Advocacy & Safety - When the police can stop you and your bike

This topic comes up with some regularity around here, so I thought you'd like to see some acutal law on the point.

Following is a decision from the Florida 2d District Court of Appeal, which is the Tampa area. The short version is that a juvenile was stopped by the police while riding on a bike path. The appellate court decided that the officer lacked sufficient suspicion that the kid had committed a crime, and the trial court should have suppressed the marijuana they found:

J.C., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D08-4415. Opinion filed July 31, 2009. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Counsel: James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Bruce P. Taylor, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

(DAVIS, Judge.) In this juvenile delinquency case, J.C. challenges his adjudication for the delinquent acts of possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.

The charges against J.C. stem from an encounter he had with police while he was riding his bicycle on a bike path that runs parallel to a roadway. At the hearing on J.C.'s motion to suppress the physical evidence, the arresting officer testified that upon seeing J.C. riding his bike in “a high crime area,” he and the officer with whom he was riding “pulled along and asked to approach [J.C.].” There is no indication in the record of how J.C. responded. The officer went on to testify that he pulled the car over and “walked out towards the bike path where [J.C.] was at. We were in front of him. We had our range vests on, badge and made consensual contact with him.” When asked on direct examination what he said to J.C. to make contact with him, the officer testified, “We just asked him what he was doing.” However, on redirect, when asked, “Did you order him to stop when you saw him,” the officer testified, “I don't remember exactly what I said to him. I just said, ‘Hey, I've got to talk to you for a minute. Hang on.' But he could have drove off at any time.”1 Regarding whether J.C.'s way was blocked so that he could not leave, the officer testified on cross-examination, “We pulled [the car] up a ways in front of him, and we get out of the vehicle and we go to the path.” J.C. did not testify at the suppression hearing.

On appeal, J.C. argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officers illegally detained J.C. without the necessary reasonable suspicion by blocking his path of travel and ordering him to “hang on.” Although we conclude that the evidence presented below does not support J.C.'s contention that the officers blocked his path, we do agree that the officers illegally detained J.C.

When reviewing a motion to suppress, the trial court's factual findings must be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence, Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1988), while the trial courtþs application of the law to those facts is reviewed de novo, Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996). Here, the trial court made the factual finding that the stop was consensual. This finding, however, is not supported by the facts.

The arresting officer testified that he told J.C., “Hey, I've got to talk to you for a minute. Hang on.” Considering the totality of the circumstances -- that two officers wearing range vests and badges pulled over, exited their car, and while approaching J.C., told him to “hang on” -- such statement amounts to an order and a show of authority. See Caldwell v. State, 985 So. 2d 602, 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (applying a totality-of-the-circumstances test to the issue of whether law enforcement's conduct amounted to “a show of authority that would have caused a reasonable person to believe that he was not free to terminate the encounter”).

[A] “citizen encounter becomes an investigatory . . . stop[ ] once an officer shows authority in a manner that restrains the defendant's freedom of movement such that a reasonable person would feel compelled to comply.” Parsons v. State, 825 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). In short, an investigatory stop occurs when a “reasonable person would not feel free to leave.” Hrezo v. State, 780 So. 2d 194, 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Rios v. State, 975 So. 2d 488, 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (second alteration in original).

We conclude that a reasonable person would not feel free to walk away but rather would feel compelled to comply with a police officer's command, “I've got to talk to you for a minute. Hang on.” As such, we conclude that this was an investigatory stop for which reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime is necessary. See Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1993) (“The second level of police-citizen encounters involves an investigatory stop . . . . At this level, a police officer may reasonably detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”). It is undisputed here that the officers had no such suspicion. As such, the stop was illegal.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's disposition order and remand with instructions to grant J.C.'s motion to suppress.

Reversed. (LaROSE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.)

This particular case has nothing to do with bikes. It would apply equally to a pedestrian.

Previous cases in other states and cities with "bell or gong" ordinances involved police who stopped and searched cyclists who did not have a "bell or gong" on their bikes. While the police were entitled to stop cyclists for non-compliance with an obsolete and silly ordinance, I believe the courts decided that the police were really using it as an excuse to perform racial profiling and unwarranted searches.

