Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
It is when instead of dealing with real problems its focused on imaginary ones and slippery slopes or is simply used in place of "shut up" all of which are fallicious. Calling those opinions 'informed' is just dressing up a pig and calling it a apple pie.

Because using past evidence of how personal rights were wholesale infringed, and the lack of curtailing government powers, is no good predictor

 LordofHats wrote:
I know. That's my point and it is simple. Who to investigate is a police decision that doesn't even reach the court until they want a warrant or to bring charges at which point the criteria are probable cause and grand jurys. The police decide who is suspect according to their own criteria, usually reasonable person standard, and that usually turns out to be doublespeak for 'investigating officer/detective thinks so' given that reasonable person is a very loose standard.

So there is in fact criteria for determining whether to treat someone as a suspect. Good. Because a short time ago you were trying to argue the opposite.
And reasonable standard is more than just the officer thinks so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
You can be a suspect without even knowing it.

If you are suspected of a crime it doesn't mean you will be charged nor does it mean you will even have to speak to the law.

Weight of evidence against a suspect usually means a charge is laid.

In the UK at least the common term used for those charged with a crime and are in court is defendant - a much better term than 'the accused'.

Did you have a point, other than stating the obvious?

So there is in fact criteria for determining whether to treat someone as a suspect. Good. Because a short time ago you were trying to argue the opposite.

The only way to think that is to really fail to read anything I've said (again).

And reasonable standard is more than just the officer thinks so.

In theory, but not in practice (the two hardly ever match up). For things like a stop and frisk (not the NYC policy just general stop and frisks by the typical beat cop) the officer might be called upon to support his reasonable suspicion and fail or succeed, but in a broader sense reasonable person in practice is just double speak for "I'm reasonable and I think he did it." In most cases, the police never get called on to justify their suspicions, often because those suspicions are so fleeting and they never make it to a court.

Did you have a point, other than stating the obvious?

You realize I've been asking this question the entire thread

 insaniak wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Am I the only one who wouldn't mind a national DNA databank so police don't have to go through the trouble of having to ask for this stuff anymore and just immediately check if they know the guy?

Would save a gak ton of tax dollar.

Would you mind government owned cameras in your house? Genuine question.

What link are you seeing between a DNA database and video surveillance?

Police efficiency, which is the point of a DNA databank.

Wanting better efficency in one area doesn't automatically lead to wanting it in another (ignoring the such massive survellience is so far from efficient it's hilarious to see the comparison even made).

 LordofHats wrote:
(ignoring the such massive survellience is so far from efficient it's hilarious to see the comparison even made).

Technology advances. Also I'm not talking about active monitoring, just a video law enforcement could bring up to maybe get a description or match events. It would be like current home security systems.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Technology advances. Also I'm not talking about active monitoring, just a video law enforcement could bring up to maybe get a description or match events.

Public streets are one thing. Homes are entirely different. Even I can get behind that idea

It would be like current home security systems.

You mean the ones that don't work and actually take longer to call the cops than just dialing 911

imo the best home secuirty system is a sign that says you have one

imo the best home secuirty system is a brace of full auto wiener dogs

Corrected your typo.

Those work too. Especially when combined with flaming bags of poop thrown at the intruder from a complicated pully system rigged to the doors and windows.

 Frazzled wrote:

imo the best home secuirty system is a brace of full auto wiener dogs

Corrected your typo.

Dogs are, in fact, one of the best security measures around. Even small dogs, simply because they make so much noise.

And as we all know, (many) wiener dogs have a bark so shrill it will stop a riot. Even worse a yodeling wiener dog is so strange it will even stop Bare Chested Putin.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So there is in fact criteria for determining whether to treat someone as a suspect.[...]
And reasonable standard is more than just the officer thinks so.

I feel that at this point, definitions are in order.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 21 wrote:Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".

So, basically, 'what the officer thinks so', put in a propositionnal statement containing logical inferences, at least on the surface.

