Articulation before Compliance?

[soul_venom]

What is the name of your state? (Nebraska)
According to Delaware v Prouse the police are required to have reasonable articulable suspicion before they may legally detain. Who exactly does the officer have to articulate that reason to? If it is the person the officer is attempting to detain must the officer state that reason before the individual in question is legally bound to submit to said detainment? In the case of traffic stops I have watched several youtube videos where the officer insisted that the driver provide license, etc. BEFORE he would state the reason for the stop. Since handing over licence, registration & insurance is a defacto detainment [you are stuck until they are returned] is a motorist within their rights to demand that reason be stated first before complying? Is there case law addressing this specific issue? It seems to me that to avoid a potential violation of the 4th amendment a procedure of articulating reason before demanding papers should apply.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state? (Nebraska)
According to Delaware v Prouse the police are required to have reasonable articulable suspicion before they may legally detain. Who exactly does the officer have to articulate that reason to? If it is the person the officer is attempting to detain must the officer state that reason before the individual in question is legally bound to submit to said detainment? In the case of traffic stops I have watched several youtube videos where the officer insisted that the driver provide license, etc. BEFORE he would state the reason for the stop. Since handing over licence, registration & insurance is a defacto detainment [you are stuck until they are returned] is a motorist within their rights to demand that reason be stated first before complying? Is there case law addressing this specific issue? It seems to me that to avoid a potential violation of the 4th amendment a procedure of articulating reason before demanding papers should apply.

He doesn't have to tell you why he stopped you prior to gathering your documents. Heck, he may not even have to tell you at all.

(Now I'm off to check the post hx)

 

[soul_venom]

The thinking behind your statement? Does it not strike you as a potential violation of both the 4th & Delaware v Prouse?

 

[Zigner]

The thinking behind your statement? Does it not strike you as a potential violation of both the 4th & Delaware v Prouse?

If the officer has the required level of suspicion to perform the stop, then it's a valid stop. The officer doesn't have to articulate his reason for the stop to you on the side of the road. There is no violation of the 4th, and this question isn't even related to Delaware v Prouse, as the facts you have presented are different.

With that said...

This is not a discussion forum. Are you actually involved in this matter, or is your curiosity merely aroused based on your YouTube browsing?

 

[NIV]

The thinking behind your statement? Does it not strike you as a potential violation of both the 4th & Delaware v Prouse?

Articulable is an adjective for capable of being articulated. It does not mean actually articulated to the suspect before he has to comply with seizure.

 

[Zigner]

Articulable is an adjective for capable of being articulated. It does not mean actually articulated to the suspect before he has to comply with seizure.

Well said.

 

[soul_venom]

So am I to just assume that all stops are valid? Lol. So, just WHO does the officer have to articulate that reason to under the law? Since it is a detainment to hand over ones documents I would think that Delaware v Prouse would indeed apply.
As an American I not only have a right but a duty to actively resist any unlawful orders or attempts at unlawful detainment. Therefore it is critical that I be informed so that legality is firmly established.

 

[soul_venom]

re:NIV

Articulable is an adjective for capable of being articulated. It does not mean actually articulated to the suspect before he has to comply with seizure.

In the United States the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. This is why reasonable suspicion is required. Unless the officer can state that reason, on request, at the beginning of the interaction, who can one be sure their rights are not being violated? A fundamental aspect that sets Americans apart is the fact that refusal to act in blind obedience to authority is enshrined in our constitution. Rule of law & proper procedure therein must be followed not just by citizens but by those who administer said law. Americans not only have the right but the duty to resist tyranny.

 

[Zigner]

So am I to just assume that all stops are valid? Lol. So, just WHO does the officer have to articulate that reason to under the law? Since it is a detainment to hand over ones documents I would think that Delaware v Prouse would indeed apply.

No, you're still wrong. The officer will answer to the court, not the guy on the side of the road.

As an American I not only have a right but a duty to actively resist any unlawful orders or attempts at unlawful detainment. Therefore it is critical that I be informed so that legality is firmly established.

The place to argue this is in the court, not on the side of the road.

 

[justalayman]

And just to clarify a point, taking your license and such is not required for the stop to be a detention. The stop itself is the detention.

 

[NIV]

In the United States the presumption is innocent until proven guilty.

Legal presumption in criminal court.

This is why reasonable suspicion is required.

No. Reasonable suspicion is required to detain a person because of the 4th amendment's requirement of reasonableness of intrusion.

Unless the officer can state that reason

Agreed.

on request,

As you say. I have no understanding of your requirement at law. What is your basis for this belief?

at the beginning of the interaction,

Again, as you say.

who can one be sure their rights are not being violated?

No one can ever be sure until a court were to decide. How much talking must the cop do to convince you he has the legal reason to detain you. "We have a warrant for your arrest." Now what? Do you now know if your rights are being violated? Of course not. There may be no warrant. Then you demand to see it. Suppose they show you a warrant with your name on it, do you now know your rights are not being violated? Of course not. There may be some defect in the warrant. Maybe they faked the judge's signature or something you cannot in any way tell without research. When does it end? With a bullet in the head?

A fundamental aspect that sets Americans apart is the fact that refusal to act in blind obedience to authority is enshrined in our constitution.

You'll have to expand on that. The fundamental aspect of the Constitution is to limit the power of government, not empower individuals to decide what rules to follow.

Rule of law & proper procedure therein must be followed not just by citizens but by those who administer said law.

Yes. Your recourse is to the courts.

Americans not only have the right but the duty to resist tyranny.

As you say.

 

[NIV]

And just to clarify a point, taking your license and such is not required for the stop to be a detention. The stop itself is the detention.

The submission to the stop is the detention.

 

[westside]

Is/was there an actual situation that we're discussing, or are you searching for a silly hill to die on just because?

 

[Zigner]

Is/was there an actual situation that we're discussing, or are you searching for a silly hill to die on just because?

He's been browsing YouTube and is bored.

 

[justalayman]

The submission to the stop is the detention.

Semantics. There is no stop unless one submits. Until that point it is an attempt to cause the person to stop, but I suggest even that would be unlawful without reasonable suspicion