Previous cases in other states and cities with "bell or gong" ordinances involved police who stopped and searched cyclists who did not have a "bell or gong" on their bikes. While the police were entitled to stop cyclists for non-compliance with an obsolete and silly ordinance, I believe the courts decided that the police were really using it as an excuse to perform racial profiling and unwarranted searches.

But Steve! Didn't you see the the stout defense of referencing obsolete and silly ordinances by other BF posters on this list, when they believe that those obsolete or silly ordinances might somehow be used to punish cyclists that fail to give an audible warnings whenever passing any pedestrian or bicyclist?

This particular case has nothing to do with bikes. It would apply equally to a pedestrian.

Your are completely correct. It applies to pedestrians and applies with some variations to automobile drivers. The point is that you cannot be stopped legally by the police unless they have reasoanble suspicion that you commited a crime. A whole other issue is what do you do when they try to stop you when you have committed no offense and the stop likely is illegal.

This particular case has nothing to do with bikes. It would apply equally to a pedestrian.True, but to some cops, cyclist just seem more suspicious.

And to some cyclists, cops just seem suspicious.

But Steve! Didn't you see the the stout defense of referencing obsolete and silly ordinances by other BF posters on this list, when they believe that those obsolete or silly ordinances might somehow be used to punish cyclists that fail to give an audible warnings whenever passing any pedestrian or bicyclist?

I oppose such ordinances as much or more due to my dislike of their abuse for racial profiling than for personal concern of being prosecuted over them. If I as a spandex-clad road-biking white male riding to the store in the suburbs have no realistic chance of being pulled over for such, why should a black male riding to the store in a rough neighborhood have to deal with it? At least enforcing laws like lights at night might do some good as a side effect.

True, but to some cops, cyclist just seem more suspicious.

It appears that in this case their suspicions were correct.

A whole other issue is what do you do when they try to stop you when you have committed no offense and the stop likely is illegal.

I would first ask the police what they want. The could be looking for witnesses as part of a crime investigation. I would be happy to help.

If their attention was on me, and not how I could help them, and they seemed to be fishing, I would frankly ask them if I was free to go.

I would first ask the police what they want. The could be looking for witnesses as part of a crime investigation. I would be happy to help.

If their attention was on me, and not how I could help them, and they seemed to be fishing, I would frankly ask them if I was free to go.

Your approach is perfectly reasonable, and leaves no question to weather or not the stop is considered a seizure under the fourth amendment.

It appears that in this case their suspicions were correct.Would we even of heard of the case if they did not find anything on this illegal stop and search? NO. So how many suspicions were they wrong on, that we never found out about?

Defending BS like this, does not improve the image of cops overall.

Would we even of heard of the case if they did not find anything on this illegal stop and search? NO. So how many suspicions were they wrong on, that we never found out about?

Defending BS like this, does not improve the image of cops overall.

Agreed. You cannot just stop someone on a suspicion. That's what probably cause is all about.

Caruso

Agreed. You cannot just stop someone on a suspicion. That's what probably cause is all about.

Caruso
You are extremely confused.

"Reasonable Suspicion" is the level of suspicion needed to make a stop.

I don't know what "probably cause" is is.

"Probable Cause" is the level of suspicion necessary to make an arrest.

The case at hand involves officers who made a stop because they suspected that the subject was doing something illegal. During the stop, it was established that the subject was in fact doing something illegal. Based on the available information, It appears that the suspicion of the officers was reasonable and there was no violation of the fourth amendment. Your animosity toward law enforcement not change this fact.

The case at hand involves officers who made a stop because they suspected that the subject was doing something illegal. During the stop, it was established that the subject was in fact doing something illegal. Based on the available information, It appears that the suspicion of the officers was reasonable and there was no violation of the fourth amendment. Your animosity toward law enforcement not change this fact.

