I know you like some case law... so here you go... Navarette v. California... the Supreme Court said there is a 3 factor framework for elevating a single tip to make it sufficiently reliable to create reasonable suspicion for an investigation. (1) eyewitness knowledge of a crime which has been, is being, or about to be committed. (2) report is contemporaneous with the event. (3) used a 911 emergency system which permits call tracing. In this case, which sounds like you may be referencing, the 911 caller saw someone pull out a gun and put it in his pocket. The suspect walked into a liquor store and, in Illinois, it is illegal to posses a firearm in a place licensed to sell alcohol. The caller had given a specific statement that he had "just walked into the liquor store" so that was a contemporaneous report. That met all 3 factors so the search was upheld after a Terry stop was initiated. In your example about getting a call of someone seeing a person with a gun on the street corner... that would be a different case. You would still need some sort of evidence of an actual crime taking place if you wanted reasonable suspicion to initiate a Terry stop unless, like you stated, the person was clearly underage or perhaps in the rare case like you said about possibly being in a state where it is unlikely the person would have a concealed carry permit.
Post the Bruen decision, all states are required to issue permits unless it is a prohibited person. Given this information is outdated, the need for specific activity that points to criminal activity would be required to have the RAS of crime. Case Law is always updating, and old videos and articles may have been correct when created, but always analyze with the standards of the day for the jurisdiction.
I'm a retired CA cop. My ex called and reported a man outside her home with a gun. I was there to pick up our son sitting in my car. You can guess what happened. Proned out. The whole rigamarue. No charges for her. DAs won't file on women for these calls.
let just say you have reasonable suspicion to stop the guy it doesn't give you the right to automatically frisk the person for weapons. Somehow the way you stated it makes one think its automatic
There you go again. Because you keep misstating the legal standard as "reasonable suspicion" (like all cops do) instead of the correct "reasonable articulable suspicion", you got the guy on the street corner with a gun question wrong. You would lose in court in most areas because there was no allegation of a crime, just an allegation of something they didn't like. Big difference. You have to ARTICULATE the criminal activity, not vaguely extrapolate from LEGAL activity you don't like. What ends up happening in real life is the that the black guy goes into handcuffs for officer safety and the white 1A auditor with a camera gets let off. That's not ok, and this wrong training makes it your fault.
@@michaelandreas2177 in none of his other videos, does he use the correct standard as laid out by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio. Instead, he always uses the wrong standard used by most cops of 'reasonable suspicion". He would definitely lose this hypothetical case in court. Articulable means you have to say specifically which crime you reasonably suspect them of committing. When you do this, it makes his tortured reasoning in the attempt to get an ID obviously silly
@@michaelandreas2177 You're right in that episode he lays out Step One as articulating exactly WHICH crime is suspected, and specifically says you can not use the too-general "criminal activity". In this video at 5:11 he straight up violates his own Step One from episode 171 and uses the "criminal activity" standard. He fails here like cops fail every day from wrong training and not understanding the real standard is "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion" instead of the "Reasonable Suspicion" they think it is.
I know you like some case law... so here you go... Navarette v. California... the Supreme Court said there is a 3 factor framework for elevating a single tip to make it sufficiently reliable to create reasonable suspicion for an investigation. (1) eyewitness knowledge of a crime which has been, is being, or about to be committed. (2) report is contemporaneous with the event. (3) used a 911 emergency system which permits call tracing. In this case, which sounds like you may be referencing, the 911 caller saw someone pull out a gun and put it in his pocket. The suspect walked into a liquor store and, in Illinois, it is illegal to posses a firearm in a place licensed to sell alcohol. The caller had given a specific statement that he had "just walked into the liquor store" so that was a contemporaneous report. That met all 3 factors so the search was upheld after a Terry stop was initiated.
In your example about getting a call of someone seeing a person with a gun on the street corner... that would be a different case. You would still need some sort of evidence of an actual crime taking place if you wanted reasonable suspicion to initiate a Terry stop unless, like you stated, the person was clearly underage or perhaps in the rare case like you said about possibly being in a state where it is unlikely the person would have a concealed carry permit.
Are fire arms allowed by the United States constitution?
Yes'm
Post the Bruen decision, all states are required to issue permits unless it is a prohibited person. Given this information is outdated, the need for specific activity that points to criminal activity would be required to have the RAS of crime. Case Law is always updating, and old videos and articles may have been correct when created, but always analyze with the standards of the day for the jurisdiction.
The answer is NO.
I'm a retired CA cop. My ex called and reported a man outside her home with a gun. I was there to pick up our son sitting in my car. You can guess what happened. Proned out. The whole rigamarue. No charges for her. DAs won't file on women for these calls.
You basically have to get the media involved if you want a shot at pressing charges for false reporting.
Leave California if you want laws to matter and politics to mean little.
Great info. Thanks Anthony!!
Glad to help! Anthony
let just say you have reasonable suspicion to stop the guy it doesn't give you the right to automatically frisk the person for weapons. Somehow the way you stated it makes one think its automatic
great info
Not in Utah, unless they are doing something illegal
What is the court case that allows the limited intrusion into the backpack? What does that extend to?
Never looked at it from that perspective
There you go again. Because you keep misstating the legal standard as "reasonable suspicion" (like all cops do) instead of the correct "reasonable articulable suspicion", you got the guy on the street corner with a gun question wrong. You would lose in court in most areas because there was no allegation of a crime, just an allegation of something they didn't like. Big difference. You have to ARTICULATE the criminal activity, not vaguely extrapolate from LEGAL activity you don't like. What ends up happening in real life is the that the black guy goes into handcuffs for officer safety and the white 1A auditor with a camera gets let off. That's not ok, and this wrong training makes it your fault.
He has other videos, cops should learn to use the word "because" to articulate why they have suspicion. Also suggests having 5 reasons.
@@michaelandreas2177 in none of his other videos, does he use the correct standard as laid out by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio. Instead, he always uses the wrong standard used by most cops of 'reasonable suspicion". He would definitely lose this hypothetical case in court. Articulable means you have to say specifically which crime you reasonably suspect them of committing. When you do this, it makes his tortured reasoning in the attempt to get an ID obviously silly
@@bobuncle87 See Ep. #171: The Two Step Process for Articulating Reasonable Suspicion
@@bobuncle87 ruclips.net/video/e3m6z5WDYAk/видео.html
@@michaelandreas2177 You're right in that episode he lays out Step One as articulating exactly WHICH crime is suspected, and specifically says you can not use the too-general "criminal activity". In this video at 5:11 he straight up violates his own Step One from episode 171 and uses the "criminal activity" standard. He fails here like cops fail every day from wrong training and not understanding the real standard is "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion" instead of the "Reasonable Suspicion" they think it is.