TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

HUH? Look the package, IMO, is such that if it were sitting on a table and I was 15' away and looked over I could easily think it was beer. That's all it takes.

This is the point I was getting at: If one can't identify the box, why would one think it is beer and not soda or water? it seems there is a predisposition to assume the worst of an unknown.

MasterOfNone wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

HUH? Look the package, IMO, is such that if it were sitting on a table and I was 15' away and looked over I could easily think it was beer. That's all it takes.

This is the point I was getting at: If one can't identify the box, why would one think it is beer and not soda or water? it seems there is a predisposition to assume the worst of an unknown.

Here is the brand and the boxes they come in.


Wonder what they would have done to them with this?


In the end, this was nothing but a bunch of overzealous ABC officers who were bent on catching some college kids with beer to justify their stake-out. They saw a box that didn't have a regular recognized logo on it and jumped to conclusions that it was beer. I really think they need to review their policies and their methods of intercepting minors who may be in possession to keep from someone getting hurt or worse.

My personally preferred method of stopping this type of thing is to utilize minors to go into stores and attempt to buy with no ID. If they sell to them, then you pull their license. We used to sting liquor stores in our town and would frequently get someone who would sell with no ID and never ask one question to a young person who no way even looked to be 21.

I wonder how much they were drinking to confuse water and beer.

RAS is exactly that.

Reasonable, articulable suspicion.

"At 22:00 hours on a Thursday night, I observed a young lady who appeared to be under 21 years of age carrying a box which appeared as though it may have been a 12-pack of beer*"

*add some specific knowledge here about the area, if relevant - such as, are underage college kids in the area known to drink in greater numbers on Thursdays, is the area known for underage drinking, etc. Whatever articulable facts support the suspicion (not certainty, but suspicion) that something illegal is occuring or about to occur.

That can certainly be RAS, as I understand it, although I am not an LEO or a lawyer.

That said - I remember a few years ago a story about a guy in Arizona who was acquitted?/had charges dropped? when a law enforcement agency had raided his house and did not properly identify themselves (I don't remember off the top of my head if he was shooting at them, or actually shot them - but it was something terrible like that. Don't entirely remember all the specifics).

Failure to properly identify ... and even properly identifying in a situation where someone may not hear it ... just seems like a bad scene overall, for everybody. (don't know if one of those two happened here, but I could see both sides of the story being true - a female officer identifying, the girls in the car either not seeing it or not believing it). It seems much safer in a situation like this to have a uniform around to make the initial contact. Maybe they'll change to that, after this.

Note that the other way, too.

"After attending an event where ways to avoid being raped and an event where an individual was raped by a police impersonator were discussed, we were crossing a parking lot when someone attempted to identify themselves as a police officer with a badge that we did not recognize".

It's entirely possible for *both* sides to have reasonable cause for their actions in a situation where something bad like this goes down. Although they probably wouldn't use the words I used above.

I just have to interject a chuckle regarding the euphemism "over-policing".

anomie wrote:Note that the other way, too.

"After attending an event where ways to avoid being raped and an event where an individual was raped by a police impersonator were discussed, we were crossing a parking lot when someone attempted to identify themselves as a police officer with a badge that we did not recognize".

It's entirely possible for *both* sides to have reasonable cause for their actions in a situation where something bad like this goes down. Although they probably wouldn't use the words I used above.

Reasonable suspicion was totally justified, and approaching the girls in a calm manner and properly identifying themselves is appropriate. However, going Rambo when the girls started to get away with a perceived 12-pack is where the reasonable part went to unreasonable in the officers actions. In turn, the girls should not be so paranoid and locking themselves in the car and then making a phone call to 911 would be appropriate on their part. However, young girls do not often will let their imagination run away with itself and freak out. Trust me on this one, I have a 20 year old girl in college. And while she is probably one of the most level headed and mature young ladies I know, she has some friends and acquaintances her age that are as dingy as bats.