And the court said that based on the available information, it appears that suspicion of the officers didn't exist, and that the stop was illegal. In fact the only 'reason' given was that he was in a high crime area. Does that change the fact?

And don't confuse my love for liberty with animosity toward law enforcement, like you seem to have with CB HI.

The case at hand involves officers who made a stop because they suspected that the subject was doing something illegal. During the stop, it was established that the subject was in fact doing something illegal. Based on the available information, It appears that the suspicion of the officers was reasonable and there was no violation of the fourth amendment. Your animosity toward law enforcement not change this fact.Seems the Florida 2d District Court of Appeal disagrees with your view of "Reasonable Suspicion". It would do cops well to actually learn from cases such as this.

"Probable Cause" is the level of suspicion necessary to make an arrest. Are you implying that "Probable Cause" does not apply to searches?
Are you extremely confused?

Are you implying that "Probable Cause" does not apply to searches

How do you figure I implied that? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said that probable cause is the level of suspicion needed to make an arrest. I didn't state that it is not needed to execute a warrant, although that's not the issue here. You're so full of hatred that you're loosing focus now.

it appears that suspicion of the officers didn't exist, and that the stop was illegal.




How do you figure that officers' suspicion didn't exist when it was, in fact, correct. The only thing that "didn't exist" here was the officer's ability to articulate their suspicions. If more people would learn the importance of proper report writing, the courts wouldn't be forced to hand down rulings like this. What happened here is a case of scumbag attorneys perverting our constitution in order to set a criminal free, and you call this liberty.

How do you figure that officers' suspicion didn't exist when it was, in fact, correct. The only thing that "didn't exist" here was the officer's ability to articulate their suspicions. If more people would learn the importance of proper report writing, the courts wouldn't be forced to hand down rulings like this. What happened here is a case of scumbag attorneys perverting our constitution in order to set a criminal free, and you call this liberty.

If I think that a coin is going to land heads up and it does, it doesn't make my psychic. It makes me lucky.

If a police officer stops somebody based on nothing but a wild goose chase, and finds something, it doesn't necessarily mean he had a reasonable suspicion. It means he was lucky.


What happened here is a case of an attorney holding our officers accountable in order to protect ALL of us from spiraling into a fascist state. I hope that the officers involved go on to have careers protecting us in a manner that is both legal and productive.

(this topic is quickly moving toward P&R)
Something people often forget when it comes to stops and searches is this. Fishing expeditions are not only illegal, but are generally ineffective in that they waste police resources that could/should be more intelligently deployed. In addition, stopping people without decent cause makes people hate the cops, and well, I'm sure police work is much harder when people in general hate them (Would you know anything about X? Maybe, maybe not, but I sure won't tell YOU anything!). In the case mentioned by the OP, of course there ultimately were drugs turned up. The "exclusionary rule" has always been controversial; supporters say it's the only thing that can deter overzealous law enforcement, while opponents point to cases like this one where obviously guilty people go free. One has to bear in mind that if the cops turned up nothing, then it's unlikely the case would have ever seen a courtroom, so we'll only hear about the cases where something DID turn up.

I hear a large part of the controversy over racial profiling revolves around police seeing someone of the "wrong" race in particular neighborhoods, proceeding to stops and investigations. Cops are trained to spot things that seem out of place; but of course there's something very wrong when a person is deemed "out of place" based on skin color.

Look, it's quite simple. If, as an LEO, I have a reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime, have material information concerning the commission of a crime, are obstructing an investigation or my ability to do my job, or that you are at grave risk of harm to yourself, I have every right to detain you.

Otherwise, not so much.

(this topic is quickly moving toward P&R)
Something people often forget when it comes to stops and searches is this. Fishing expeditions are not only illegal, but are generally ineffective in that they waste police resources that could/should be more intelligently deployed. In addition, stopping people without decent cause makes people hate the cops, and well, I'm sure police work is much harder when people in general hate them (Would you know anything about X? Maybe, maybe not, but I sure won't tell YOU anything!). In the case mentioned by the OP, of course there ultimately were drugs turned up. The "exclusionary rule" has always been controversial; supporters say it's the only thing that can deter overzealous law enforcement, while opponents point to cases like this one where obviously guilty people go free. One has to bear in mind that if the cops turned up nothing, then it's unlikely the case would have ever seen a courtroom, so we'll only hear about the cases where something DID turn up.

