Case Law Supports Anti-Profiing Law Proposal

Austin – The cops in this town will partially disrobe you and take photos of your tats if you are riding a scooter.

That’s stone illegal, and there is a remedy for that.

Case law handed down by numerous courts holds this type of police conduct is a violation of the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Here is a legal brief on the subject by a practicing attorney with subject matter expertise from Las Vegas, Nevada:

Legendary News Services interviewed Mr. Stubbs on these cases, and he gave us a good working knowledge of the state of the law at this time. No doubt, it could be codified into statutory law in any state. Legislators know, or should know, that if they don’t stop this at this point, it will become a standard practice used by cops against all the people – maybe their own families.

LEGENDARY – HOW MUCH TIME DID THE HOLDING IN RODRIGUEZ AS HANDED DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT ALLOW?

STUBBS – In that case, 8 minutes. However, that’s not a firm time. Depends on the facts and circumstances. The question goes to the reasonableness of the officers.

LEGENDARY – 

I see, I didn’t know how to evaluate the statement of the Court: “In concluding that the de minimis intrusion here could be offset by the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs, the Eighth Circuit relied on Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 . The Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle, id., at 110–111. The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast, detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore gains no support from Mimms.” So, we can figure 8 minutes in at least one SCOTUS holding is reasonable for a license and insurance check, proof of registration, to ensure safe vehicle operation on the public roadways. 

STUBBS – The purpose of exiting the vehicle is to get the suspects away from any potential weapons that might be in the vehicle. The police can also search the inside of the vehicle but not the trunk. The pat down is separate and distinct law.

There is a 2nd Circuit Case That said, 20 minutes was ok. Depends on the circumstances.

LEGENDARY – I see. Then accurate recall of circumstances and conditions are paramount in the question of evidentiary suppression. So noted. I totally thank you.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS IT IS PARAMOUNT TO HAVE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING ANY SUCH STOP IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR SUPPRESSION OF ANY EVIDENCE USED IN A CRIMINAL CHARGE – AND THE FILING OF A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT TO SEEK MONEY DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT.

So mote it be.

  • Legendary

One thought on “Case Law Supports Anti-Profiing Law Proposal”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


three − 2 =