opinion noir

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

however we are not talking about a random search. When suspected criminal behavior is protected by the courts because of their activism we are in more trouble. When cops cant be trusted to use their experience and instincts to deter probable criminal behavior and the courts are going to overrule that ability how exactly are the police supposed to do their jobs? This police intrusion stuff is off the wall. Protecting citizens rights is a tremendous responsibility but not allowing the police to do their jobs and allow criminals to be prosecuted properly is a danger to public safety as well.

But the issue in the case was exactly what you're assuming -- whether or not it was "probable criminal behavior." The exact legal issue was whether a hand to hand exchange of money for some small unidentified object in the proverbial "high crime area," when coupled with a cop's testimony that he, personally, believed it was a drug transaction, gives rise to probable cause to arrest. The question at the heart of this issue is where do you draw the line? Even putting aside the dilemma of whether it's appropriate to have different standards for a "high crime area," which is usually a poor, inner-city neighborhood, as opposed to a more affluent suburban setting, do you let a cop decide that he's got probable cause to arrest or do you let the courts decide?

In the case addressed by the opinion noir, the cop simply said that he believed that he saw a drug transaction without telling the reviewing court exactly why he believed that. That's like having a bunch of armed judges running around on the streets (a la Judge Dredd) who not only make the arrest but also make the legal determination as to whether the arrest passes constitutional muster. Here in Pennsylvania, the cops are not hamstrung by this decision. A cop can still demonstrate to a reviewing court that he had probable cause if he relates what he saw as well as telling the court why, in his experience, he believed that he was observing a drug transaction. In that way, the court decides whether there was enough, not the cop.

Even if a cop is unsure about what he saw, or if he can't verbalize why his "instincts" tell him that drugs were involved, he could probably, under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, conduct a temporary stop for further investigation. If the person runs, or does something else to add to the level of suspicion, he could be arrested. If the person is innocent, and the cop's instincts are dead wrong, then an innocent person isn't subjected to the intrusion of being arrested and all that entails (e.g., public humiliation at the least, maybe handcuffing, maybe fingerprinting, getting locked up and given a body cavity search if it goes further). Or, a cop could just watch to see if there are other transactions without immediately conducting a stop, which, if there were other transactions, would probably kick it to the level of probable cause and thus permit an arrest.

Despite the Chief Justice's prose, I think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck the appropriate balance between protecting the public's safety and protecting the public's civil rights.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

But the issue in the case was exactly what you're assuming -- whether or not it was "probable criminal behavior." The exact legal issue was whether a hand to hand exchange of money for some small unidentified object in the proverbial "high crime area," when coupled with a cop's testimony that he, personally, believed it was a drug transaction, gives rise to probable cause to arrest. The question at the heart of this issue is where do you draw the line? Even putting aside the dilemma of whether it's appropriate to have different standards for a "high crime area," which is usually a poor, inner-city neighborhood, as opposed to a more affluent suburban setting, do you let a cop decide that he's got probable cause to arrest or do you let the courts decide?

In the case addressed by the opinion noir, the cop simply said that he believed that he saw a drug transaction without telling the reviewing court exactly why he believed that. That's like having a bunch of armed judges running around on the streets (a la Judge Dredd) who not only make the arrest but also make the legal determination as to whether the arrest passes constitutional muster. Here in Pennsylvania, the cops are not hamstrung by this decision. A cop can still demonstrate to a reviewing court that he had probable cause if he relates what he saw as well as telling the court why, in his experience, he believed that he was observing a drug transaction. In that way, the court decides whether there was enough, not the cop.

Even if a cop is unsure about what he saw, or if he can't verbalize why his "instincts" tell him that drugs were involved, he could probably, under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, conduct a temporary stop for further investigation. If the person runs, or does something else to add to the level of suspicion, he could be arrested. If the person is innocent, and the cop's instincts are dead wrong, then an innocent person isn't subjected to the intrusion of being arrested and all that entails (e.g., public humiliation at the least, maybe handcuffing, maybe fingerprinting, getting locked up and given a body cavity search if it goes further). Or, a cop could just watch to see if there are other transactions without immediately conducting a stop, which, if there were other transactions, would probably kick it to the level of probable cause and thus permit an arrest.

Despite the Chief Justice's prose, I think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck the appropriate balance between protecting the public's safety and protecting the public's civil rights.

