|
|
|
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
|
|