It should be mentionned, in relation to the OP, that perquisition mandates does not exists under French penal procedural laws, and that a mandated officer of the law, be it the instruction judge or a cop, has the immediate obligation to obtain whatever material constitute a proof of criminal guilt, as long as it does not violate residence protection laws.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only way to think that is to really fail to read anything I've said (again).

So when you said that there was n real difference between being a suspect and being investigated and that it was only semantics, you were in fact agreeing with me when I said that they were different

 LordofHats wrote:
In theory, but not in practice (the two hardly ever match up). For things like a stop and frisk (not the NYC policy just general stop and frisks by the typical beat cop) the officer might be called upon to support his reasonable suspicion and fail or succeed, but in a broader sense reasonable person in practice is just double speak for "I'm reasonable and I think he did it." In most cases, the police never get called on to justify their suspicions, often because those suspicions are so fleeting and they never make it to a court.

Stop and Frisk. You mean that practice that the courts felt was not compatible with the 4th Amendment? Of all the things to bring in to the discussion concerning undermining civil liberties this may not have been the most sensible.
The police need reasonable suspicion, otherwise they're screwed if the detained person insists on a writ of habeas corpus.

 LordofHats wrote:
You realize I've been asking this question the entire thread

Well in case you missed in while you were busy contradicting yourself let me make it clear - no one should be coerced into providing DNA unless a under a Court order.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
And as we all know, (many) wiener dogs have a bark so shrill it will stop a riot. Even worse a yodeling wiener dog is so strange it will even stop Bare Chested Putin.

We have Aussies. Herding dogs always let you know when someone is disturbing the homestead. They've already scared off one would be burglar


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 21 wrote:Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".

So, basically, 'what the officer thinks so', put in a propositionnal statement containing logical inferences, at least on the surface.

Incorrect. It is not just any suspicion. It must be a reasonable suspicion as your quote from Terry v Ohio shows, and what I have been trying to say on numerous occasions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Incorrect. It is not just any suspicion. It must be a reasonable suspicion as your quote from Terry v Ohio shows, and what I have been trying to say on numerous occasions.

While you are correct that there is indeed a standard, that standard itselft is pretty damn close to the ineffable.

R v Camplin, A.C. 705 (1978 wrote:[a reasonable man] "means an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today”

Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions, 1 WLR 1119 (1954) wrote:''where reasonable man is deemed a wholly impersonal fiction to which no special characteristic of the accused should be attributed.''

The concept of 'reasonable' in common law is an enabler. It it useful in that it allows Law to function as a system despite refusing to define its standards.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
And as we all know, (many) wiener dogs have a bark so shrill it will stop a riot. Even worse a yodeling wiener dog is so strange it will even stop Bare Chested Putin.

We have Aussies. Herding dogs always let you know when someone is disturbing the homestead. They've already scared off one would be burglar

You keep Aussies to do your herding? I am pleased to know if I ever need a job in the US I can get one with free board, a kennel and free flees. I don't know about barking well but I am sure I could manage a fear tinged yodel. If I am expected to guard your home I do expect a 20 round magazine attached to my AR-15 (lol) assault weapon.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So when you said that there was n real difference between being a suspect and being investigated and that it was only semantics, you were in fact agreeing with me when I said that they were different

That's what happens in semantics. You can point out that there is a strict definition on paper, while I can point it the fluid use in practice, and we both come out being right.

Stop and Frisk. You mean that practice that the courts felt was not compatible with the 4th Amendment?

Stop and frisk as a practice has been around for a very long time, but its messy because reasonable suspicion (Kovnik describes it better) is vague on purpose. If say, a cop saw someone with a fire arm under the jacket in a state that doesn't allow any conceal carry, stopped and frisked them, in court they'd be required to justify their action.

The NYC policy expanded the practice so broadly that it meant in law the cops could just stop you cause he noticed your nice shoes and subject you to a frisk and never needed to justify the action (which is why it was so heavily unconstitutional).

The police need reasonable suspicion, otherwise they're screwed if the detained person insists on a writ of habeas corpus.

Exactly. But in say, a murder case, where the police never used reasonable suspicion to justify any police action, they're never called on to justify themselves by the reasonable person standard. In effect they treat it very liberally.

