Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« More from Britain | Main | Women !!! »

A great beginning

Posted by David Hardy · 14 October 2008 03:12 PM

"North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.

Devlin spotted him: a lone man on the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office."

Then it continues:

"That was not good enough for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held in a divided decision that the police lacked probable cause to arrest the defendant."

It's Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting from a denial of certiorari. He must have had real fun with that one.

· General con law

9 Comments | Leave a comment

Stan | October 14, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply

"What is required is simply “a reasonable ground for belief of guilt” ... “[A] police officer may draw inferences based on his own experience in deciding whether probable cause exists.”'

I agree with Roberts that it was a reasonable assumption, but it just seems like officers are given carte blanche in this regard. Glad it was denied.

pierre | October 14, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply

Good. The supreme court makes idiotic decisions all of the time. At least this time it doesn't benefit the anti-drug warriors that are crushing personal liberties in this country.

Unix-Jedi | October 14, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply

Uh, did you guys read it?

Based not only on common sense but also his experi­ence as a narcotics officer and his previous work in the neighborhood, Officer Devlin concluded that what happened on that street corner was probably a drug transaction. That is by far the most reasonable conclusion, even though our cases only require it to be a reasonable conclusion. I would grant certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Graystar | October 14, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply

Yes, we read it. Haven’t you read all those stories about people arrested for legal open carry? And what about the stories of innocent people in jail? Yeah, police testimony is foolproof, eh? What we want is for police to base their actions on actual evidence, not their conclusions...no matter how "reasonable" (whatever that means) they seem.

Dan Hamilton | October 15, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply

Graystar, are you so out of it that you can't tell the difference between a cop doing his job and a cop who doesn't know his job?

As long as drugs are illegal the police ARE REQUIRED to arrest for drugs.

You want the anti-drug stuff to stop? Get off your ass and work to get drugs legal.

Now you have just another case of a Judge making a decision that is completly out of touch with the real world.

Graystar | October 15, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply

Well, I live in New York City, where you have to submit yourself to being searched if you want to ride the public mass transit system, and where the courts have upheld the cops power to stop and search anyone they please. If you think it’s wrong to require that cops have some evidence before violating your rights then you’re the one who’s out of touch.

Greg | October 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply

@Graystar, a law enforcement officer witnessing a crime is "evidence" and should provide more than enough probably cause to detain a suspect.

Graystar | October 15, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply

“a law enforcement officer witnessing a crime is ‘evidence’...”

No, it’s not. It’s testimony, and history shows that it’s just as subject to abuse as testimony from anyone else. There’s nothing special about the testimony of a cop.

Personally, I would say that a cop’s testimony is the most suspect of all, because it’s a serious problem for the officer if his own testimony doesn’t clearly support his actions. Didn’t you see Brett Darrow’s video of a cop threatening to make up charges? Without Darrow’s video that cop could have said anything and the court would likely have accepted it.

An officer’s testimony should always be considered tainted by the officer’s self interest.

anonymous | October 15, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply

Graystar,

Gun owners say they are freedom fighters, but only as long as freedom means the ability to own and carry whatever hardware they please.

Otherwise, many of them are actually toadies for the police state.

It's one reason I gave up being a gun rights activist; I couldn't stand the hypocrisy.

I hope gun owners enjoy Barack's new world order, where he'll continue to wield the powers that George W. Bush accumulated.

Leave a comment