How it got easier for cops to shake down minorities

 In the old days, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution required police to establish "probable cause" to lawfully conduct certain searches and seizures or perform arrests.

As of 1968, police may stop you even without probable cause to believe you committed a crime. In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Terry v. Ohio, justices formulated from whole cloth the less-than-probable-cause standard they called “reasonable suspicion,” aka "RS", which was comically and pedantically defined as the totality of specific and articulable facts and circumstances, taken together, that leads an officer to reasonably suspect a person may be engaged in criminal activity.

Cops never even need to name a specific law they think has been broken, nor do they even have to tell the “subject” the basis for the stop, unless he’s arrested or cited. The court pretended to establish some boundaries by requiring that an officer’s suspicion must be “particularized” and not generalized, that it has to be more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.”

The Terry case all but eviscerated the Fourth Amendment in stop-and-frisk cases. We see countless viral videos that depict cops stopping people just because "we got a call" or because they're opting to make an arbitrary investigation of some sort. That's fairly telling of officers' lack of understanding of the current state of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and their own state laws.

Once an officer has established reasonable suspicion, he may briefly detain a person to investigate whether there is probable cause to make an arrest, or until his suspicions are dispelled, at which time the person would be free to go. If there’s additional “reasonable suspicion” to suspect the “subject” might be armed and dangerous, the officer can now do what’s called a “pat down” or frisk of exterior clothing for weapons, which is supposedly less intrusive than a regular search, which could entail digging into a person’s pockets.

Thank you, SCOTUS, for making it easier for opportunistic bullies to shake down people of lesser privilege just for kicks. This is, of course, a much easier job than conducting complex criminal investigations that are less likely to produce arrests and citations than these high-yielding stop & frisks.

All this is my own opinion, based on pertinent laws and relevant court cases I've read, as well as a healthy dose of videos showing cops behaving badly. Do your own work! Read laws and court cases for your jurisdiction, and subscribe to attorneys who have studied the law. Do not educate yourself by watching videos produced by people who speak as authoritative sources of knowledge. Good lawyers and journalists cite sources and show their work. Learn the difference!

Teenage migrant worker held for months following questionable police stop in Florida

We as Americans tend to turn the other cheek on undocumented migrants because they contribute significantly to our local economies by depressing labor costs, but the migrants are often mistreated. Back in May, an 18-year-old Guatemalan migrant, gainfully employed by St. Augustine, Florida area agricultural producers, was being detained by a St. Johns County Sheriff's deputy for unknown reasons. Sgt. Michael Kunovich rolled up on Vergilio Aguilar-Mendez, who doesn't speak English, in front of Super 8 Motel, and began questioning him. Kunovich quickly escalated the encounter and began applying physical force against Aguilar-Mendez. During a struggle, Kunovich, a 25-year veteran of SJSO, tased Aguilar-Mendez 4 times. After backup officers arrived and while Aguilar-Mendez was being handcuffed, Kunovich suffered a medical event and was pronounced dead a short time later. Aguilar-Mendez is being charged for his death and has been locked up ever since, even though he had not committed a crime leading up to the questionable stop. There are now calls to free Vergilio Aguilar-Mendez.

 

Google's AI agent on Iowa law

 

This morning I received an email from Google advising me that I had been welcomed into the Bard research project, so I started asking questions.

Here's one question I asked, followed by Bard's response.

Question: "In the Iowa Supreme Court case STATE V. SMITHSON, the court ruled that Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts only applies in the case of active interference, and not for merely refusing to cooperate. Based on that ruling, would refusing to identify to a police officer be considered active interference?"

Answer: "No, refusing to identify to a police officer would not be considered active interference under the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Smithson. In that case, the court ruled that Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts only applies in the case of active interference, and not for merely refusing to cooperate. The court defined active interference as "an act that obstructs or impedes the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties." Refusing to identify oneself to a police officer does not meet this definition, as it does not obstruct or impede the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties."

"The court also noted that the purpose of Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts is to protect police officers from harm and to ensure that they can carry out their duties effectively. Refusing to identify oneself to a police officer does not pose a threat to the officer's safety or interfere with the officer's ability to carry out his or her duties."

"Therefore, the court concluded that refusing to identify oneself to a police officer is not a crime under Iowa Code 719.1 interference with official acts."

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think the answer nails the answer perfectly. First, and most importantly, Bard doesn't purport to give any legal advise, and I'm sure anyone would be well advised not to use its responses in court without running them by an attorney as a minimum.

Secondly, in the referenced the Smithson case, Larry Smithson failed to turn down music when told to do so by a police officer. for which he was charged with a violation of Iowa Code Section 719.1, interference with official acts. As far as I know, Smithson was not charged for refusing to identify himself, as Bard is suggesting above, and therefore the fact pattern is inaccurate, but conceivably right on the point that interference does not mean refusing any demand a police officer wants to make.

Perhaps Bard provided a cogent argument that could be used in court, but it's only an example, and the court is free to disagree if it find the argument without merit. But is it a start? An idea starter? Possibly!

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.