Well in case you missed in while you were busy contradicting yourself let me make it clear - no one should be coerced into providing DNA unless a under a Court order.

They did have a court order XD (in the French case). From a magistrate who's job it was to issue such orders. The police in the US usually okay their DNA sweeps with a judge before they launch them as a precaution (I don't think the courts here issue warrants for that kind of thing).

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Police efficiency, which is the point of a DNA databank.

I suspect we have different interpretations of the word 'efficiency'...

In-home monitoring is where you start running into actual privacy issues, though. It's a completely different kettle of fish to maintaining a database of DNA, which is ultimately not really any different to them keeping a database of fingerprints or licence plates.

Bullockist wrote:
You keep Aussies to do your herding? I am pleased to know if I ever need a job in the US I can get one with free board, a kennel and free flees. I don't know about barking well but I am sure I could manage a fear tinged yodel. If I am expected to guard your home I do expect a 20 round magazine attached to my AR-15 (lol) assault weapon.

This type of Aussie



Although ours have some snow dog in the mix too

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
While you are correct that there is indeed a standard, that standard itselft is pretty damn close to the ineffable.

R v Camplin, A.C. 705 (1978 wrote:[a reasonable man] "means an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today”

Bedder v Director of Public Prosecutions, 1 WLR 1119 (1954) wrote:''where reasonable man is deemed a wholly impersonal fiction to which no special characteristic of the accused should be attributed.''

The concept of 'reasonable' in common law is an enabler. It it useful in that it allows Law to function as a system despite refusing to define its standards.

And the police officer still has to justify his reasons for treating someone as a suspect. If the police officer labels Person A a suspect just because he wears a 'One Direction' t-shirt that is not reasonable. If the police officer labels Person A a suspect because eye witnesses say that the perpetrator was wearing a 'One Direction' t-shirt and Person A has a shaky alibi then that is reasonable.

 LordofHats wrote:
That's what happens in semantics. You can point out that there is a strict definition on paper, while I can point it the fluid use in practice, and we both come out being right.

Except when it is shown that your "fluid" definition is also incorrect

 LordofHats wrote:
Stop and frisk as a practice has been around for a very long time, but its messy because reasonable suspicion (Kovnik describes it better) is vague on purpose. If say, a cop saw someone with a fire arm under the jacket in a state that doesn't allow any conceal carry, stopped and frisked them, in court they'd be required to justify their action.

You specifically mentioned NYC. Do not shift the goalposts.
If a cop say someone with a firearm that was concealed in a state that does not allow concealed carry that is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is asking 500 people for DNA because they happened to be in the same building as a crime.

 LordofHats wrote:
The NYC policy expanded the practice so broadly that it meant in law the cops could just stop you cause he noticed your nice shoes and subject you to a frisk and never needed to justify the action (which is why it was so heavily unconstitutional).

If I recall most of the complaints against NYPD were the fact that it targeted minorities based on skin color, not fashion.

 LordofHats wrote:
Exactly. But in say, a murder case, where the police never used reasonable suspicion to justify any police action, they're never called on to justify themselves by the reasonable person standard. In effect they treat it very liberally.

So the police need reasonable suspicion to treat someone as a suspect. On that we appear to agree at last. But in your example this never exists. So you are in effect trying to sidestep the reasonable suspicion requirement in an incomplete hypothetical scenario.

 LordofHats wrote:
They did have a court order XD (in the French case). From a magistrate who's job it was to issue such orders. The police in the US usually okay their DNA sweeps with a judge before they launch them as a precaution (I don't think the courts here issue warrants for that kind of thing).

Congratulations, we're back at the point where I have to remind you that, per the OP, we are not simply discussing France. In fact we have not been discussing France for quite some time in case it had escaped your attention.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You specifically mentioned NYC. Do not shift the goalposts.

I specifically mentioned not NYC. YOu're moving the goal posts not me. The stop and frisk is as old as policing itself. I said not to specifically avoid having to deal with the NYC policy that broadened the use of the practice so widely it was being used in contravention of law.

