About Us
We are streaming videos that are hosted on Youtube and are provided by 3rd party servers. All videos are hosted by 3rd party video hosting sites and are not affiliated with our website.
Affiliate Disclosure
FullyWatching.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.comThe rule of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Mireles case holds that the mere fact that a police officer stops a suspect and asks questions is not enough to convert a consensual encounter into a seizure or an arrest. The Court said that the person has a right to ignore the officer’s request to stop and walk away.
“ ‘That the person being approached by the officer happens to answer a question or agree to answer a question is not enough to overcome the otherwise voluntary nature of the encounter.’ ”
The defendants’ attorneys argued that something more than a simple question and some minimal show of authority, such as a gun in the officer’s holster, are required to turn the consensual encounter into an arrest.
The attorneys also argued that their clients were not told they were free to leave. The officers testified that they told the defendants, or instructed them to “Come with me.” The attorneys argued that a person who is told to “Come with me” is not free to leave.
The Mireles court explained that this was not enough to turn the encounter into an arrest. “While it may be uncommon for an officer to tell a suspect he must ‘come with me,’ it does not follow that the officer’s statement in this case transformed the encounter from a consensual one into an arrest.”
“We conclude, therefore, that no seizure occurred when defendants were questioned and that the question was proper.”
“We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The Mireles case should have set the stage for the Harris County prosecutors to drop the case against Powell, if the prosecutor is relying on the decision as authority for her failure to do so. The lawyers for the victim, however, said that she has a constitutional right to prosecute the case against Powell.
The lawyers for the victim claim that the be359ba680
Related links:
コメント