Dude, you are so awesome. :bowdown:
Unlawful??? Detainment Video
- Thread starter u n v kenny
- Start date
Dude, you are so awesome. :bowdown:
Far more than I, clearly.
I've only worked at three police departments in two states over the last decade and testified in court on every manner of criminal and civil case imaginable.
WTF would I or any of us cops know about court? :shrug:
I know right, lol.
I've asked you before to stop posting your opinion as fact or law. You are clearly wrong.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. There are exceptions and exemptions to actual hearsay. A phoned in complaint to 9-1-1 would fall under a hearsay exception and thus not hearsay.
A person walking around appearing out of place can give the perception of criminal activity afoot and therefore a police encounter is legitimate and so would be the demand for that person to identify themselves.
Wikipedia and other citizen's rights website, like you love to quote, are rarely completely accurate and often take an inkling of the actual fact and then bastardize it for their purpose.
Feel free to state your opinion but do not instruct others that your opinion is law or fact.
hmm...
Rossim is conflating a number of issues, particularly in the use of hearsay evidence for probable cause, and hearsay evidence in court.
You can use hearsay evidence for PC, and the bar for PC is pretty low if the jurisdiction is governed by Illinois v. Gates instead of Aguilar-Spinelli. Test is a pretty low "totality-of-circumstances." [lowness or highness of the PC bar is my opinion, others may disagree and find that the Aguilar-Spinelli that required veracity and reliability for informants was too high]
Telephone call on its face is hearsay evidence. It may be admitted if one of the exceptions to hearsay applies, as FordSVTFan correctly stated, but it's not clear to me that a 9/11 call will always be admitted under the hearsay exception. The People will probably argue that the phone call was an "excited utterance," and might argue that it was not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but that it was used for another purpose (such as showing the state of mind of the caller).
When walking around, if you are stopped by an LEO, a state law that requires you to show your ID as the only form of verifiable identification is likely unconstitutional (see Kolendor, 461 U.S. 352 (1981) (holding that a law requiring ID be shown is void for vagueness)), but assuming the LEO has reasonable and articulable suspicion, a state law can require that you identify yourself to the LEO by giving at least your name. (Hiibel, 544 U.S. 177 (2004)).
Rossim is conflating a number of issues, particularly in the use of hearsay evidence for probable cause, and hearsay evidence in court.
You can use hearsay evidence for PC, and the bar for PC is pretty low if the jurisdiction is governed by Illinois v. Gates instead of Aguilar-Spinelli. Test is a pretty low "totality-of-circumstances." [lowness or highness of the PC bar is my opinion, others may disagree and find that the Aguilar-Spinelli that required veracity and reliability for informants was too high]
Telephone call on its face is hearsay evidence. It may be admitted if one of the exceptions to hearsay applies, as FordSVTFan correctly stated, but it's not clear to me that a 9/11 call will always be admitted under the hearsay exception. The People will probably argue that the phone call was an "excited utterance," and might argue that it was not used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but that it was used for another purpose (such as showing the state of mind of the caller).
When walking around, if you are stopped by an LEO, a state law that requires you to show your ID as the only form of verifiable identification is likely unconstitutional (see Kolendor, 461 U.S. 352 (1981) (holding that a law requiring ID be shown is void for vagueness)), but assuming the LEO has reasonable and articulable suspicion, a state law can require that you identify yourself to the LEO by giving at least your name. (Hiibel, 544 U.S. 177 (2004)).
Last edited:
But again, a drivers license is used as an acceptable form of ID, so is an Identification card issued, doesn't make them the same thing. You can't drive on an ID card. If you did not possess a drivers license you could still walk the street with an open carry firearm. Identify yourself to law enforcement if legally asked to do so and go about your business. It's just not a requirement to have an ID on you. I highly doubt it ever will be. I can easily check someone who identifies themselves to verify the information is correct. Don't need some plastic to prove that.
epper:
Nice try at backpedaling. However, your post clearly says "it's NOT admissible in court." You are WRONG. I prosecute with 9-1-1 recordings on a weekly basis. They almost always get admitted in states with an evidence code and Fed court.
So, that isnt ALL you were arguing. Plus, you might not want to rely on support from the guy with two posts.
