Here's one for you, Oatie

The police were serving an eviction notice on a house one house down from me. They told the woman she had one hour to vacate and then they were going to padlock the door. The woman had two twenty something son's who were standing outside. The officer went over and frisked them for weapons.Remember this is a civil process. Legal or not?

Vikingwoman wrote:The police were serving an eviction notice on a house one house down from me. They told the woman she had one hour to vacate and then they were going to padlock the door. The woman had two twenty something son's who were standing outside. The officer went over and frisked them for weapons.Remember this is a civil process. Legal or not?

These things are not always so simple. Need a few a questions answered.

Standing outside where, specifically? (in relation to where the Officers were conducting their activity) Were they on the front porch? In the yard? ... or out in the street?

What were the sons doing? Were they engaged in any form in the conversation/interaction that was going on between the Officers or mother while the Officers were present?

Google "Terry Search" (I doubt the fact they were there to serve a "civil process" makes any difference)

Also ... where are you getting your information from? The mother? The sons? A third party? People often describe something the way they want to see it, you know .... not always the same thing as what actually occurred.

They were on the front porch and not engaged in conversation w/ the mother. In Ohio vs. Terry the police have to suspect there is criminal activity for a frisk so yes, it does matter if it is a civil process.

Vikingwoman wrote:They were on the front porch and not engaged in conversation w/ the mother. In Ohio vs. Terry the police have to suspect there is criminal activity for a frisk so yes, it does matter if it is a civil process.

Who is your information about the incident coming from?

Vikingwoman wrote:They were on the front porch and not engaged in conversation w/ the mother. In Ohio vs. Terry the police have to suspect there is criminal activity for a frisk so yes, it does matter if it is a civil process.

Did they have prior or warrants?


Several weeks ago an Okaloosa deputy was shot muliple times in the back of the head while serving a domestic violence warrant at an attorney's office.



http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/Okaloosa-Officer-Shot-Manhunt-Underway-328657131.html?device=tablet&c=y

Yes, the son's have priors but this is a legal question about search and seizure.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:They were on the front porch and not engaged in conversation w/ the mother. In Ohio vs. Terry the police have to suspect there is criminal activity for a frisk so yes, it does matter if it is a civil process.

Who is your information about the incident coming from?

My neighbor who witnessed the whole thing. They had the boys empty their pockets too so it was more than a pat down.

I have been sleeping.  Not a good day.  This is the debate in NY City with a very aggressive stop and Frisk.  I think where the Supreme Court is right now, with of all people Scalia, not having much use for this type of search.  However, the distinction between a civil process and a criminal stop is a non distinction.  If the officers had reasonable concern for their safety, they are allowed to act on that reasonable suspicion that a person or persons who may be nothing more than the sons of a owner of a house, or the passenger of a vehicle which has been stopped.   The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to  the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. A civil eviction can be a very emotional time for tenants, and an officer who is about to execute that eviction under the authority of a court order may make a search where there is REASONABLE suspicion that an occupant of that house might have a weapon which would put the officer in danger while executing an eviction order.

Yes you're are lucky they didn't lock down the whole block and bring in a tank or two...but there's still time for that.

2seaoat wrote:I have been sleeping.  Not a good day.  This is the debate in NY City with a very aggressive stop and Frisk.  I think where the Supreme Court is right now, with of all people Scalia, not having much use for this type of search.  However, the distinction between a civil process and a criminal stop is a non distinction.  If the officers had reasonable concern for their safety, they are allowed to act on that reasonable suspicion that a person or persons who may be nothing more than the sons of a owner of a house, or the passenger of a vehicle which has been stopped.   The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to  the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. A civil eviction can be a very emotional time for tenants, and an officer who is about to execute that eviction under the authority of a court order may make a search where there is REASONABLE suspicion that an occupant of that house might have a weapon which would put the officer in danger while executing an eviction order.

The officer safety issue in Mimms was that he had a bulge which turned out to be a weapon. I'm not so sure the officer had a reasonable concern for his safety other than he knew the suspects had a record which is not enough,however, he had them pull out their pockets which is beyond the scope of a pat down for weapons.The suspects were known to use drugs so if he found any drugs I wonder if that would have been upheld?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yes you're are lucky they didn't lock down the whole block and bring in a tank or two...but there's still time for that.

True enough. I ran into a woman who I had worked with years ago who was an adult caregiver for disabled adults in Walmart. She began telling me about getting arrested for changing the dates on her fire inspection certificate. She said she had failed to get an inspection that year and they were coming to do her annual inspection for her provider license. She knew she had to have an updated fire inspection certificate so she changed the date on the one she had to the current year until she got the inspection. About two weeks later a swat team busted down her front door. No, they didn't knock and were all decked out in their swat team gear to come and arrest her for changing the date on her fire certificate. This was SRSO and they came in w/ guns drawn knocking everybody around and making them get on the floor.These were disabled adults now. She said it was the most traumatic thing she ever experienced. She thought they were going to kill her. She began crying when she was telling me about it. It sounded surreal.

The son's if arrested would have had a suppression hearing and the specific facts would be brought to the attention of the judge. The Supreme Court has dicta which makes suppression hearings much more successful the last five years than they have been for the last twenty years.

The story of SRSO is sad. That should have been a call to the woman to come to the police station for some questions. If she admitted that she did it, to book her and set a reasonable bail. If she denied it, she still could be booked without the fan fare. We have created a meat eating machine, and it has become a monster which must be fed. There is only one answer.....cut budgets and shrink the monster......at some point we will have cut too much, but lets start the process and wait twenty years of cuts before we know how far we can go.

The problem with stop and frisk is they only do it to minorities in low income areas.
I want to know why they don't do it on Wall St.
That is where the real crime is being committed and most of the Cocaine.