Traffic infractions are not a crime. People v. Battle Reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a crime involving a victim or injured party must accompany every seizure, investigation, or questioning When officers detained appellant for the purpose of requiring him to identify himself, they performed a seizure of his person subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment... The Fourth Amendment, of course, applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest... Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized that person, and the Fourth Amendment requires that the seizure be reasonable. * But even assuming that purpose (prevention of crime) is served to some degree by stopping and demanding identification from an individual without any specific basis for believing he is involved in criminal activity, the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment do not allow it. Police officers cannot place the cart before the horse, and conduct an investigation to discover a possible civil infraction, as distinguished from a criminal infraction, but must have a criminal basis for seizure and questioning * The application of...(a code)...to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged, or had engaged, in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is reversed. (Probable cause) Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, (1979) * With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority. Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; ONeil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government. Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp. 94. The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613. Nothing is gained in the argument by calling it ‘police power.’” Henderson v. City of New York, 92 U.S. 259, 2771 (1875); Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 501 (1934). Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority, can be actions under color of law. Stringer v. Dilger, 1963, Ca. 10 Colo., 313 F.2d 536. (Civil law 42 U.S.C 1983 - Criminal Law 18 U.S.C 241 & 242) That an officer or employee of a state or one of its subdivisions is deemed to be acting under color of law as to those deprivations of right committed in the fulfillment of the tasks and obligations assigned to him. Monroe v. Page, 1961, 365 U.S. 167. (Civil law) Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that command is itself violative of the constitution. Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284, 291-2.
Posted on: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:17:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015