Cops

Yes, they did

Yes, it is


Whether you, or for that matter I, like it or not

 

Why should he do that for free?

Anyway, look, we get it, a little excess police power and abuse can be a good thing
Point made

 

Same response to you that I posted to the other attorney .

If you think the Greenwich police department broke a law , then sue them on Jason's behalf Pro Bono.



You should go back and read Jason’s first post. He was not just driving down the street.
I will quote him:

“So as I'm hanging out in my car I decide to drive around and get to know my way around the back roads. I'm driving along and then decide to head back so I turn in the next street and turn around “

Please explain to me what law on the books on the State of Connecticut were broken?
Seeing that you are an attorney please reference this specific Law so that I can check this out for my self.

Thank You !!

 

I think this topic has been beat to death.

Next weekend Im going to do midnight laps around the Germana homestead just cuz I constitutionally can!

 

Were you wearing pants ?
Maybe this was the cops issue

 

First off, you are right in questioning the facts. The cops will say he broke some kind of law. We don't know for sure, but even based on what Jason says, I fail to see any law broken.

I am not a Ct. lawyer and not a criminal attorney at that. Still, most any attorney can tell you that federal law controls and that
automobiles may be stopped if an officer possesses a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the motorist has violated a traffic law, or if a crime has been committed and the driver may be involved.

So, what law was broken? Granted, we don't know for sure. Maybe an illegal u turn..then OK. But it seems none. Just something that "didn't look right." As I said earlier on, as a home owner in a good neighborhood, I admit I LIKE the idea that cops "go after" suspicious guys. But I have to balance that out with what I don't like: giving any individual cop the right to do whatever they want outside the law.

If you are ever the victim of police abuse that leads to unfair prosecution (and remember, it could be for merely driving a car in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time) you may need a lawyer who follows the letter of the law...perhaps he or she will even work for free!

 

In a mullet -mobile? I WILL call the police and no court would fault me!
Hopefully, our police are really good and will stop shady folks whether they have a right to or not! lol

 

+1.


I just wish the cops in my town weren't napping when several thieves entered neighborhood cars at 2:00am & stole items out of them (after several neighbors called the cops about suspicious behavior). I also wish they were able to catch/find them after chasing them on-foot through the neighborhood. I wonder what scent the dogs were following that they lost the trail? Yeah, I'm a bit cynical about selective enforcement.

And I agree with Steve. This is a very slippery slope.

 

Thanks Clyde, and Sam. I made my point. No sense in continuing to argue with the day trader, he's free to think what he wants. But what I do find interesting is that the very same people that are supporting the cops here b!tch like hell when they get pulled over and harassed by the cops on the Palisades Parkway just because they are driving hot sports cars. As you and I have noted, it's a slippery slope, and when you let the cops get away with it in one instance, they will simply feel they are justified doing it in other situations. Fortunately, the police are not "the law", they simply enforce it.

Now, Jason has not given a detailed account of what he was doing, exactly, that night. I didn't get the sense that he was cruising the neighborhood acting like he was casing houses for a break-in. He was just driving around. Last time I looked, we were still free to travel any where, any time, without having to have to justify it or explain it to anyone. I was at a friend's house late Saturday and was driving home down some rural roads at 3:30 a.m. I certainly did not expect to be stopped and questioned as to what I was doing or where I was going, and would have resented it if I had been.

But enough of that. I said my piece. So, those of you who supported the cops here, you are on notice -- No more complaints about getting pulled over by the cops and whining about the tickets. You get what you deserve.

 

They violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitition, states cannot deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights and thus any state law that contravened the Fourth Amendment requirements regarding unreasonable search and seizure would be void and unconstitutional. The legal principles that have been quoted previously flow from decisions of the United States Supreme Court and various U.S. Courts of Appeals applying Supreme Court decisions. Just to save you a little time, here is a sample of the kind of analysis a court engages in, from U.S. v. Oliver, 363 F.3d 1061 (C.A. 10, 2004):

“A traffic stop is a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, ‘even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.’ ” United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1266 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting *1066 Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)). The “touchstone” of Fourth Amendment analysis “is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security.” Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Reasonableness, of course, depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers,” id. at 109 (internal quotation marks omitted), and “is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996). We analyze the reasonableness of a traffic stop under the principles relating to investigative detentions set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1228 (10th Cir.2001) (en banc).

At the outset we must distinguish between questioning that prolongs the detention and questioning that does not. When questioning prolongs the detention, the prolongation in itself constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, so we have repeatedly held that the questioning must be supported by at least reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542-43 (10th Cir.1994) (questioning about contraband that prolonged detention unreasonable because unsupported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); United States v. Walker, 933 F.2d 812, 816 & n. 2 (10th Cir.1991)(same).

 

Wow I am surprised how much you are missing the big picture here.
I asked you a question before which you did not answer because you can not give a good answer and then back up everything you said about constitution rights.

Let me ask you the same question again :

If someone was driving around in your neighborhood late at night would you :

1) Question it and maybe call the police
2) Not do a thing because you don’t want to violate their constitutional rights in some way

Lets take this further – say that person driving around was looking to break into your or your neighbors home

What is more important?? That persons rights or your safety??

Let me guess you probably don’t think people should be checked before they go on an air plane because in some way that will violate their constitutional rights to privacy !!


FYI – I have never had a speeding ticket .

 

Lets get real here – there was no violation of the 4th amendment .
All they did was pull Jason over and ask questions then followed normal police protocol. He was not detained for a long period of time (5 minutes is nothing) , he was not asked to exit the vehicle , nore did they ask to search his car or Jason for that matter.
You are so far off base here it is ridiculous. I can not believe I have to argue this issue with an attorney !! Once again if you are so confident that there was a violation of Jasons civil rights then sue the town of Greenwich !!!

 

No Jason you said you were driving around the area to get familiar with it . You were not pulled over in Matts driveway .

Ask Stanely about this and see if he thinks your rights were violated in any way by the Greenwich Police. He is a lawyer and would know the Connecticut laws .

 

who wrote this?

LOL

 

Ditto. Oh well, we won't agree

 

LOL And just exactly where did you get your law degree from? I'm curious. Another "urban myth" analysis of things, someone's own interpretation of the law, not based on any established legal principles.

And I'm not going to answer your nonsensical questions about someone driving around my neighborhood. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of what happened to Jason. Certainly, if someone sees something they think is suspicious in their neighborhood or anywhere else, they should call the police. But that does not give the police a license to violate 4th Amendment requirements in terms of how they conduct themselves in making a stop or questioning someone. A call about suspicious activity might be sufficient to allow an initial stop. In Jason's case, there was no call, no complaint. He was simply in his car, minding his own business. But even assuming an initial stop was lawful, they must conduct themselves within the limits of the Constitution, and in Jason's case they appear to have stepped over that line.

BTW, it's up to Jason whether he wants to sue anyone, not me. And as far as I can tell, he's quite satisfied to simply have this discussion, not go rushing off to court about what happened.

 

Well, stop complaining. Our bros here feel the cops are the best judges of what they can and should do. Break out the the KY and take it like a man. Silly little things like the US Constitution are just in the way. Next time take your outrageous behavior to some sh*t town where people that don't matter live.

 

Your feelling was it was a BS stop and you felt violated. And you were right.

 

???!!!
No. I AM joking. Haven't you seen my previous posts?

 

I wouldn't hesitate for a second to make that call....