Originally Posted by
T-the-B
Thanks for the followup. It leads to another question.
If, as you put it, the "totality of the circumstances" is what determines the officer's actions, isn't "reasonable suspicion" just another term for "professional judgment", much the same as might be exercised by a medical professional, engineer, pilot, etc?
The discussion here seems to indicate that the terms "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are a lot more subjective than my prior understanding. I had thought that clear, objective standards spelled out what constituted "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" but it appears that I was mistaken. Is that a fair summation?
Yes, in common everyday discussion this is true. However, when dealing with the legal system many times you have to follow rules and procedures that sometimes don't seem to make much sense. PC and RS have legal definitions however; in practice the application of those definitions can be very subjective. That is why many times long before a trial ever happens the defense attorney will file a motion to suppress evidence. The argument many times centers on if the PC or RS was legitimate. Many times, the outcome of that motion centers on how well the Officer was able to articulate why he did what he did. Here is an example taken from an actual case. Ether is used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. An officer was called for a disturbance I believe on a public street. He responded and while talking to the subject the officer smelled the odor of methamphetamine on the subject. The subject was nervous and could not explain the odor. The officer searched the subject based on what he smelled, the subject behavior, and evasiveness in answering the questions. The officer found methamphetamine on the subject. When the officer documented the search and subsequent arrest in his report, he did not write that he smelled methamphetamine. He wrote that he smelled ether on the subject. The case was lost because the court ruled that because ether is a legal substance the smell of it could not be used to support PC. The officer would have been fine writing that based on his experience by being exposed to methamphetamine during prior arrests he smelled methamphetamine on the subject.
What confuses many is that standard is measured against what a reasonable officer would have done not a reasonable civilian without the benefit of training and experience would have done.
FB
Originally Posted by
wildcatlh
Troll? He had his finger improperly positioned on the trigger, resulting in the murder of an unarmed, non-dangerous individual. If any non-law enforcement were to kill somebody in the EXACT SAME SITUATION, they'd be lucky if they were only facing manslaughter charges. A police officer gets a 3-week suspension -- and the police union has the gall to complain that a 3-week suspension for murdering a non-officer is too much, since the regular punishment for shooting someone by mistake is a reprimand. So excuse me if I don't buy for a second that all this training means a thing.
Like I said the term "trigger control" is not used to describe the the situation you are trying to discuss. Trigger control means something entirely different.
FB