There you go: Two or three generations of jurisprudence in one panel.
Never fear. The courts are chaotic here because they’re focusing on outcomes without a consistent underlying principle. But I think I can give you one that makes everything clear. Maybe next time I’ll explain it for you. Watch this space!
It really doesn’t seem like it should be that hard to figure out.
Half these guy’s statements don’t even make sense.
What’s wrong with:
Stop: cop thinks you might have done something
Arrest: cop thinks you probably did something
Stop: cop is just investigating, doesn’t intend to charge you unless he finds more
Arrest: cop may still investigate, but already has enough to charge you and plans to
Stop: cop can detain you, but not transport you (besides minor movement within the same vicinity)
Arrest: cop can “bring you in” to the station
It seems obvious what that “something more” judge #10 alludes to should be. For there to be great dissent, I imagine there must be a problem with one of these ideas, but I can’t think which it might be.
Agree with most except “Arrest: cop thinks you probably did something” (needs evidence backing it up).
A stop is on suspicion of breaking the law – like you blew a stop sign… he goes up to o your car, sees bullets or a beer can.. in the drivers cup holder. He can inspect them and turns out the bullets str empty earrings (no gun powder,) and the beer can is a fake safe with nothing in it but keys. Search over, driver goes free..no searching the rest of the car.
If the beer can was open and the cop smelled booze or heard slurring then he can investigate her further with sobriety tests…
Thanks for using the phrase “begging the question” correctly.
This is like asking the NFL what is considered a “catch”.
Good to know that criminal law and professional football are equally vague.
Q: What’s a “catch”?
A: Ask the soccer people, they can give you a definite answer which isn’t as useless as “I know it when I see it”.