Concord man says officer followed him to parking lot for ‘looking suspicious’

Because I have rights as a citizen, and if you want to search me, get reasonable suspicion.

 

Not really, R/L ID will expose you for priors, warrants and past fines not paid. I read daily retards detained for warrants or unpaid fines on the local arrests website for this city..

Does any of that qualify as an answer for you?

 

And this is the authoritarian assumption at work. You assume that rights should be given up. You place the burden of proof on the right HOLDER rather than on those who would take their rights away. That's the very essence of authoritarianism -- to demand that people justify their rights rather than you providing justification for taking them away.

 

This is from the cop's supervisor who was on scene, but you should write to them and tell them what you think reasonable suspicion/probable cause is/should be and to take a liberal interpretation of the law.

 

Oh now you wanna change the subject

No thanks..

 

What was the BOLO? Article doesn't specify the description of the suspects.

 

The subject is a DL would not prove or disprove guilt of stealing a car. You are okay with cops breaking the law and violating the constitution. Noted.

 

No it was understanding of ID and it's importance in police discoveries..

 

These are the same people who say that hiring a lawyer is an admission of guilt. They are the same crowd that cries out "what do you have to hide" in regards to police searches while complaining Obama spied on citizens.

 

And the same people who praise Trump and his goons for resisting subpoenas.

 

Calling out people being difficult, just to stir the pot doesn't make them victims. It's just ******* bullshit.

 

Illegally detain people is much more "being difficult" than resisting illegal detainment is.

 

What was illegal about the detainment?

Cops can detain anybody they want to investigate a crime. No probable cause is required.

The anti-cop rhetoric and baiting of them is getting old and tired.

 

It is illegal to detain someone for not providing ID if they aren't legally required to provide ID. Not rocket surgery.

I'm glad that fascist daydream is completely untrue.

Expecting cops to obey the law is not "anti-cop," and spreading the lie that it is is getting old and tired.

 

I think he had a learning experience.

 

It is actually legal for a police officer to detain you briefly on the street, ask you questions, and even ask to see identification if they have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Such stops are known as “Terry stops” based on the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Terry v. Ohio.


Are you just making stuff up?

 

No, I've mentioned "reasonable articulable suspicion" many, many times. But that isn't what you said. And there was no reasonable articulable suspicion in this case. Why make stuff up?

 

Reasonable suspicion is required. They cannot just detain everyone in the parking lot.

 

How do you know what the cop was suspicious of?

 

What they are personally suspicious of doesn't matter. They need more than just "Well, I think this smells fishy." They need (prepare yourself for this) REASONABLE and ARTICULABLE suspicion of a SPECIFIC CRIME committed BY THE PERSON THEY ARE DETAINING for something like this.

 

Ok. So how do you know that the cop didn't have some suspicion?

Profiling is legal and 100% suspicion based.

 

He. Needs. More. Than. Bare. Suspicion.

 

How is the cop right and wrong at the same time?

Good grief, just pick a side and stick with it.

 

The conversation ends there.

 

No it's not. That's why his superior said he was wrong and was reprimanded by the police station.