Trump pardons Sheriff Joe

[Fargo]

You are both right, a CI in the crowd who tells the police that the employers are hiring and transporting illegals for labor, paying cash, no taxes, at an illegally low wage is PROBABLE CAUSE for the arrest of the "employer" for human trafficking. And, once the truck is stopped, the SCOTUS allowed section 2 of SB 1070 allows Arizona officers to determine immigration status, even without 287g powers.

LOL, go back and look at the bolded section in your quoted post that Kut was addressing.

 

[2A_Tom]

For the purposed of this discussion, "arrested" means deprived of liberty absent reasonable suspicion or probably cause, and which is not a good faith error. Which of course is illegal, regardless of one's skin color.

9-30-2-2 is a statute defining the "lawful authority" of a police officer to make an arrest under title 9. Start with Davis v. State, 858 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). And work your way through the citations in it if you actually want to understand what I'm saying.

And the case I cited is one of the court's decision giving the definition of the words used...

If you don't have an interest in understanding legal definitions within varying contexts, maybe don't go telling other people that they are using the word wrong?

I read Davis and the court affirms that there was RAS and PC. The arrest was not absent RAS and PC.

So how does that = "arrested" means deprived of liberty absent reasonable suspicion or probably cause?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I read Davis and the court affirms that there was RAS and PC. The arrest was not absent RAS and PC.

So how does that = "arrested" means deprived of liberty absent reasonable suspicion or probably cause?

...To pull over the car. RAS and PC were absolutely absent for the arrest. The guy was a passenger in a vehicle. That's noteworthy. Once the vehicle was stopped (for speeding), he could have opened the door, and walked away, and unless there was a safety concern the deputy could articulate, there's absolutely nothing the deputy could have done about it.

 

[bwframe]

Wow. This thread is a pleasant reminder of how good it is that we won last November. Can you imagine what we'd be discussing had the outcome been any other?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

No he didn't, he pointed out that what you thought was reasonable suspicion legally isn't. Also, you are dead wrong on Indiana's identification statute.

Is there something other than:


Indiana Code Title 34. Civil Law and Procedure § 34-28-5-3.5 | FindLaw

(1) name, address, and date of birth;  or

Which is literally what I said.
=================================================================

And, on the reasonable suspicion part... what literally looks like hiring illegal aliens by the truckload at a place (Lowes parking lot) and time (6 am) that people historically hire illegals by the truckload isn't reasonable suspicion that the guy in the truck is hiring illegals by the truckload? I disagree.

 

[KLB]

Wow. This thread is a pleasant reminder of how good it is that we won last November. Can you imagine what we'd be discussing had the outcome been any other?

How expensive guns and ammo are? Maybe how to keep gun related cases away from the USSC.

 

[Fargo]

I read Davis and the court affirms that there was RAS and PC. The arrest was not absent RAS and PC.

So how does that = "arrested" means deprived of liberty absent reasonable suspicion or probably cause?

Ah, so you are saying that you don't agree with the factual description kut is using to explain what he is talking about because you like a different legal definition?

 

[KLB]

Is there something other than:


Indiana Code Title 34. Civil Law and Procedure § 34-28-5-3.5 | FindLaw



Which is literally what I said.
=================================================================

And, on the reasonable suspicion part... what literally looks like hiring illegal aliens by the truckload at a place (Lowes parking lot) and time (6 am) that people historically hire illegals by the truckload isn't reasonable suspicion that the guy in the truck is hiring illegals by the truckload? I disagree.

I think they are referring to this part:

to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

What infraction or misdemeanor would they be stopping those walking away for?

 

[Fargo]

Is there something other than:


Indiana Code Title 34. Civil Law and Procedure § 34-28-5-3.5 | FindLaw



Which is literally what I said.
=================================================================

You left out that the stop has to be for an IF or OV, it can't be for any of these crimes you describe. It is completely inapplicable to your scenario.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

What infraction or misdemeanor would they be stopping those walking away for?

It is unlawful to hire, transport or harbor illegal aliens, which is far more than just a failure to use a turn signal. So, yeah, if they are investigating that crime, and you refuse to identify, don't be surprised if they take the whole 60 days you're in jail to figure it out for themselves.

Can You Refuse to Identify Yourself to Police Officers? - FindLaw Blotter


The only Indiana ruling I'm aware of where a person didn't have to identify was a passenger in a car who's driver made a turn without signaling... and that is all there was to justify the stop... and that took an appeals court to overturn.

You left out that the stop has to be for an IF or OV, it can't be for any of these crimes you describe. It is completely inapplicable to your scenario.

IF or OV is the minimum. If the police are investigating a misdemeanor or felony and you refuse to identify, you will go to jail. From the FindLaw article above:

In Indiana, the punishment may be up to 60 days in jail for suspects who refuse to provide either a driver’s license or a name, address, and date of birth.

 

[Fargo]

Wow. This thread is a pleasant reminder of how good it is that we won last November. Can you imagine what we'd be discussing had the outcome been any other?

While I remain quite happy that vile shrew lost, it in no way diminishes my disgust with protecting dirty cops.

 

[2A_Tom]

For the purposed of this discussion, "arrested" means deprived of liberty absent reasonable suspicion or probably cause, and which is not a good faith error. Which of course is illegal, regardless of one's skin color.

Ah, so you are saying that you don't agree with the factual description kut is using to explain what he is talking about because you like a different legal definition?

What I do not understand is if an arrest needs RAS or PC how is there another definition that an arreas is absent RAS or PC.

Is he saying the cases in question were absent RAS and PC and were therefore False arrests?

Are you and he say ing that there are legal arrests absent of RAS or PC?