I hear a large part of the controversy over racial profiling revolves around police seeing someone of the "wrong" race in particular neighborhoods, proceeding to stops and investigations. Cops are trained to spot things that seem out of place; but of course there's something very wrong when a person is deemed "out of place" based on skin color.

You make some good points, especially that this topic is quickly moving toward P&R.

The last thing I have to say about this topic is that the officers tried to bring a criminal to justice. In this case they were unsucsessful. I hope they can learn from this experience, and not let it discourage them from doing their job in the future.

This particular case has nothing to do with bikes. It would apply equally to a pedestrian.

Previous cases in other states and cities with "bell or gong" ordinances involved police who stopped and searched cyclists who did not have a "bell or gong" on their bikes. While the police were entitled to stop cyclists for non-compliance with an obsolete and silly ordinance, I believe the courts decided that the police were really using it as an excuse to perform racial profiling and unwarranted searches.

I don't think bicycle bells are obsolete. The one chime gong is still popular in NYC.

But I agree that this has nothing to do with bikes. Yesterday, on the radio, I heard a Lawyer say "Marijuana is not illegal, it is a public health violation..."

What if they check your bike for a bell or gong and they find a bong??? lol.

It appears that in this case their suspicions were correct.

What "suspicions" the from what I read the only "obvious" thing that the individual did wrong was riding his bike in a "high crime area:"

<Quote>
At the hearing on J.C.'s motion to suppress the physical evidence, the arresting officer testified that upon seeing J.C. riding his bike in “a high crime area,” he and the officer with whom he was riding “pulled along and asked to approach [J.C.].” There is no indication in the record of how J.C. responded.
</Quote>

Granted the rider as it turns out because of the suspect/illegal search is/was engaged in an illegal activity, but how does riding one's bike in a "high crime area" constitute probable cause to stop/detain and search said rider? Doesn't there need to be more cause then riding "in a high crime area?"

Granted the rider as it turns out because of the suspect/illegal search is/was engaged in an illegal activity, but how does riding one's bike in a "high crime area" constitute probable cause to stop/detain and search said rider? Doesn't there need to be more cause then riding "in a high crime area?"

What about all the people that live in that high crime area? Should the police be able to search their homes?

I won't even get started on de-criminalizing marijuana, but the facts are pretty plain -- riding a bike in a high-crime area has become probable cause in some parts of the nation, and these two cops thought it was THEIR part. From their perspective, someone on a bike has few resources, and to ride through that area would suggest that the local predators know and respect him, ergo, he's a thug, too. (I live in what's considered 'the bad side of town', and ride my bike through it daily. Lots of little urchins think I'm a cop cuz of my skin, my hair, and the bike I ride boldly through their little DMZ.)

Too bad for them that's not admissible in COL.

If the rider would have looked furtively at them , or spotted them and tried to evade before they pulled over, they might have made a case for reasonable suspicion; as it was, when they approached him, he was cooperative, just a little dumb by letting them search him. Based on that, he shouldn't have gotten off on this technicality. He had to have SUBMITTED to a search for them to find anything. Thus, illegal stop or not, he consented to the search, abrogating his right to privacy under the 4th. (btw, IANAL, just a student of the books)

It appears to be a clear case of riding while black. I'm glad the Appeals Court judges were wise enough to see this. I'm also glad that the kid was fortunate to get good legal counsel. Not many individuals in his circumstances would. These officers have probably been getting away with this for years, and I bet they were stunned to get caught and punished.

You are extremely confused.

"Reasonable Suspicion" is the level of suspicion needed to make a stop.

I don't know what "probably cause" is is.

"Probable Cause" is the level of suspicion necessary to make an arrest.

