“We did hear some complaints today of people being stopped going to work. Let me be clear, that is perfectly legal from our officers' perspective,” said Pete Schulte of the DeSoto Police Department.
So how do local or state orders supersede the 4th Amendment, and case law precedent following Terry v. Ohio, that set very clear standards for reasonable suspicion? Given that the constitution's Supremacy Clause applies to Supreme Court cases as well, I don't see how local directives can trample articulated reasonable suspicion thresholds from existing case law.My very brilliant lawyer wife says restrictions depend on how the shelter in place orders are written. In some instances, LEO are granted the right to pull you over and ticket you for being out without an exemption as noted within the order. However, most exemptions do allow you to acquire food, medicine or go for a walk. Local Courts are closed, so how would you pay a fine? Most of the orders I have seen exempt the media. I would imagine storm spotters would be allowed to track storms, but again, you might have a problem if the local LEO sees out of state plates. I have NO doubt that one or two of the most aggressive chasers out there will have problems this year, unless they fake their purpose, which we all know happens.
The only one I've seen that used the terminology "shelter in place" was Oak Park, IL, which has a municipal order in effect. Honestly it's not really much different from the stay-at-home order that Illinois put into place at the end of last week: Oak Park Order for Shelter in Place1) Watch the terminology. There are no formal "shelter in place" orders that I've seen. SIP / lockdown is a term used when you WILL NOT LEAVE WHERE YOU ARE NOW. Other than China I know of no other instance.
I will say that Indiana said they would enforce the order, but they never said, at least not that I saw, that cars would be stopped en mass and checked for compliance. He even addressed that in subsequent Twitter replies. So I do think ISP is aware of their limitations.None of the actual orders I've read have any clause explicitly stating they would be enforced. That doesn't mean that they aren't going to be, as we've seen in at least two locations in chasing country:
Some Dallas-area officers have been given the authority to stop people to make sure they are essential workers and not people just out and about.www.wfaa.com
The Dallas area activity seems to be mainly local municipalities (Desoto, Arlington, Richardson, etc) making the stops rather than state or county officers. However, the Indiana State Police are saying as such directly.
True, we might see some backpedaling of this once the public starts to object, but it doesn't mean it's going to stop happening in every county or municipality.
The Dallas County TX order does say "All individuals currently living within Dallas County are ordered to shelter at their place of residence." Coronavirus (COVID-19) | Judge Jenkins Orders1) Watch the terminology. There are no formal "shelter in place" orders that I've seen.
As I said a few days ago I don't think hobbyist chasers from out of state are a qualified exception under most of these executive orders. You can try to fight the whole "outdoor recreation" loophole if you want, assuming there is one. Your odds are still better than not that you won't get stopped, but it's best to know what orders exist in which states before you decide to chase and accept any risks.There are numerous social media reports of people being ticketed in the Dallas metro area. Also, an actual ticket from Michigan was shared privately with me, the charge was "violating the governor's executive order". So, where non-essential travel is explicitly prohibited in the executive order, a chaser could be charged with that (a misdimeanor) if they are stopped for a traffic offense. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems it would be hard to defend with out-of-state plates and/or a chaser who posts about their chase on social media, sells video to TV, Youtube, etc.
The 4th. involves searching a vehicle, e.g, "unreasonable searches and seizures." The police can pull you over if they suspect you are in violation of the law, including orders issued by a state or local government.So how do local or state orders supersede the 4th Amendment, and case law precedent following Terry v. Ohio, that set very clear standards for reasonable suspicion? Given that the constitution's Supremacy Clause applies to Supreme Court cases as well, I don't see how local directives can trample articulated reasonable suspicion thresholds from existing case law.
Also, Dallas PD apparently issued a directive saying they are NOT randomly stopping cars now.
That is correct but I don't see how just driving your car down the road is equating to suspicion of violating the order. By that metric anyone driving on the road would be subject to being stopped for suspicion of being out for a non-essential reason. To me that's a violation of your rights as an unreasonable intrusion. I should be able to drive to Walgreens without having to worry about getting stopped to prove that I'm out for an essential reason. The concept of reasonable suspicion to articulate a traffic stop, however, is something that was carved out of 4th Amendment case law as being a threshold below probable cause but something that still involves an unreasonable intrusion akin to Fourth Amendment issues.The 4th. involves searching a vehicle, e.g, "unreasonable searches and seizures." The police can pull you over if they suspect you are in violation of the law, including orders issued by a state or local government.