on 10/18/16 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:17 pm to AnonymousTiger
No way I could be a cop.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:20 pm to jbgleason
Your case law doesn't say a word about her right to ask if she is being detained, free to go or a myriad of other case law rights. Sure, he can order her out of the car. Fine. Say she can't walk to a house? Nope. She's free to go. Keep looking.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:23 pm to tigersownall
'i am of the earth' ...

Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:25 pm to jbgleason
quote:
The US Supreme Court started giving guidance on this issue in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 US 408 (1997). This case is the sister case to Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977). The Court in the Mimms case held that an officer can order the driver out of his vehicle for officer safety reasons. The Wilson case gave the officer equal control over the passenger. The passenger can be ordered from the vehicle and kept out until the completion of the traffic stop. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. For safety reasons the officer is allowed to control the movement of the passengers. A passenger is already seized for 4th Amendment purposes because of the traffic stop. The controlling of movement by ordering the passenger back into the vehicle, or out of the vehicle, or to sit on the curb are all minimal additional intrusions. Weighing this against the officer’s safety, the Court held that the intrusion was reasonable. If the passenger is already seized by virtue of the traffic stop, the officer does not need further reasonable suspicion under Terry to control the movement of that person. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Oklahoma case of US v. Barnes, 156 F.3d 1244 (1998) that a passenger in a vehicle can be detained, ordered from the vehicle, and made to stand by a fence for the officer's safety, the passenger's safety, and to minimize distraction to the dog during a sniff of the vehicle. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in US v. Williams, 419 F.3d 1029 (2005) that the officer can order a passenger in a vehicle, who was trying to exit and leave a traffic stop, back into the vehicle. “Allowing a passenger, or passengers, to wander freely about while a lone officer conducts a traffic stop presents a dangerous situation by splitting the officer’s attention between two or more individuals, and enabling the driver and/or the passenger(s) to take advantage of a distracted officer.” The need for the officer’s safety and ability to exercise control over the occupants in a vehicle stopped on traffic outweigh the minimal intrusion into the passenger’s liberty. Finally, in Arizona V. Johnson, 000 US 07–1122 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that, ""A reasonable passenger would understand that during the time a car is lawfully stopped, he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will."
Police officers have the authority during lawful traffic stops to control all occupants of the vehicle. The officer can prevent passengers from exiting and leaving the scene. The officer can make a passenger get out of the vehicle, sit on the curb, stand by a fence, or follow any other reasonable request to ensure the officer's and passenger's safety. The officer's authority to control the occupants of a stopped vehicle ends when the officer no longer needs to control the scene and advises the occupants they are free to leave.
Can't wait to hear Sao's rebuddle against this.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:26 pm to Chief10
quote:
rebuddle
Classic Chief
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:33 pm to Chief10
quote:
Rebuddle
Guilty of gross educational negligence.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:36 pm to Sao
Your avatar is guilty of ugly negligence.

Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:39 pm to Chief10
Got that right. You should see the skank in the creek bikini pic.
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:40 pm to AnonymousTiger
Her parent(s) need to be beaten in a public square for this shite
Who are we kidding? It's likely just a guardian...
Who are we kidding? It's likely just a guardian...
Posted on 10/18/16 at 5:44 pm to Sao
Are you as incapable of reading as incapable of thought?
From his text:
From his text:
quote:
Finally, in Arizona V. Johnson, 000 US 07–1122 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that, ""A reasonable passenger would understand that during the time a car is lawfully stopped, he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will."
Posted on 10/18/16 at 6:03 pm to AnonymousTiger
quote:
You're under arrest
quote:
No I'm not
You got me fam.
Popular
Back to top


1