The case at hand involves officers who made a stop because they suspected that the subject was doing something illegal. During the stop, it was established that the subject was in fact doing something illegal. Based on the available information, It appears that the suspicion of the officers was reasonable and there was no violation of the fourth amendment. Your animosity toward law enforcement not change this fact.


Are you implying that "Probable Cause" does not apply to searches?
Are you extremely confused?



How do you figure I implied that? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said that probable cause is the level of suspicion needed to make an arrest. I didn't state that it is not needed to execute a warrant, although that's not the issue here. You're so full of hatred that you're loosing focus now.Your statements make it appear that you are either not a cop or you are a poorly trained cop (as are the 2 officers in the court case). As you are deriding the other poster by trying to explain the difference between "Reasonable Suspicion" and "Probable Cause"; you fail to mention that even if the cops did have "Reasonable Suspicion" to conduct a legal stop (which they did not have by the way), the cops would have also been required to have "Probable Cause" or “consent” to conduct the warrant-less search of the cyclist that turned up the contraband.

Since the OP cops and you do not understand what constitutes "Reasonable Suspicion", I have doubt about your understanding of "Probable Cause". Your failure to mention "Probable Cause" in relation to the search, as well as arrest, adds support to a belief of your lack of understanding.


It is possible and even likely that a second motion to suppress the evidenced was filed for the cyclist based on the lack of probable cause for the search, but that motion was never considered due to the case being overturned and contraband evidence thrown out by the first motion.

PS: Common BLACK BIKE, admit it, your just a mall security guy that wishes he were a cop!:p

http://static.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/paul-blart-photo.png

In this juvenile delinquency case, J.C. challenges his adjudication for the delinquent acts of possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia,


...The last thing I have to say about this topic is that the officers tried to bring a criminal to justice....

Uhhmmm, the cops illegally rousted a kid on his bike (who happen to have a bag of weed and a pipe on him). IMHO, "...bring a criminal to justice" is a little over the top.

Uhhmmm, the cops illegally rousted a kid on his bike (who happen to have a bag of weed and a pipe on him). IMHO, "...bring a criminal to justice" is a little over the top.

The accidental apprehension of non-dangerous lawbreakers is the specialty of many police officers. You stop 100 people on trumped up "suspicions" and a couple of them are bound to be breaking some minor law.

What about all the people that live in that high crime area? Should the police be able to search their homes?

Exactly, just because a person is in a "high crime area" it doesn't mean that they are up to no good. A section of the Pinellas Trail runs behind an adult video store. Using the "logic" of the two cops who stopped this "kid" for being in a "high crime area" then anyone riding/walking along the Pinellas Trail "must" be headed to that adult video store. . .

There are many reasons why a person is in a "high crime area," such as they can't afford to live elsewhere, they work there, or they have to pass through there to and from work.

I won't even get started on de-criminalizing marijuana, but the facts are pretty plain -- riding a bike in a high-crime area has become probable cause in some parts of the nation, and these two cops thought it was THEIR part. From their perspective, someone on a bike has few resources, and to ride through that area would suggest that the local predators know and respect him, ergo, he's a thug, too. (I live in what's considered 'the bad side of town', and ride my bike through it daily. Lots of little urchins think I'm a cop cuz of my skin, my hair, and the bike I ride boldly through their little DMZ.)

Too bad for them that's not admissible in COL.

If the rider would have looked furtively at them , or spotted them and tried to evade before they pulled over, they might have made a case for reasonable suspicion; as it was, when they approached him, he was cooperative, just a little dumb by letting them search him. Based on that, he shouldn't have gotten off on this technicality. He had to have SUBMITTED to a search for them to find anything. Thus, illegal stop or not, he consented to the search, abrogating his right to privacy under the 4th. (btw, IANAL, just a student of the books)

No, because the stop was illegal the search was illegal. Had they not stopped him because he was a "kid" riding a bicycle in a "high crime area" and therefore "up to something" they wouldn't have searched him and wouldn't have found the pot.

