Good Guy

Wait a tic, what's that I smell?? Roses?

bocastephen

*Sigh*...those were the days when Judges actually followed the law instead of re-writing it from the bench to suit their own political agenda or other motivations.

I recall one such courageous Judge in NY who threw out an illegal search of a trunk (which resulted in a huge haul of drugs) on the grounds that the search clearly violated the 4th Amendment.

Even Slick Willy Clinton himself went on record calling for the Judge's immediate removal, but the good Judge stood firm and told his critics to go whizz off. I wonder where he is now.

Ari

Did you click on the link? Isn't this the case the article is about? In 1996?

Superguy

Court cases dated farther back are cited in judges' decisions all the time. As an LEO, you should know that. Terry v. Ohio ring a bell?

bocastephen

That's one such case. I was discussing another - a Hispanic woman pulled over on or near the Brooklyn Bridge and searched illegally.

Wally Bird

From which I infer you believe that police behavior has improved in the intervening 10 years, and the abuses are now fewer than they were then. Which would require ignoring 9/11 and the ensuing fallout; see: Patriot Act, War on Terror®, "everything changed", "Keeping Us Safe®", yadda, yadda.

Not my assessment.

law dawg

Not when the case law has since radically changed.

A judge saying it's "not suspicious to flee the police" is direct contrast to Wardlow, which says -

"In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow’s unprovoked flight that aroused the officers’ suspicion. Nervous, evasive behavior is another pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, and headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion."

So yeah, the date makes a big difference here, seeing as how Wardlow was argued in 1999 and decided in 2000.

It's called new case law. Citing old case law after new case law has been established and then telling people to "wake up and smell the roses" is silly, at best.

law dawg

By that I mean the case law has changed. When case law changes, you can't go back and cite old case law as prima facia evidence to support your claim. You particularly can't do it and then tell people to clean up their act because it's been proven you can't do it.

ralfp

If the case law states that an officer must use his/her judgment regarding suspicion (see quote from the Wardlow case below), then should there not be some possibility of review of that judgment? In the 1996 case, wasn't the judge saying that police/civilian relations were so bad that flight was no longer suspicious? The judge did not say that flight was never probable cause, just that flight was not suspicious when law abiding citizens had reason to be afraid of police. I don't see how the Wardlow case changes that.

For example, is flight suspicious if it's from a specific police officer who has a reputation (irrespective of the truth behind the reputation) of beating-up innocent people that he stops on the street, ?

law dawg

A case could certainly be made in that hypothetical example.

But I say again, to cite a 1996 case and then tell people, simply based upon that one case (ignoring the later precedent), to "wake up and smell the roses" is asinine.

FliesWay2Much

I followed up because I was curious. It turns out that the government appealed the decision and the judge "changed his mind" and admitted the evidence he had previously thrown out.

The Rest of the Story...

Wally Bird

Oh yes you can. The Supremes do it all the time, and can reverse later (timewise) opinions in favor of earlier ones. They will cite, examine and rule on all pertinent precedents. It would require someone's appeal making it that far of course, but it is entirely possible that Bayless would supercede Wardlow if the Supremes were to consider both in the light of a third case.

Ari

I must have scrolled down through Pacer too quickly-- I missed that.

law dawg

When MikeMpls becomes a member of SCOTUS then that will be a salient point.

Serendipity87

POLICE BRUTALITY PERVASIVE IN MN AIRPORT ATTACKS INVOLVING IMAMS, DAVID ORSACK, AARON JAMES -AND MCCAIN/REPUBLICAN AFFILIATES EXPOSED COMPLICIT:
Brad Wingate has been involved in several attacks at Minneapolis Airport - most of you will not be aware of this.
Not just the 6 Imams
but also: David Orsack greencycles(dot)blogspot(daught)com
/2007/05/case-summary(daught)html
and
Aaron James and his mother bradwingatebrutality(daught)blogspot(daught)com
… ***and now it seems evidence demonstrates Republican interests have played a hand in 3 years ongoing assaults upon this family! mccainattacks(daught)blogspot(daught)com
This is simply reprehensible!
Two further seperate assaults involving taser weapons.
The court has done a cover up on all of these attacks due to police state brutality in the United States exemplified in the Repubican national Convention and DNC preemptive raids on homes.
Regarding David Orsack he comments:
“Wingate’s anger at this and perhaps embarrassment and sense of not having been able, through threats of violence, to force the upper hand in the situation then led to a series of spontaneous actions on his part that were an egregious escalation of police force”
Back to the Imams report:
Here’s what Officer Wingate reported in the police report:
“Officer Desubijana and I asked the six passengers pointed out to us to get up and leave the aircraft. Systematically, from the rear to the front of the plane, we asked all six to leave the plane. All parties left the plane cooperatively. It should be noted that two of the individuals were seated in the rear; two were seated in the middle; and two were seated in the front of the aircraft; all of which stated they were travelling together. All of their carry-on bags were brought off the aircraft as well.”
I find it a little peculiar that the police report said that the imams “left the plane cooperatively” while the letter to the editor said that the imams were “handcuffed” and “removed from the plane…” Let’s remember that Imam Shahin said:
“This was humiliating, the worst moment of my life.”
The first obvious question is “If the imams “left the plane cooperatively”, why would they need to be handcuffed?
The second obvious question is why should Imam Shahin say that “This was humiliating, the worst moment of my life” if they weren’t taken off in handcuffs?
This whole thing stinks of *police abuse and destruction of evidence. I hope that this Officer Wingate is ultimately discharged. He disgraced the department and other officers he serves with.