Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reasonable Suspicion

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    Now having been on both sides and actually in the middle........I do have some good experiences as a defense attorney.

    Leave a comment:


  • farvas#1
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    Farvas.......Criminals' stupidity is what keeps you and I in business.
    Amen brother, I just couldn't be on the other side defending them.

    Leave a comment:


  • RR_Security
    replied
    Originally posted by NextGenOfc View Post
    Seems a little suspicious given the time of day, what could they possibly be doing other than maybe figuring out where they are or if there are problems with the vehicle? At the least, I would say mere suspicion is present.
    I agree. Even supposing there is no criminal activity afoot, checking on a possibly lost or disabled motorist would be something a police officer would be expected to do.
    If a "reasonable person" might believe that the car drove off after the occupants saw the police car, suspicion goes up a notch.
    Works for me. Then again, I tend to believe the U.S. population is made up mostly of violators/potential violators, victims/potential victims, a few witnesses, and cops.

    As an aside, I realize a "zealous defense" is what's expected of a defense attorney. What I don't like are the ones who seem to be burning a big pile of horse manure in order to create a smoke screen between the jury and the facts. (Why, yes, I am still ticked off about a certain case from around here. I was only an observer, but some friends of mine got kinda crapped on in the course of it. Lots of things went on that the D.A. could have objected to, but didn't. Oh, well; win some, lose some.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    Farvas.......Criminals' stupidity is what keeps you and I in business.

    Leave a comment:


  • az4code23
    replied
    Originally posted by Smurfette_76 View Post
    Someone's got the beginners book open and typing.
    Was that suppose to be funny? Cause I failed to see the humor.

    Leave a comment:


  • az4code23
    replied
    Originally posted by farvas#1 View Post
    He shouldnt have been driving drunk in the first place. I feel was a good stop.

    Lawyer just doing job. I dont think I could ever try and defend someones stupidity. It would make me feel like an ever bigger jerkoff.
    +1...............

    Leave a comment:


  • farvas#1
    replied
    He shouldnt have been driving drunk in the first place. I feel was a good stop.

    Lawyer just doing job. I dont think I could ever try and defend someones stupidity. It would make me feel like an ever bigger jerkoff.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    Originally posted by az4code23 View Post
    But why would you want to get it tossed, when based on the information provided, it clearly gives justification for an investigation prior to and following a Terry Stop. The incident is an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching the individual that may have been in the prior stages of commiting a crime. There are several factors one has to investigate before tossing out an investigation based on the reasoning that on cirumstance "may" not have been justified. Questions should be what is the traffic usualy like at that particular time in the morning? If the defense concludes with factual evidence that one or two vehicles pass through that street at the time of three and four AM in the morning, rather than twenty or thirty vehicles on that street at the same time, then the defense can conclusively justify that the driver and or individuals are of suspicious activity. Also, one must also consider the drivers/individuals behavior. After the officer spotted the suspicious activity; and prior the the stop, did the officer notice erratic behavior from the driver and or passenger in the vehicle? The aspects of a vehicle itself may justify suspicion. Did he have a broken tail light? Was he driving with his light off? Was his bright lights not dimmed for on coming traffic? Was there something unjustified about the vehicles license plate, tags or light? Everyone needs to look at what probable cause is. Probable cause is the probability of the existence of a certain fact, example, probable cause to believe a crime has been, is, or is about to be committed and that the search will result in the discovery of evidence or contraband. This case has a lot of conclusive evidence to built and present a justified case to the judge and jury.
    Someone's got the beginners book open and typing.

    Leave a comment:


  • adeutch
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    If I don't try to get the stop tossed, I'm not doing my job. If I don't challenge the entire complaint and a lot that isn't in the complaint, I may miss something that will aid my client. But that still was a good stop.....and knowing that, maybe the challenge will get the client a decent plea offer.
    He might get a good plea offer, but he ain't gettin' his license back any time soon.
    Yeah, this defense attorney employed a classic defense technique.. DISTRACTION. Make the judge look at all the possible legitimate reasons someone could be in the parking lot of a closed business. But the law remains, we judge reasonable suspicion based on what a reasonable officer might suspect. He may very well have it all wrong, but he can find that out by detaining the suspect long enough to confirm or dispell his suspicions.