It sounds to me as IF the cops in question had engaged in both racial and economic profiling, i.e. he's a "kid" on a bicycle in a "high crime area." Therefore we "know" that he is up to something illegal so let's stop/detain him, question him without mirandizing him, and then search him and/or his bicycle and see what we can turn up.

This time it was only a minor drug possession bust that got tossed out of court because the cops were overzealous in their duties. But how many times have major drug dealers or even killers been set free because the cops didn't follow procedure?

Exactly, just because a person is in a "high crime area" it doesn't mean that they are up to no good. A section of the Pinellas Trail runs behind an adult video store. Using the "logic" of the two cops who stopped this "kid" for being in a "high crime area" then anyone riding/walking along the Pinellas Trail "must" be headed to that adult video store. . .

There are many reasons why a person is in a "high crime area," such as they can't afford to live elsewhere, they work there, or they have to pass through there to and from work.

And if you count marijuana possession as a crime, every single neighborhood in America is a high crime area.

...He had to have SUBMITTED to a search for them to find anything. Thus, illegal stop or not, he consented to the search, abrogating his right to privacy under the 4th. (btw, IANAL, just a student of the books)

Here's my understanding; minor children can't submit/consent to a police search, only their legal guardians can give consent to a police search. The grey area is if the police perform a "pat down" search for weapons before asking questions and find evidence, it can be allowed. If they want to arrest the minor, then they can search away, there's protection by false arrest laws/civil action and police policy/disipline.

Here's my understanding; minor children can't submit/consent to a police search, only their legal guardians can give consent to a police search. The grey area is if the police perform a "pat down" search for weapons before asking questions and find evidence, it can be allowed. If they want to arrest the minor, then they can search away, there's protection by false arrest laws/civil action and police policy/disipline.

In Florida, a minor can consent to a search so long as the consent is voluntary, which is a perfect example of the phrase "legal fiction."

I've had the same thing happen in a car. I was dropping off a friend who lived in a bad area, because he couldn't afford better at the time. I was stopped and questioned, then given a ticket for a brake light being out. When I looked, the brake light was fine. Totally made up "crime" to justify the stop. I haven't been stopped on my bike, but have been stopped walking. This happens all the time. Cops can do whatever they want. It may not stand up in court, but it does you little good at the time.

I haven't been stopped on my bike, but have been stopped walking. This happens all the time.

Maybe because you're the Florida Bandit.

Now get a haircut, hippie.

What "suspicions" the from what I read the only "obvious" thing that the individual did wrong was riding his bike in a "high crime area:"

<Quote>
At the hearing on J.C.'s motion to suppress the physical evidence, the arresting officer testified that upon seeing J.C. riding his bike in “a high crime area,” he and the officer with whom he was riding “pulled along and asked to approach [J.C.].” There is no indication in the record of how J.C. responded.
</Quote>

Granted the rider as it turns out because of the suspect/illegal search is/was engaged in an illegal activity, but how does riding one's bike in a "high crime area" constitute probable cause to stop/detain and search said rider? Doesn't there need to be more cause then riding "in a high crime area?"

The police officers patrol their area daily and know the regulars by sight, if not by name. "J.C" probably stuck out like a sore thumb and the officers know from past experience someone like "J.C" is probably not there for the exercise.

Nowhere in the case stated above does it argue the police did an illegal search of "J.C.", only that they did an illegal detainment of J.C. That suggests to me that once they walked up to him J.C. gave them plenty of reasons to search him and discover the marijuana.

When I lived in New Orleans, I got stopped by the police while riding my bike. They wanted to know where I was going and why I was in the neighborhood. I told them I was a student, been in town three months and was out exploring. They said I should not be in this neighborhood, it was unsafe. My answers and demeanor towards the officers was cordial and respectful. Had I been a smart@ss, they'd probably thought I was up to no good and hauled me to Central Lockup. When I told others of where I'd been, they said I was very lucky to still be alive; riding anywhere near the Desire housing projects even in a car is not recommended.

