Jump to content

Fuzzz

Members
  • Content Count

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Wow talk about doing some Olympic style contorting on that one. You are trying to split hairs but are on the wrong side. That law does not make the conversation itself illegal, just the content of it. You could go and strike up a conversation with anyone and talk to them for hours on end and it be legal. But the second you asked them to do a specific act it would then be illegal. The words and intent would make it illegal, not the act of conversing with someone. Also it does not specify that it would need to be a conversation. You could pass a note, send an email, old fashion snail mail, or any other way you could get your request across. So no this does not come close to "prevent a person from walking up to someone and striking up a conversation even if they are not restraining the person in the process". It just prevents someone from going up to someone and asking for a specific thing. That is close, but cot completely accurate. The supreme court has sated "one must not look at whether a party felt "free to leave," but whether a party felt free to decline or terminate the encounter. The Court held that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request. The test of whether a "reasonable person" felt free to decline or terminate a search presupposes his or her innocence." This case dealt with a consent search but has been used as the standard for consensual encounters. Even in cases where police have blocked in vehicles, that did not automatically convert it to a 4th amendment seizure. No this would not clearly demonstrate that. The OP stated he pulled into Walmart with the intent to go inside. Last I checked you couldn't drive a truck into Walmart to get milk. Clearly the OP would have to park his vehicle and get out.The officers could have legally parked their vehicles to the front and rear of OP's truck after he stopped. He never stated that he was blocked in, if they activated their lights, or if the used some other form of authority to make him believe he was not free terminate the encounter. Just that one was positioned to the front, and one to the rear of his truck. Beyond that the OP stated his intent was to presumably walk inside the store to pick up milk. If his truck was temporarily blocked by the parked cruisers this would not stop or obstruct him from merely walking inside as he had already planned prior to the encounter. No you are clearly not a lawyer and should definitely do some research before posting advice and getting into arguments with people who have clearly done that.
×
×
  • Create New...