Ohio: Yanking Motorist Out of Car Is Not a Welfare Check

Why bother to allow for the repeal of arrest warrants if we're just going to use them as justification in violating Fourth Amendment rights down the road? Hell, sounds like a lot of unnecessary trouble to me.

@modestholdings The prior arrest warrant just suggests that this armed drug dealer wasn't making his first appearance at the rodeo. The fact remains that the arresting officer happened upon a drug deal in progress and correctly identified it as such, as proven by the results of his search. Should an officer need a search warrant to look in the bag of a masked man fleeing a crime scene? Would the officer be violating court created 'Fourth Amendment rights' in spite of hearing an alarm and people yelling stop? This officer used his judgement for the purpose of stopping a crime in progress. He didn't know anything about an incorrectly repealed arrest warrant when he saw the deal in progress and the armed drug dealer responded to his greeting by rolling up the window of his car and taking the key from its ignition, which sounds like something some other criminals' advocate would have told him to do to create this crime perpetuating farce.

The officer would not in fact need such a warrant if he were on foot pursuit "of a masked man fleeing a crime scene" under the officer protection exemptions already long-carved out of the Fourth Amendment. What you are arguing for is the criminalization of an act that merely gives the appearance of a potentially illegal act. Note the modifiers "gives the appearance of" and "potentially." At any rate, it is unnecessary to speculate on what the man was doing, because as soon as the officer broke the law his subsequent actions were invalid. I fail to appreciate your distinction between illegal acts performed by a private citizen and an officer of the law.

They didn't witness a crime. See @Pch101 above [http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/12/ohio-yanking-motorist-out-of-car-is-not-a-welfare-check/#comment-1825824]. I will not take your ability to twice arrive at a conclusion not substantiated by facts — (a) that the ends justify the means in this case and (b) my mental health is deficient — as sufficient evidence to claim that your grasp of logic is tenuous at best. Perhaps you could engage some similar conclusive humility.

@modestholdings He walked up to a car with a driver slumped low in his seat. He saw a fist full of dollars. He addressed the driver. The driver studiously ignored him and rolled up the window of the car. These are the facts. The rest amounts to a bunch of court room inventions meant to allow an armed drug dealer to continue armed drug dealing. I want cops to go after such criminals rather than focus on holding up commuters to collect money, an activity that the courts and the liars rarely find requires any constitutional protections for the public at all. The state has a vested interest in keeping the money flowing, as do the trial liars.

@modestholdings I don't disagree with your final point on revenue enhancements, but continue to reject your earlier conclusions.

@modestholdings CJ isn't a big fan of the Bill of Rights, apparently. Fortunately, the founders had the good sense to put it in writing, so it doesn't really matter that people like him choose to ignore it. As it stands now, with the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment and the legality of Terry stops, the bar for complying with the Fourth Amendment is already pretty low. But even after all that, a hunch still doesn't qualify as reasonable suspicion.