Personally i feel a lot safer with cops making these decisions than courts especially since much of the information used by the cops is twisted by defense attorneys and cant be used by the court. The whole "high crime area" is picked on crap is just that. There is a reason that it is a high crime area, a lot of crimes are committed there. This everything in the world is equal crap is just that. You talk a big game here but if you were walking down the street alone at night in a "high crime area" would the nervousness that you felt be considered racist? The rights of citizens in this country are well protected without this activism and the insinuations that somehow the cops are the issue here. The general tone in your posts suggests that you feel that police 'overagressiveness' is a greater danger than drug dealers. You must be a defense attorney.

The war on drugs is an absolute joke. White people scared of walking in the ghetto are sissies.

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The war on drugs is an absolute joke. White people scared of walking in the ghetto are sissies.

Sissies stay alive.

[Mortimer]

Will the real Chris Darden please rise.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Mortimer

Will the real Chris Darden please rise.

I choose to sit thank you. I can gift wrap only so many roofies standing.







I will be meandering along the banks of the Schuykill...









DO NOT ask for me by name....

[Mortimer]

Please..you're a nomadic sloth.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Personally i feel a lot safer with cops making these decisions than courts especially since much of the information used by the cops is twisted by defense attorneys and cant be used by the court. The whole "high crime area" is picked on crap is just that. There is a reason that it is a high crime area, a lot of crimes are committed there. This everything in the world is equal crap is just that. You talk a big game here but if you were walking down the street alone at night in a "high crime area" would the nervousness that you felt be considered racist? The rights of citizens in this country are well protected without this activism and the insinuations that somehow the cops are the issue here. The general tone in your posts suggests that you feel that police 'overagressiveness' is a greater danger than drug dealers. You must be a defense attorney.

Hmmm. No one ever accused me of being shy to take a side but these cases are so tough.

I do find it interesting that you feel safer with cops making judicial decisions than judges. That is indeed dangerous thinking. The notion that cops aren't at times just as dangerous or more dangerous than the criminals suggests a bit of naivete. Come to DC (to tony and joes on the waterfront) on a friday or saturday night and you tell me if you feel the same way. I digress.

Again, there is a fine line between keeping us free from crime while keeping us free from harassment.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Hmmm. No one ever accused me of being shy to take a side but these cases are so tough.

I do find it interesting that you feel safer with cops making judicial decisions than judges. That is indeed dangerous thinking. The notion that cops aren't at times just as dangerous or more dangerous than the criminals suggests a bit of naivete. Come to DC (to tony and joes on the waterfront) on a friday or saturday night and you tell me if you feel the same way. I digress.

Again, there is a fine line between keeping us free from crime while keeping us free from harassment.

I didnt say that they make the decisions as opposed to judges. I just think narrowing the operational ability for arresting probable criminals is a bad way to go. They still have to be right and produce evidence. In this case they were right and the reason that the criminal was let off was because the court failed to see how they came to the conclusion a drug deal was taking place because they just saw something being passed as opposed to seeing "drugs" being passd and the fact that the criminals didnt run. So my contention is that if upheld couldnt drug dealers simply wrap the drugs in nice little bags and stand still when the police arrest them? No one wants to see civil rights eroded but by keep making the polices job 'technically' harder, you are moving the bar to favor those who break the law. If the police are not trusted to make these decisions as to who is engaging in criminal behavior than who is?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I didnt say that they make the decisions as opposed to judges. I just think narrowing the operational ability for arresting probable criminals is a bad way to go. They still have to be right and produce evidence. In this case they were right and the reason that the criminal was let off was because the court failed to see how they came to the conclusion a drug deal was taking place because they just saw something being passed as opposed to seeing "drugs" being passd and the fact that the criminals didnt run. So my contention is that if upheld couldnt drug dealers simply wrap the drugs in nice little bags and stand still when the police arrest them? No one wants to see civil rights eroded but by keep making the polices job 'technically' harder, you are moving the bar to favor those who break the law. If the police are not trusted to make these decisions as to who is engaging in criminal behavior than who is?

You make a good point. As shadow roll said, if a guy is standing there passing out these nice little bags, it is more than just one occurence. That would make it probable cause.

One isolated transaction? In my opinion, it could have been anything.

