Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan
Well that depends on the case law and what we are talking about. I pay attention to case law that affects me professionally. Briefings are almost always about case law and/or changes to it. I need to know how to get into someone's pockets, into their vehicle, what my "keys to the castle" are, etc. I need to know that I can have your blood drawn without your consent or that there's cases being heard currently that may allow me to pull over a car for certain reasons under the suspicion that it's the registered owner driving the car. Unless you're a lawyer/DA/etc., or just someone who really loves law, a person isn't going to know the entire Constitution or Bill of Rights off the top of their heads any more than I know the entire California Vehicle Code or the California Penal Code books off the top of my head. I DO, however, know the most common violations though.
|
I take that as a little tap dance around my question.
How often have you used the term “reasonable suspicion” .
Without using it properly, “reasonable suspicion of xxxxxx crime/violation”.?
It is a common thing that many officers do, “I have reasonable suspicion to pull you over.” Not finishing the sentence can be a really bad thing but many non police do not comprehend that fact.
You must have RAS that a crime or some type of violation has, is or will occur and many LEOs do not even know an individual has the right to know what that RAS is as well.
Btw, case law is not law, it is a courts interpretation of a situation regarding a law (I am assuming you know this but some here may not.)
Probable cause? Must be specific as well. Constitution is very specific on warrants and probable cause must be as well or a good lawyer will have you for lunch.