Keith B wrote:Reasonable suspicion was totally justified, and approaching the girls in a calm manner and properly identifying themselves is appropriate. However, going Rambo when the girls started to get away with a perceived 12-pack is where the reasonable part went to unreasonable in the officers actions.

Girls try to get away from who they think are police impersonators ...
Alcohol enforcement officers see what appears to them to be someone attempting to resist/flee after they've identified themselves ...

The perception of each individual side is what it is.

I am not at all saying that all actions on all sides were necessarily and automatically correct. I'm just saying I could see how it could start and escalate quickly given those conditions.

Like I said in my earlier post - a uniformed officer to make initial contact seems like a better plan.

anomie wrote:I am not at all saying that all actions on all sides were necessarily and automatically correct. I'm just saying I could see how it could start and escalate quickly given those conditions.

By putting myself into both sides of the situation, I mean.

Say someone issues a warrant and messes up and puts my address on. Say it's the middle of the night and a no-knock (based on who they actually think they are raiding) and they bust the door down and yell 'police'.

Say I'm asleep and I wake up but don't register that they yelled police, but now I'm hearing people moving in my house after being brought to consciousness by my door being busted in (edit: and, importantly, I have *zero* reason to think it's the police because I am not involved in criminal activity at all, whatsoever)

I probably wouldn't live, they're trained better than I am (and something like that is why police are yelling police the whole time they're moving through rather than just at entry)

All I'm saying is maybe something roughly analogous happened here. A situation where there's a fundamental difference between what the two sides are perceiving can easily go south, quick.

MasterOfNone wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

HUH? Look the package, IMO, is such that if it were sitting on a table and I was 15' away and looked over I could easily think it was beer. That's all it takes.

This is the point I was getting at: If one can't identify the box, why would one think it is beer and not soda or water? it seems there is a predisposition to assume the worst of an unknown.

Doesn't matter why I would think it or what you might think. In this case depending on the flavor I think the carton has colors and designs that would lead me to think it was beer not soda. Now other people may look and use different input to draw other conclusions but if the agent saw something and that led them to believe that the package was likely beer. What matters for the RS for the stop to be found legal in court is that the agent can articulate the reasons for their belief and that a judge find that explanation of the agents belief reasonable. The judge doesn't need to agree or think that he would also think the same just that to the agent it was reasonable. I hope I gave a decent explanation because an expert I'm not. Is it a bit arbitrary? You could look at it like that. You can take 5 cops have them look at a situation and only 1 may see RS and even though no one else sees RS if the 1 cop can explain it in court then it may well be good RS.

anomie wrote:Note that the other way, too.

"After attending an event where ways to avoid being raped and an event where an individual was raped by a police impersonator were discussed, we were crossing a parking lot when someone attempted to identify themselves as a police officer with a badge that we did not recognize".

It's entirely possible for *both* sides to have reasonable cause for their actions in a situation where something bad like this goes down. Although they probably wouldn't use the words I used above.

It's not just police "impersonators" raping women:

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchd ... 94121.html

A woman raped by a Milwaukee police officer who responded to her 911 call in July 2010 has filed a civil suit against the former officer, the Police Department, Chief Edward Flynn and the city.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 724049.php

A late-night fender bender turned in to a pretext for a Houston police officer to handcuff and detain a 38-year-old Houston woman for reckless driving last month, the woman's attorney said.

http://rt.com/usa/handcuffed-immigrant-police-rape-465/

While on duty, a Texas police officer handcuffed a waitress and raped her repeatedly on the trunk of his police car, confident that the undocumented immigrant wouldn't report him.

And in Alaska, Police Officer Anthony Rollins is facing 11 civil lawsuits filed by women who claim he raped them while on duty. Anchorage is paying more than $5.5 million to settle the lawsuits, while the officer is about to serve 87 years in prison.