    There was actually one other card the def. atty had up his sleeve, but the judge shot him down. And officers, this one is probably gonna make you fume. When the officer testified about his reasonable suspicion he said he suspected burglary because, among other things, this was a high crime area. Def. atty asks him what he means. Officer says there have been lots of previous break-ins. Def. atty asks the officer when/how long ago. Officer says he doesn't remember. Def. atty gets the crime stats from the police dept. and they show nothing but false alarms. Again, the def. atty put a spotlight on this one issue. But even striking that factor there are others that create suspicion. The fact that the business was closed, the fact that the driver stayed in the car while the passenger got out, the fact that the car drove off right after the officer passed, etc.

    I've probably carried this thread on for too long. I just got excited because I actually got to review a case I was somewhat interested in.

    Leave a comment:


  • adeutch
    replied
    Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
    Remember for many attorneys court may as well be a sporting event.
    Amen to that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinosaur32
    replied
    If I don't try to get the stop tossed, I'm not doing my job. If I don't challenge the entire complaint and a lot that isn't in the complaint, I may miss something that will aid my client. But that still was a good stop.....and knowing that, maybe the challenge will get the client a decent plea offer.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdrdep
    replied
    Dino is saying what he would do as a defense atty. It's the smartest play on the defenses part because you nullify the whole stop from the get go. Doesn't mean there was anything actually wrong with the stop it's just the best odds for the defense.

    Remember for many attorneys court may as well be a sporting event.

    Leave a comment:


  • Twoisone
    replied
    [QUOTE=az4code23;2049344]But why would you want to get it tossed, when based on the information provided, it clearly gives justification for an investigation prior to and following a Terry Stop?

    Because that is what defense attorneys get paid to do.

    "If the defense concludes with factual evidence that one or two vehicles pass through that street at the time of three and four AM in the morning, rather than twenty or thirty vehicles on that street at the same time, then the defense can conclusively justify that the driver and or individuals are of suspicious activity."

    Why would the defense attorney do this? A defense attorney is trying to prove their client's innocence. A prosecuting attorney would be the one who would try and prove suspicious activity.

    Leave a comment:


  • az4code23
    replied
    Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
    Passenger out of car? In parking lot of closed, unlit restaurant? I'd try to get the stop tossed, but even here in NY, I don't think that would fly. Looks like good stop to me.
    But why would you want to get it tossed, when based on the information provided, it clearly gives justification for an investigation prior to and following a Terry Stop. The incident is an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching the individual that may have been in the prior stages of commiting a crime. There are several factors one has to investigate before tossing out an investigation based on the reasoning that on cirumstance "may" not have been justified. Questions should be what is the traffic usualy like at that particular time in the morning? If the defense concludes with factual evidence that one or two vehicles pass through that street at the time of three and four AM in the morning, rather than twenty or thirty vehicles on that street at the same time, then the defense can conclusively justify that the driver and or individuals are of suspicious activity. Also, one must also consider the drivers/individuals behavior. After the officer spotted the suspicious activity; and prior the the stop, did the officer notice erratic behavior from the driver and or passenger in the vehicle? The aspects of a vehicle itself may justify suspicion. Did he have a broken tail light? Was he driving with his light off? Was his bright lights not dimmed for on coming traffic? Was there something unjustified about the vehicles license plate, tags or light? Everyone needs to look at what probable cause is. Probable cause is the probability of the existence of a certain fact, example, probable cause to believe a crime has been, is, or is about to be committed and that the search will result in the discovery of evidence or contraband. This case has a lot of conclusive evidence to built and present a justified case to the judge and jury.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArkansasFan24
    replied
    Originally posted by adeutch View Post
    Hit me up, but I might be more likely to try to steer you away from it.
    LOL Yeah, I hear you. I've heard a lot of that too. I'll PM you for that insider advice once the chaos leaves me.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3398 users online. 248 members and 3150 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X