Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: taxcontrol
This article is a misrepresentation of the facts of the case and ruling.

I figured as much Zero Hedge is dodgy and the wise latina is always wrong. There must be more to the story that they are leaving out.

14 posted on 01/27/2015 1:31:09 PM PST by usurper (Liberals GET OFF MY LAWN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: usurper

Key points of the case:

- The officer observed a vehicle traveling at night with one headlight out. The officer stopped the vehicle thinking that the headlamp was a violation.

- During the stop, the officer asked the driver to search the vehicle. The driver consented and the officer found contraband. The officer then arrested the driver.

- Driver talks to lawyer, finds out that one headlamp out is NOT a violation and attempts to throw the whole thing out based on what he thinks is an “illegal” stop.

- However, in the SCOTUS ruling in “Terry vs Ohio” an officer does NOT need probable cause to initiate a stop of an individual. The requirement is actually “reasonably articulate suspicion (RAS)”.

This ruling simply applies that same level of RAS to a traffic stop.


31 posted on 01/27/2015 1:48:28 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson