Detained by law enforcement

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

That bags the question what right the Feds have to legislate on the issue.

And what rights an Employer has to regulate your non working activities.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the wordimmigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

[Boiler 46,130]

The US is the best of the rest, which is why so many are trying to come here. Not perfect, but a helluva lot better than the other options. Most people might be surprised that China is not a bad place to live today. I lived and worked there for six years. Now, during my time I noticed that I felt more safe on the street and had less intrusion into my personal life than that in the US. But, they've got big problems with pollution, corruption, and third-world medical care facilities. The trade-off isn't worth it.

I would not consider the European and Latin options as they are more closely aligned with socialism and do not have the same rewards for hard work as America. But, then again, I'm a Libertarian so I take notice of the differences the US Constitution and the Rule of Law offer when compared to other countries.

I have been to 30 odd countries, there are a few that I would rule out.

pollution, corruption, and third-world medical care facilities.

Yes to the first two, I think most people are surprised by the US Healthcare situation, one of those Welcome to America issues. How could so much money be spent so badly? Probably see corruption.

The lack of social mobility surprised me as well. Probably down to the education system.

You hear the talk, so reality was a bit of a shock.

[TBoneTX 46,151]

(Moderator hat on)

Interesting discussion, but straying off the topic. Let's please return to the OP's subject.

Edited February 25, 2014 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 46,151]

(Regular-member hat on)

f&c:

1. Under what circumstances can a LEO order a citizen out of the citizen's vehicle, or to stay in his vehicle? Where do these commands fit on the spectrum of "contact" up to "detention"?

2. If a citizen exits his vehicle as ordered, but locks it (from habit or whatever), how does this affect the encounter?

Edited February 25, 2014 by TBoneTX

[Hypnos 6,578]

As an aside, I found out today that both of the Deputies in question are seasoned veterans; one has been a law enforcement officer for over a decade, the other close to 30 years. They are both senior members (Corporals) in the Sheriff's Department.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Hypnos

[TBoneTX 46,151]

Sounds as though some refresher training is sorely necessary.

[Removed030114 48]

As an aside, I found out today that both of the Deputies in question are seasoned veterans; one has been a law enforcement officer for over a decade, the other close to 30 years. They are both senior members (Corporals) in the Sheriff's Department.

Because people are learning to use their mobile devices during encounters with law enforcement, more and more rogue cops are getting caught. Marcus Jeter didn't have the time to record his encounter, but was lucky that dash-cam video showed up to exonerate him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o32Kvpm3y0

Edited February 25, 2014 by CNTrav

[f&c 50]

(Regular-member hat on)

f&c:

1. Under what circumstances can a LEO order a citizen out of the citizen's vehicle, or to stay in his vehicle? Where do these commands fit on the spectrum of "contact" up to "detention"?

2. If a citizen exits his vehicle as ordered, but locks it (from habit or whatever), how does this affect the encounter?

1. A traffic stop is considered a detention. As a general rule, one is detained if they are not free to leave. A LEO can order citizens out of a vehicle at any time if lawfully detained and reasonable. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms for case law. Some of this may vary by state. States can pass laws to protect freedoms further than the Constitution, but not the other way around.

2. The officer will likely get mad and frustrated. It all depends on the personality of the officer. I would hope that common sense is used in that situation.

Some one else posted about video. In my department, every vehicle has cameras and we carry voice transmitters. Some of our officers wear body cameras, with all of us soon to follow. Many departments are moving in this direction. Overall, it helps the officer more than the citizen. It is common for people to use their phones to record us these days. It doesn't really bother me.

[NikLR 13,232]

I find it interesting the differences between police in the USA and in Canada. I would never record an RCMP officer who stopped me, but that sounds to be rather routine in the USA.

Keep in mind that RCMP, Sherriffs, Peace Officers, city and provincial police in Canada all can carry hand guns. However, law abiding citizens do not. But such gun regulations would never be passed in the USA as a whole either.