 

[Fargo]

It is unlawful to hire, transport or harbor illegal aliens, which is far more than just a failure to use a turn signal. So, yeah, if they are investigating that crime, and you refuse to identify, don't be surprised if they take the whole 60 days you're in jail to figure it out for themselves.

Can You Refuse to Identify Yourself to Police Officers? - FindLaw Blotter


The only Indiana ruling I'm aware of where a person didn't have to identify was a passenger in a car who's driver made a turn without signaling... and that is all there was to justify the stop... and that took an appeals court to overturn.

IF or OV is the minimum. If the police are investigating a misdemeanor or felony and you refuse to identify, you will go to jail. From the FindLaw article above:

Not even going to bother arguing with your willful ignoring of the plain terms of statute. Not going to bother giving you the case law that says you are wrong.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Not even going to bother arguing with your willful ignoring of the plain terms of statute. Not going to bother giving you the case law that says you are wrong.

Because it doesn't exist... the controlling case law is Hibel, as referenced in Starr:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06221001lmb.pdf

 

[Kutnupe14]

Because it doesn't exist... the controlling case law is Hibel, as referenced in Starr:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06221001lmb.pdf

Are you kidding me? Did you honestly just post that for "support" for you case? Lol. You should be banned from legal interpretation. The case you cited say the opposite of what you think.

 

[bwframe]

While I remain quite happy that vile shrew lost, it in no way diminishes my disgust with protecting dirty cops.

I'm sorry you are disgusted. Your knowledge of the subject matter is noted.

Still I'm happy that at least this time the "dirty cop's" actions benefitted America.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm sorry you are disgusted. Your knowledge of the subject matter is noted.

Still I'm happy that at least this time the "dirty cop's" actions benefitted America.

Translation: "I'm happy when brown people don't have Constitutional protections. MAGA!"

 

[Fargo]

What I do not understand is if an arrest needs RAS or PC how is there another definition that an arreas is absent RAS or PC.

Is he saying the cases in question were absent RAS and PC and were therefore False arrests?

Are you and he say ing that there are legal arrests absent of RAS or PC?

As I read his and Sylvain's discussion, Kut was making it clear that the examples he was referring as "arrests" were those he noted upthread in which he believed there to be no reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or good faith belief. He wasn't defining arrests as these things, he was just making it clear which arrests he was talking about, in this case those without an apparent legal justification.

In this context, he was referring to illegal arrest. Just because an is illegal, does not mean that it was not an arrest. Custodial arrest without legal justification generally fall under both civil false arrest, as well as potential criminal penalties, and 1983 actions. Terry stop types of detention, like most traffic stops, fall under what are known as 1983 actions which are usually civil but can be criminal. They are premised on the notion that a person is being deprived of civil rights under color of law. Among the most frequent 1983 actions, are those based upon using a persons race in part of the calculus to stop them or consider them to be involved in a crime.

When you first posted your definition, I thought that you were saying that Terry types traffic stops can't be considered arrests because they are generally non-custodial. That was why I gave the example of a statute where in traffic stops were considered to be arrests.

I think I was under this impression because it was apparent to me that Kut was simply clarifying which specific instances of arrest he was talking about while you were using his attempt to define context as some sort of legal definition.

 

[Fargo]

I'm sorry you are disgusted. Your knowledge of the subject matter is noted.

Still I'm happy that at least this time the "dirty cop's" actions benefitted America.

I have a brother-in-law who is of Mexican descent, if you saw him you would think that's one big Latino dude. He works in the construction industry, he used to be in management but didn't like it so now he's back to being an installer and appraiser for one of the bigger companies.

I find it less than impressive this many here think that the local police should be able to roust him and demand his papers every time he goes to Lowe's. Now his family were US citizens well before much of my very white German family came over, but I haven't heard anybody calling for me to get stopped.

I have another buddy nicknamed "en fuego" who I went to law school with. He's on the small wiry side, looks like a lot of guys I used to work construction with back in the day, and was a damn good boxer. Again, his family have been US citizens since before the Civil War. He is an army vet and last I talked to him was an attorney for the DOJ. Once again, I find it far from impressive that many here think that he should be stopped and his papers demanded every time he is in the Lowe's parking lot.

I find it disgusting that many here think that both of them should have their descent play into whether they are stopped and messed with by the police.

 

[churchmouse]

I have a brother-in-law who is of Mexican descent, if you saw him you would think that's one big Latino dude. He works in the construction industry, he used to be in management but didn't like it so now he's back to being an installer and appraiser for one of the bigger companies.

I find it less than impressive this many here think that the local police should be able to roust him and demand his papers every time he goes to Lowe's. Now his family were US citizens well before much of my very white German family came over, but I haven't heard anybody calling for me to get stopped.

I have another buddy nicknamed "en fuego" who I went to law school with. He's on the small wiry side, looks like a lot of guys I used to work construction with back in the day, and was a damn good boxer. Again, his family have been US citizens since before the Civil War. He is an army vet and last I talked to him was an attorney for the DOJ. Once again, I find it far from impressive that many here think that he should be stopped and his papers demanded every time he is in the Lowe's parking lot.

I find it disgusting that many here think that both of them should have their descent play into whether they are stopped and messed with by the police.

I will admit that I seemed to come off OK with the profiling thing but only as it has happened to me so many times.
My SIL is a young man of color. He has some interesting story's about this as well. I was with him for one of them and I near went in the bracelets because the reserve LEO (Indy 500 time) was being a total dick and I called him on it.

Profiling happens. It will continue to happen. Kut and you have put my thoughts in perspective and it has cleared up my position on this. People can change their views.

Now, again, how do we run the weed eater.