X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:37:31 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.169.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4958334 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:07:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.169.203; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p3QM6jxq004387 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:06:45 -0400 Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.fdb.f94d16c (56026) for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-m24.mail.aol.com (magic-m24.mail.aol.com [172.20.22.197]) by cia-md07.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD078-dada4db741f035c; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:06:40 -0400 From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <1c9b7.38971d1d.3ae89bef@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:06:39 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: beware, you may be searched! X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1c9b7.38971d1d.3ae89bef_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 130 X-AOL-IP: 24.15.17.119 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Sky2high@aol.com --part1_1c9b7.38971d1d.3ae89bef_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hamid, Exactly! That is why I said being "detained" is open to interpretation. So are the FARs. We may be deteriorating into a society relying on useless bureaucrats exercising their need to intrude on and control every aspect of our life. Grayhawk In a message dated 4/26/2011 10:16:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, hwasti@lm50.com writes: Sky2high@aol.com wrote: > ***Caveat*** is more interesting. > > Reasonable detention is open to interpretation. It has been held that > detaining someone stopped for a traffic violation until drug dogs > could be obtained was not reasonable > I believe the reason the detention was found to be unreasonable in the particular case you are referring to was because of the length of detention, NOT specifically because the detention was to obtain a drug dog. I do not believe there is a specific hard number where xx:00 minutes is OK and xx:01 is unreasonable or a list of approved and disapproved reasons. It is up to the "totality of the circumstances," which unfortunately include the personal biases of the judge as well as the judge's assessment of the biases of the appeals court that will be reviewing the decision. Regards, Hamid -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_1c9b7.38971d1d.3ae89bef_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hamid,

Exactly! That is why I said being "detained" is open to=20 interpretation. So are the FARs.

We may be deteriorating into a society relying on useless bureaucrats= =20 exercising their need to intrude on and control every aspect of our= =20 life.

Grayhawk

In a message dated 4/26/2011 10:16:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 hwasti@lm50.com writes:

Sky2high@aol.com wrote:
> ***Caveat***= is more interesting.=20
>
> Reasonable detention is open to interpretation. = It has=20 been held that
> detaining someone stopped for a traffic violatio= n=20 until drug dogs
> could be obtained was not reasonable
>I=20 believe the reason the detention was found to be unreasonable in the=20
particular case you are referring to was because of the length of=20
detention, NOT specifically because the detention was to obtain a dr= ug=20
dog. I do not believe there is a specific hard number where xx:00=20
minutes is OK and xx:01 is unreasonable or a list of approved and=20
disapproved reasons. It is up to the "totality of the=20 circumstances,"
which unfortunately include the personal biases of= the=20 judge as well as
the judge's assessment of the biases of the appeals= court=20 that will be
reviewing the=20 decision.

Regards,

Hamid

--
For archives and uns= ub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

--part1_1c9b7.38971d1d.3ae89bef_boundary--