4th amendment

[MelQueen]

No they didn't recognize any person because they told me that they didn't know who was in my vehicle and that's why they were asking me...he said specifically that he did NOT know who it was

 

[HomeGuru]

Then then knew who you were. Do you have a clean criminal record?

 

[stealth2]

Stupid explains a lot...

 

[HomeGuru]

Criminal does also.

 

[MelQueen]

ok...I stopped at a gas station and went inside and when I came out there was a sheriff talking on his cell phone. I went to get in my car and he asked me "who is that what is his name". I asked him why he wanted to know and he said "if you dont tell me his name i will arrest you for obstruction of justice" . I said nothing and he said "either you can tell me his name or i will ask him myself" I said nothing and he walked over to the passenger door and opened it and told the passenger to get out of the vehicle. I sat down in my car and another sheriff pulled in right behind me so it was impossible for me to leave if i wanted. I was never technically pulled over they didnt ask me for ID but they didn't give me an option to leave. I see it as my car is my property and if they didnt pull me over then they had NO reason to do what they did...

 

[MelQueen]

No they didnt know who i was and yes my record is clean

 

[MelQueen]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

 

[MelQueen]

shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Zigner]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

They OBVIOUSLY knew who it was, or believed they knew who it was. I suspect that they asked your passenger for his/her name and THEN arrested him/her.

Is it a full moon today?

 

[Zigner]

shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was a warrant

 

[tranquility]

While I'm just guessing, I believe the officer had a reasonable suspicion the passenger had a warrant. Cops know locals and if they have warrants out. It's kinda like their job. He wanted to verify that by asking you his name. (And, made a legally-inaccurate threat.) You didn't help so the car was detained to do a reasonable investigation. When the passenger was pulled out of the car for officer safety or to help conduct that reasonable investigation, the police verified their reasonable suspicion and followed the court's order.

 

[HomeGuru]

I would like to hear the law enforcement's side of the story.

 

[Zigner]

I would like to hear the law enforcement's side of the story.

Upon sighting the subject in the passenger seat of the car, I attempted to verify the identity by speaking to the driver. The driver declined to respond to my questioning, so I approached the vehicle to positively identify the subject, at which point the subject was asked to exit the vehicle and was arrested.

 

[HomeGuru]

Thank you officer. And have a nice day.

 

[latigo]

Are you missing something? The cops had probable cause.

I hate to disillusion such a self-esteemed “legal expert” (sans credentials) such as you, BUT “probable cause” has nothing whatsoever to do with this scenario!

To begin the officers were in the act of processing an arrest warrant and not a search warrant, which renders inapplicable 4th Amendment considerations.

Secondly, whereas probable cause is a prerequisite to the issuance of an arrest warrant, it is not a requirement that must precede investigation and apprehension in the course of executing such a warrant.

In the instance at hand, ALL that was required on the part of the arresting officers authorizing them to temporary detain the OP’s vehicle, make reasonable inquiries as to the identity of the vehicle’s passenger and ultimately make the arrest was a “REASONABLE BELIEF” that the occupant was the person named in the warrant.

And the standard or level of knowledge required to form a “reasonable belief” is of a much lesser degree than needed to establish "probable cause"! *

________________


[*] See Thomas,United States v. 429 F.3d 282, 286 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Valdez v. McPheters, 172 F.3d 1220, 1227 n.5 (10th Cir. 1999); United States v. Lauter, 57 F.3d 212, 215 (2d Cir. 1995).

An illustrative example differentiating the necessary level of knowledge to form a "reasonable belief" and that required to establish "probable cause" is seen in U. S. vs. Eric JACKSON, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08-2295. (2009) where the officers were found within their constitutional authority to enter a private residence (not a private vehicle mind you) and legally arrest the defendant.

There “reasonable belief” was grounded upon rumors as to the defendant’s whereabouts and upon suspicion when an individual found near the residence that simply broke out in tears when asked if the defendant was present within the targeted apartment.

Here a like suspicion in the minds of the officers was aroused when the OP refused to identify his passenger.