I'm not here to argue semantics over different forms of ID. My point is that in my opinion that if you are going to carry a firearm on you, you should have to carry a form of ID on you, as a cop, you should know how people can and will play the name game or give you a friends/siblings information to avoid being ID'ed, unless that never happens by you.
Last edited:
HEARSAY is not admissible in court unless there's some exception that you're referring to, like a domestic violence case in which parts of the 911 call can be used as evidence, ASSUMING the person who called is available for cross-examination.
If someone called 9-1-1 for some reason to say that they saw a Cobra fly past them at 100mph and gave them my license plate number, a police officer finds me (driving legally), he can give me a ticket for speeding?
No, because you cannot prove the validity of the caller's statement. A simple phone call giving information is hearsay and not admissible in court, like the phoned-in complaint in the video.
Read his post again. He said they can NEVER make you show ID unless you're suspected of committing a crime.
hmm...
I'm not an LEO. I'll leave it at that.
And FordSVTFan, as you stated, hearsay is evidence used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. As you also say, while it is generally excluded, it is allowed in if it meets one of the hearsay exceptions. Hearsay, even when admitted via the "Exceptions to hearsay" still remains hearsay, even though admitted. (see e.g. notes by advisory committee to Federal Rules of Evidence 803) (" . . . a hearsay statement may possess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to justify nonproduction of the declarant in person at the trial even though he may be available.")
In summary, I don't dispute that 9-11 calls are admitted regularly; I even offered that the excited utterance exception likely applies to many of them. I'm just saying that the call itself is classic hearsay. Maybe to almost everyone on this board who is not a lawyer, the functional difference doesn't matter if the the call is let in, but defendant's counsel would move to exclude the call, and in some cases defendant's counsel would win.
Finally I may have only two posts, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I also don't have a bone to pick with either side and am happy to amend my views with a persuasive rebuttal.
I'm not an LEO. I'll leave it at that.
And FordSVTFan, as you stated, hearsay is evidence used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. As you also say, while it is generally excluded, it is allowed in if it meets one of the hearsay exceptions. Hearsay, even when admitted via the "Exceptions to hearsay" still remains hearsay, even though admitted. (see e.g. notes by advisory committee to Federal Rules of Evidence 803) (" . . . a hearsay statement may possess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness sufficient to justify nonproduction of the declarant in person at the trial even though he may be available.")
In summary, I don't dispute that 9-11 calls are admitted regularly; I even offered that the excited utterance exception likely applies to many of them. I'm just saying that the call itself is classic hearsay. Maybe to almost everyone on this board who is not a lawyer, the functional difference doesn't matter if the the call is let in, but defendant's counsel would move to exclude the call, and in some cases defendant's counsel would win.
Finally I may have only two posts, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I also don't have a bone to pick with either side and am happy to amend my views with a persuasive rebuttal.
^^
Finally an intelligent unbiased post in the Donut Shop
Finally an intelligent unbiased post in the Donut Shop
First off the guy in the video is a complete douche. The only thing I don't understand is why they even bother fueling this guys fire anymore. Obviously they've dealt with him more then once and must know by now what games he is playing, and it seems to me like they are feeding right into it.
Shut up already. Your mad google skillz are sorely failing you. If the person is available for cross examination then the 9-1-1 tape wouldnt come in. Geez, you are a complete moron.
Look up the Florida Rules of Evidence and then the supporting case law and stop posting this incorrect drivel.
Hearsay is used all the time in court.
Remember, there are exception and exemptions to hearsay. Either way, they are both admissible. Secondly, if admissible the defense can object all day long and they are still coming in unless another objection, othet than hearsay, is sustained.
Having two posts does not mean you are wrong, it just means you are a newbie who has does not have any standing/reputation here. You clearly sound like a law student and not a practicing attorney.
The fact still remains that Rossim does not get the intracacies of the law and certainly not the Rules of Evidence. He stated Hearsay does is not admissible in court and he is clearly wrong.
Your statements regarding Gates and Spinelli only hold water in States without an evidence code. States with an evidence code and the Fed use their code to determine exceptions and exemptions to hearsay. Also, depending on the type of proceeding even inadmissible hearsay at trial would be admitted. But your boy, Rossim, latches on to your general statement of hearsay and declares victory.
So, how about you put forth your credentials and lend some credibility to your statements.
Users who are viewing this thread