If I recall most of the complaints against NYPD were the fact that it targeted minorities based on skin color, not fashion.

That's what got people riled up, but it was unconsititutional before that. EDIT: It was also at the same time the police were being graded by 'quotas' and they'd use the stop and frisk powers granted to them to meet those quotas and just arrest people for the silliest things or even for no reason at all.

So the police need reasonable suspicion to treat someone as a suspect. On that we appear to agree at last. But in your example this never exists. So you are in effect trying to sidestep the reasonable suspicion requirement in an incomplete hypothetical scenario.

It's not hypothetical. It happens daily (even hourly). It's how the law is practiced rather than how it is written.

Congratulations, we're back at the point where I have to remind you that, per the OP, we are not simply discussing France. In fact we have not been discussing France for quite some time in case it had escaped your attention.

You're the one complaining about how they need a warrant, when the example given in the OP did have the equivalent and when I point out that while judges don't usually issue warrants in the US for volunteer sweeps, they usually give police the nod that they're not violating any laws.

At this point you're just being daft.

 LordofHats wrote:
I specifically mentioned not NYC. YOu're moving the goal posts not me. The stop and frisk is as old as policing itself. I said not to specifically avoid having to deal with the NYC policy that broadened the use of the practice so widely it was being used in contravention of law.

You are correct about mentioning NYC, my apologies
And that is a prime example of the abuse or corruption of power as it was being carried out without reasonable suspicion

 LordofHats wrote:
That's what got people riled up, but it was unconsititutional before that. EDIT: It was also at the same time the police were being graded by 'quotas' and they'd use the stop and frisk powers granted to them to meet those quotas and just arrest people for the silliest things or even for no reason at all.

Quotas in certain jobs are just a fantastically stupid idea. And police work is one of those jobs.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's not hypothetical. It happens daily (even hourly). It's how the law is practiced rather than how it is written.

But your scenario is incomplete. The police still require evidence to take action. In your murder case they simply cannot kick in the door of someone living 5 blocks away and raid the house as part of the investigation if there is no evidence linking the person to the crime.
Your scenario raises more questions than answers because it is incomplete and there are too many variables to make it useful.

 LordofHats wrote:
You're the one complaining about how they need a warrant, when the example given in the OP did have the equivalent and when I point out that while judges don't usually issue warrants in the US for volunteer sweeps, they usually give police the nod that they're not violating any laws.

At this point you're just being daft.

No. I am the one saying that people should not be coerced into signing their rights away. I am the one saying that the police should have done due diligence in their investigation, used reasonable suspicion to determine a suspect, and proceed along that line of inquiry, and obtained a warrant for the DNA of their suspect. Not that they should ask for 500-volunteers-or-be-a-child-rape-suspect.
That is what I have been saying from the very start - that the police should respect the rights of private citizens and not attempt to strong arm them.

Quotas in certain jobs are just a fantastically stupid idea. And police work is one of those jobs.

I've long stood by my position that NYPD is one of the worst managed police departments in the world, if not the worst (LAPD seems to be in a constant race to win the Suckist Cops Award).

But your scenario is incomplete. The police still require evidence to take action. In your murder case they simply cannot kick in the door of someone living 5 blocks away and raid the house as part of the investigation if there is no evidence linking the person to the crime.
Your scenario raises more questions than answers because it is incomplete and there are too many variables to make it useful.

Though our current practice of reasonable person results in a fair amount of tunnel visioning in investigations, I'm not saying the cops go straight from "I think he did it" to arresting and taking someone to court. Designating a suspect is just that. Designating someone as a focus in an investigation. If the investigation fails to turn anything up, the cops can't really do much (legally anyway). At that point, they're supposed to move on, but tunnel visioning being what it is, sometimes they don't pick up on the obvious.

That is what I have been saying from the very start - that the police should respect the rights of private citizens and not attempt to strong arm them.

I don't really have a problem with strong arming. Strong arming isn't illegal in itself, just distasteful but I'm fine with government doing distasteful things now and then. It's part of why we give the government power in the first place. To do all that crappy decision making the rest of us don't want to be bothered with.