A year or so later, I'm riding alongside the river behind the flood wall. Port Authority stopped me, told me this was off-limits to people not working there. I apologized for trespassing; he said no problem, just head to the closest exit and not ride there anymore.

If criminals would learn to be polite they probably wouldn't get busted nearly as often as they do.

...If criminals would learn to be polite they probably wouldn't get busted nearly as often as they do.

Yes, I do believe you're correct, the US Constitution says, "These rights only apply to polite Americans"....

It appears that in this case their suspicions were correct.

Maybe it was just my HS, but I would guessing stopping a teenager would all but guarantee finding some dope. Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years.

From my limited experience in this town.

Several years ago it was common to see juveniles out late at night on 20 inch bikes.delivering drugs to houses or people standing on a street corner. The customer would call the drug dealer on a cell phone and the drug dealer would have some kid riding a 20 inch bike make the delivery. We had this happen earlier this year when a drug dealer moved in down the block.

In June I watched a similar thing on the Schuylkill River Trail at Norristown. A male about 18 or 19 selling off his bike in a secluded portion of the park along the river. Later in the afternoon he passed by me as I took a break along the trail. He had a small pizza box in one hand as he pedaled up the trail and turned off into the secluded section.
Here in this town we saw that act several years ago. There would be an old and cold pizza in the box with the bags of drugs under the pizza. The idea being that if stopped by the police they would not touch the food and therefor not find the "bags".

So in a high crime (drug) area the police know that some drugs are being sold off bicycles in the area.

put it this way if i saw anybody running in a high crime area with baggy jeans and a big jacket when is 90degrees or more and during the night i will pull him over. same if i saw somebody on a bike in a similar attire. the cops could always argue that the way that he was dress reflects gang membership.

If criminals would learn to be polite they probably wouldn't get busted nearly as often as they do.

You're not white, are you?

This particular case has nothing to do with bikes. It would apply equally to a pedestrian.

Previous cases in other states and cities with "bell or gong" ordinances involved police who stopped and searched cyclists who did not have a "bell or gong" on their bikes. While the police were entitled to stop cyclists for non-compliance with an obsolete and silly ordinance, I believe the courts decided that the police were really using it as an excuse to perform racial profiling and unwarranted searches.

yep, it has more to do with how police are clowns and idiots who frequently abuse their power.

:thumb:

The police officers patrol their area daily and know the regulars by sight, if not by name. "J.C" probably stuck out like a sore thumb and the officers know from past experience someone like "J.C" is probably not there for the exercise.

Nowhere in the case stated above does it argue the police did an illegal search of "J.C.", only that they did an illegal detainment of J.C. That suggests to me that once they walked up to him J.C. gave them plenty of reasons to search him and discover the marijuana.

When I lived in New Orleans, I got stopped by the police while riding my bike. They wanted to know where I was going and why I was in the neighborhood. I told them I was a student, been in town three months and was out exploring. They said I should not be in this neighborhood, it was unsafe. My answers and demeanor towards the officers was cordial and respectful. Had I been a smart@ss, they'd probably thought I was up to no good and hauled me to Central Lockup. When I told others of where I'd been, they said I was very lucky to still be alive; riding anywhere near the Desire housing projects even in a car is not recommended.

A year or so later, I'm riding alongside the river behind the flood wall. Port Authority stopped me, told me this was off-limits to people not working there. I apologized for trespassing; he said no problem, just head to the closest exit and not ride there anymore.

If criminals would learn to be polite they probably wouldn't get busted nearly as often as they do.

The search is/was illegal because the detainment was illegal. The ends do not justify the means. Plus the person being searched is/was a minor at the time that the search took place. And as has been pointed out without parental consent the police cannot preform a search of a minor. That also makes it an illegal search.

Maybe it was just my HS, but I would guessing stopping a teenager would all but guarantee finding some dope. Maybe things have changed in the last 20 years.

When I was in HS in Upstate New York everyone except for the first few people being dropped off. Got off of the bus with a good contact high from all the pot being smoked in the back of the bus.

You're not white, are you?

Let me guess, you are a smart@ss to cops, aren't you?