Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators

[E.Marquez]

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?

[EEllis]

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.

Nope doesn't even come close to my standard but I wasn't talking about my standard anyway I was talking about the standard for law enforcement in Virginia which I should not be ragged on for stating what I believe are facts regardless how one feels about them. I didn't write the law, make any of the legal decisions, set the agency policy, I just stated what I believe those things are. Heck most of the time I don't even state if I agree with it or not.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

Nope doesn't even come close to my standard but I wasn't talking about my standard anyway I was talking about the standard for law enforcement in Virginia which I should not be ragged on for stating what I believe are facts regardless how one feels about them. I didn't write the law, make any of the legal decisions, set the agency policy, I just stated what I believe those things are. Heck most of the time I don't even state if I agree with it or not.

To be clear I'm not ragging on you EEllis. I'm ragging on that nonstandard standard. It makes a mockery of the 4th and 5th Amendments when there's literally no cause for a search.

[EEllis]

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.

Nope doesn't even come close to my standard but I wasn't talking about my standard anyway I was talking about the standard for law enforcement in Virginia which I should not be ragged on for stating what I believe are facts regardless how one feels about them. I didn't write the law, make any of the legal decisions, set the agency policy, I just stated what I believe those things are. Heck most of the time I don't even state if I agree with it or not.

To be clear I'm not ragging on you EEllis. I'm ragging on that nonstandard standard. It makes a mockery of the 4th and 5th Amendments when there's literally no cause for a search.

Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that. The correctness of those beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with acceptability of the officers, or agents, beliefs as relates to RS. So the idea that it couldn't of been a legal stop because it wasn't booze has no legal basis. Courts have ruled that it's what an officer thinks not what is fact that matters.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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.

[E.Marquez]

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]

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?

Fair question.
Likely underage- Why? Thats opinion
Likely package-Why? because its a package? Isn't the store a government store?

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

[E.Marquez]

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.

[texanjoker]

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.

Here is a very simplified basic police 101 lesson on consensual contacts:

A leo does not need any PC or RS to contact anybody. Yup, a LEO can initiate a consensual contact. This means the LEO can walk up to anybody and start talking to them as long as they are allowed to be there. This is how crimes get stopped and many criminals go to jail. This does not mean you can detain them or stop them, block their path, use your police lights to stop the, ect but you can approach some college kids to see what they are doing and start talking to them. If they choose not to talk to you that is their right and they are free to leave. If you develop further information (like see a 12 pack of Shiner) it can turn into a detention or arrest. That is for a contact on anybody w/o seeing a potential violation.

If the agent's thought they saw a minor with a 12 pack of beer, they could do a detention based on their RS that there was a violation. There are many types of waters now days and other drinks that look just like beer. Heck take the new Pepsi cans. They look like bud's. I recall getting hassled back in the day drinking a martineli's sparking cider. Looked like a beer. Cop verified it wasn't and was on his way.

This is very general. There are details like this all the time for alcohol enforcement. I won't comment on this case as it is one sided and nobody knows what really happened, but since you asked earlier a LEO makes contact with an alleged violator. If you are working the beat you are probably by yourself and a cover officer responds to assist. When working a detail like this you will already have at least one officer with you. IF a violation you scratch a coupon and seize or destroy the alcohol. IF they are not drunk to the point of being PI (public intox) or DWI they are then cut loose. In general would make contact in teams of 2 for safety reasons. If there are more then you may contact with more leo's. When going into a bar or large college type party to take an enforcement action you would have many more leo's there as alcohol makes people do stupid stuff, and all it takes is one upstanding student to start throwing bottles to incite the crowd. That is not saying you can't do a bar check with 2, but if you go into a large crowd you better be prepared. Hell at the beach we would have to leave one leo with our cars because if we didn't we would have sliced tires and/or broken windows from all these nice "upstanding" citizens.

[Dave2]

Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

[philip964]

I'm blaming all of this on MADD, and too large a budget. To me this is exactly what the framers of the constitution wanted to avoid.

[VMI77]

I do not debate the authority of the officers here; however, I strongly believe that the conduct and interaction of a uniformed officer with civilians is or SHOULD be very different than a plainclothes officer.

If I was in the parking lot, after dark, and observe a "gang" of 7 chasing a college co-ed, which way is my pistol going to point? And, I believe a passing-by uniformed officer would react in the same manner.

The conduct of a plainclothes MUST be different than while in uniform.

Exactly. Some officers in plainclothes look like criminals. You see photos of DEA agents in the news that look like gang members. Uniform, marked vehicle...one thing; plainclothes, unmarked car, quite another.

[EEllis]

Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

HUH? Look the package, IMO, is such that if it were sitting on a table and I was 15' away and looked over I could easily think it was beer. That's all it takes.

[Dave2]

Your interpretation is simply not that of our courts. If they believed a person was most likely underage and that they observed what looked like alcohol then that equates to RS if the officer can articulate why they think that.

I would argue that for it to look like alcohol, it actually has to look like alcohol...Merely not looking like something that's not alcohol shouldn't be good enough, IMHO.

HUH? Look the package, IMO, is such that if it were sitting on a table and I was 15' away and looked over I could easily think it was beer. That's all it takes.

I disagree, because, AFAIK, there isn't any beer that comes packaged in a box that looks like that.