Rape by a cop is not a rare incident, but often puts victims in a tough situation when it comes to reporting a police officer to a police officer.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/26/justice/c ... ficer-rape

While in uniform, a West Sacramento police officer assaulted at least six women since October 2011, police said Monday. The officer was fired, arrested and investigators are looking for other potential victims.

The incidents occurred while the officer was on patrol and after he had stopped women who were walking, Drummond said.

He said some of the alleged assaults occurred inside a patrol car.

Turns out the 911 operator told the girls to stop once he had determined that they were in fact ABC officers. Then he spoke to the officer and told him that the girls were "really scared...I don't think they knew you were cops."

Audio here: http://www.schillingshow.com/2013/07/04 ... as-pulled/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charges were not dropped. They were voluntarily withdrawn by the ABC.

Contrary to multiple published accounts, charges against Elizabeth Daly have not been dropped, but rather, they were voluntarily withdrawn. Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney, Dave Chapman, says that although charges technically could be “re-instituted, his office would “…resist any attempt by anyone to initiate a prosecution of this matter in the future.”

baldeagle wrote:Turns out the 911 operator told the girls to stop once he had determined that they were in fact ABC officers. Then he spoke to the officer and told him that the girls were "really scared...I don't think they knew you were cops."

Audio here: http://www.schillingshow.com/2013/07/04 ... as-pulled/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charges were not dropped. They were voluntarily withdrawn by the ABC.

Contrary to multiple published accounts, charges against Elizabeth Daly have not been dropped, but rather, they were voluntarily withdrawn. Charlottesville Commonwealth’s Attorney, Dave Chapman, says that although charges technically could be “re-instituted, his office would “…resist any attempt by anyone to initiate a prosecution of this matter in the future.”

Good for ABC. There is nothing wrong with withdrawing a case when facts present themselves. This serves justice better and the party arrested.

anomie wrote:
That said - I remember a few years ago a story about a guy in Arizona who was acquitted?/had charges dropped? when a law enforcement agency had raided his house and did not properly identify themselves (I don't remember off the top of my head if he was shooting at them, or actually shot them - but it was something terrible like that. Don't entirely remember all the specifics).

Failure to properly identify ... and even properly identifying in a situation where someone may not hear it ... just seems like a bad scene overall, for everybody. (don't know if one of those two happened here, but I could see both sides of the story being true - a female officer identifying, the girls in the car either not seeing it or not believing it). It seems much safer in a situation like this to have a uniform around to make the initial contact. Maybe they'll change to that, after this.

It was a drug bust on an Arizona family home with children inside at 6 in the morning, if I remember correctly. The former Iraqi vet had worked the night shift and had only been asleep for 30 min when his wife woke him and told him men were looking in the windows. He told her to get in the closet with the children and call 911, he grabbed his AR 15 and peered around the bedroom door when the front door was broken down. I think he received over 80 wounds from rifle fire from the police. I don't think he fired his weapon, but may have pointed it in the direction of his front door. He died after suffering a while without treatment. The wife was not aware it was the police, certainly the husband did not know.

The search warrant yielded a picture of some sort of Saint of the Narcos. That was all. If I remember 20 or so SWAT officers conducted the raid.

I'll have to see what has happened since then. Never made the news outside of Arizona.

philip964 wrote: It was a drug bust on an Arizona family home with children inside at 6 in the morning, if I remember correctly. The former Iraqi vet had worked the night shift and had only been asleep for 30 min when his wife woke him and told him men were looking in the windows. He told her to get in the closet with the children and call 911, he grabbed his AR 15 and peered around the bedroom door when the front door was broken down. I think he received over 80 wounds from rifle fire from the police. I don't think he fired his weapon, but may have pointed it in the direction of his front door. He died after suffering a while without treatment. The wife was not aware it was the police, certainly the husband did not know.

The search warrant yielded a picture of some sort of Saint of the Narcos. That was all. If I remember 20 or so SWAT officers conducted the raid.

I'll have to see what has happened since then. Never made the news outside of Arizona.

Cops need for their own safely to make themselves known when entering someones home.