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Personally i feel a lot safer with cops making these decisions than courts especially since much of the information used by the cops is twisted by defense attorneys and cant be used by the court. The whole "high crime area" is picked on crap is just that. There is a reason that it is a high crime area, a lot of crimes are committed there. This everything in the world is equal crap is just that. You talk a big game here but if you were walking down the street alone at night in a "high crime area" would the nervousness that you felt be considered racist? The rights of citizens in this country are well protected without this activism and the insinuations that somehow the cops are the issue here. The general tone in your posts suggests that you feel that police 'overagressiveness' is a greater danger than drug dealers. You must be a defense attorney.

Ah, it's come to this, an ad hominem attack.

Okay, since you want to get personal, here's some personal info. You're right, I am a defense attorney. But guess what, I've walked down quite a few streets in North Philly alone at night. In fact, I lived there for a year. And, yes, of course I felt nervous. Being a defense attorney isn't synonymous with loving crime. I also believe that most of the cops I deal with are decent men and women. But just because I'm as scared of crime as most people, and just because I don't believe that most cops are "overaggressive", doesn't mean that I blindly trust cops to not abuse their power. In any system without adequate checks and balances, abuse of power is inevitable. It's human nature. Crime and cops abusing their power -- I've seen both. Personally.

As to defense attorney's "twisting" information, you'll be gratified to know that there are attorneys on the other side (they're called prosecutors) who went to the same law schools and learned the same things as I and my fellow defense attorneys. They're not just potted plants sitting dumbly in court while us clever defense attorneys take advantage of them. In fact, the biggest difference between us and them is that they've got an army of professional investigators (they're called police) and relatively unlimited money. Like it or not, this is how it works -- it's an adversarial system.

Now you'll have to excuse me. I've got to go twist some information. McCain's people just called. They want me to convince the American people that his economic plan will work.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

Ah, it's come to this, an ad hominem attack.

Okay, since you want to get personal, here's some personal info. You're right, I am a defense attorney. But guess what, I've walked down quite a few streets in North Philly alone at night. In fact, I lived there for a year. And, yes, of course I felt nervous. Being a defense attorney isn't synonymous with loving crime. I also believe that most of the cops I deal with are decent men and women. But just because I'm as scared of crime as most people, and just because I don't believe that most cops are "overaggressive", doesn't mean that I blindly trust cops to not abuse their power. In any system without adequate checks and balances, abuse of power is inevitable. It's human nature. Crime and cops abusing their power -- I've seen both. Personally.

As to defense attorney's "twisting" information, you'll be gratified to know that there are attorneys on the other side (they're called prosecutors) who went to the same law schools and learned the same things as I and my fellow defense attorneys. They're not just potted plants sitting dumbly in court while us clever defense attorneys take advantage of them. In fact, the biggest difference between us and them is that they've got an army of professional investigators (they're called police) and relatively unlimited money. Like it or not, this is how it works -- it's an adversarial system.

Now you'll have to excuse me. I've got to go twist some information. McCain's people just called. They want me to convince the American people that his economic plan will work.

A trial lawyer that is a democrat, stunner....

The most interesting thing that you said was pointing out the adversarial system that puts you on the opposite side of the police which makes it easier to understand your position.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

Ah, it's come to this, an ad hominem attack.

Okay, since you want to get personal, here's some personal info. You're right, I am a defense attorney. But guess what, I've walked down quite a few streets in North Philly alone at night. In fact, I lived there for a year. And, yes, of course I felt nervous. Being a defense attorney isn't synonymous with loving crime. I also believe that most of the cops I deal with are decent men and women. But just because I'm as scared of crime as most people, and just because I don't believe that most cops are "overaggressive", doesn't mean that I blindly trust cops to not abuse their power. In any system without adequate checks and balances, abuse of power is inevitable. It's human nature. Crime and cops abusing their power -- I've seen both. Personally.

As to defense attorney's "twisting" information, you'll be gratified to know that there are attorneys on the other side (they're called prosecutors) who went to the same law schools and learned the same things as I and my fellow defense attorneys. They're not just potted plants sitting dumbly in court while us clever defense attorneys take advantage of them. In fact, the biggest difference between us and them is that they've got an army of professional investigators (they're called police) and relatively unlimited money. Like it or not, this is how it works -- it's an adversarial system.

Now you'll have to excuse me. I've got to go twist some information. McCain's people just called. They want me to convince the American people that his economic plan will work.

This is too funny to make fun.

Darden...you're still an imbecile.