TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

Panda wrote:

EEllis wrote: We don't know that they did anything outside of policy or what they always did when conducting arrests. You don't blame the bottom rank because you dislike their policies.

I thought "just following orders" was discredited as a defense before I was born.

If following orders breaks the law but that really isn't the case here now is it.

According to you and the Alcohol department No,,, according to a Jury or the public they serve.. yet to be determined.

Likely underage- Why? Thats opinion

Yes of course it is an opinion, reached from an observation by a LEO that speclizes in such things.. Sounds reasonable to me

Likely package-Why? because its a package? Isn't the store a government store?

Seems like your approaching this as some unknown shape in a brown paper bag? Yes??
My understanding was the ABC agents observed a blue cardboard box that resembled a 12 back of beer.. Does that change your position?

Under this standard, anyone leaving a grocery in this state has PC to be stopped. Thats overlybroad in the extreme.

When you add in things not in the report.... marginalize or ignore what is in the story, then take things out of context, yes, I can see how you come to that position..but it is a false position based on something not part of the report (yet?)

I would agree. .. A person whose age is not reasonably obvious as at or below 21, this person having a non descript package with no discernible shape, color, or common likely contents.. should not be stopped under reasonable suspension of a minor in possession of alcohol. But that is NOT what has been reported as happening in this event, so why bring it in to the conversation?

Again, I was not there..
BUT, Young looking girls in a collage area, at night, exiting a store that sells alcohol in box like shaped cardboard packages containing 12 beers, .. said young looking girl is carrying a box like shaped cardboard package that closely resembles a 12 pack of beer.. Yes that sounds like RS for a simple investigative contact allowable in a free country that is ruled by the US constitution and it’s amendments.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:To be clear, I'm not saying it wouldn't pass some judge somewhere.
I'm saying in a free society this concept eviscerates the 4th Amendment.

The 4th

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

How does a LEO observing an likely underage person, exiting a store with what may likely (often is in that area?, time of night, that store selling to minors previously??) be a package of alcohol not meet the reasonable suspicion intent of the 4th?

And please, don’t take that as I agree with the ABC officers action as reported, because I don’t..

Could it have been handled differently? Sure.. badge out, smile and a polite, Ma'am.. my name is officer smiley... with the ABC...are you of age to purchase THAT alcohol?(pointing at then box) ... She would have known instantly what the contact was for, likely assumed the question coupled with the badge and a non threatening approach was reasonable, likely snorted in contempt a bit but said.. that it was water, and both parties would have been on there way... Of course all that is just a guess at a possible way it might have happened…

Cedar Park Dad wrote:hardly. His standard appears to be, if they have a bag, they are subject to a stop. Thats no standard at all as anyone with a bag can be stopped. Thats not reasonable in a free country.

Also not what he said......
If we can not discuss what people actually say here,, vice making stuff up, attributing it to a poster, then talking about that .. Whats the point?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

EEllis wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote: And they would not cause me to instinctively think "beer.". As I said, it appears to me they applied the "assume crime and make the citizen prove otherwise" approach. I suspect the same group would initiate a stop if they saw a driver drinking from a can but could not identify the brand.

Maybe so but you're not an ABC cop who has to justify the RS for a stop.

You've basically said they don't have to either.

Well, no that is not really what he said

And while I disagree with some of the positions EEllis has taken of late...
Lets not put words in his mouth he did not say... lets discuss only the ones he did.

EEllis wrote:they don't have to positively identify it as beer it just has to be reasonable to them that it is. We, the courts, don't require law enforcement to be positive before allowing them it investigate or initiate a stop

That statement by EEllis clearly opines a LEO must have at least reasonable suspicion of a crime committed for the stop... Hard to understand how an person having an honest conversation could read it otherwise.

The item in question that caused ABC agents to believe that had cornered a criminal.

mamabearCali wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Has anyone ever been arrested for that? (not the shop owners - the teenagers) who weren't being a nuisance in the first place?

Not that I have heard of....if the LEO has a burr you know where, he will sometimes write a ticket, but usually not. Usually it is just "give me that....now get out of here and don't do that again." I have really only ever seen tickets issued to places that serve alcohol to minors, usually the minor is not ticketed.

I think it depends a lot on the local police department, DA/ADA, mayor, govener and perhaps recent events like minors involved in an alcohol related injury or death.

We see an almost zero tolerance in my part of texas around ft hood for soldiers and civilians regarding MIP.
Was the same on campus when I was at Oregon state, in the town surrounding campus if called to a house, someone was getting cited providing alcohol to minor or MIP, but most others would be just given a warning

EEllis wrote:
You did hear that they girls were first approached by a single female agent and I guess that scared them so badly they locked themselves in the SUV. You don't think the lights and siren might of scared them also? Sound like that would've been over kill also. But go ahead why let reality get in the way of a good rant.

And you continue to belittle those with a differing opinion. I think your better then that.. so please just share your opinion.

It seems you continue to ignore the rest of the reported story. Cherry picking just a small part to make misleading responses to.
Sorry, no way to have a decent conversation like this. Again I get the impression your better then that

Again, still.. It was not ONE LONE female plains cloths look maybe like an officer involved, I know you know this as you can read.. so why continue to ignore that in your responses?

It was a group of adult males and one female in plain cloths approaching two young females at night.
It would appear they were doing nothing illegal (no charges remain, and nothing even attempted from the initial PC for the encounter)

This entire event was over the WRONG guess by ABC officers that the girls had beer....and the officers made a bad choice to attempt a stop at night, in plain clothes of two young girls who have rightfully been taught to be suspicious of cop impersonators, and even women working as part of a gang rape, murder, robbery team.

All of this over a non violent possible crime of minor in possession