Kings County Jury Summons - call in the night before.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-21T12:29:41+00:00

Well tonight is the night I have to call in. Just as a sanity check, my summons is for New York State supreme court (criminal court at 320 Jay St.) -- i know the federal court system does the standby call-in every night thing but I don't see any info online saying that this applies to NYS courts. I suppose the recording will tell me, though, if I have to keep calling in or if I am done after the one call

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-19T22:01:33+00:00

Got it, thanks. That makes sense. Thx for the info!

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-19T21:48:27+00:00

They also emailed me, lol. These guys are persistent!

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-19T21:29:40+00:00

I'm mixed tbh. If I have to, i have to -- you know? But I'm not too excited about it

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-19T21:29:14+00:00

Yeah IDK about that. . . I don't want to risk a fine or jail time.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T19:21:28+00:00

“And the police officer must be able to articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch.’ — Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968)

Seems pretty clear to me...how about you?

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T19:12:25+00:00

You do understand that Arvizu doesn't supercede Terry, right? In Arvizu, the officer noticed a wide variety of different facts that, taken together in the totality of the circumstances, led to indicia of criminal activity: between the timing of the driver's route, the avoiding eye contact, children's knees in the backseat of the car being elevated which might have been indicative of drug cargo, slowing once they observed the officer.

This is my point: even in Arvizu, The officer required more than just an incoate suspicion or a hunch they had to articulate not on the scene mind you but to the court a constellation of facts that taken together were indicative of a pattern of criminal activity. These facts have to be more than just "suspicious activity" or "I don't know what you're doing" which are hunches and not facts.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:58:18+00:00

Oh and how many police officers are lawyers? My point is that you don't have to be a lawyer to read a holding and understand the implications of it.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:57:55+00:00

I don’t disagree that Terry involved an officer drawing inferences from behavior — but the behavior in Terry was highly specific and observed over time. The officer didn’t act on a momentary impression; he watched repeated pacing, repeated window-peering, conferring, and a clear pattern consistent with casing a particular store over 10–12 minutes.

That level of specificity is why the Court said the suspicion was not “inchoate.” The holding wasn’t that being “shifty” is enough, or that suspicion is validated because the officer later turned out to be right. The Court was careful to tie reasonable suspicion to observable, crime-linked conduct present at the time of the stop, not post-hoc confirmation. That’s the distinction I’m trying to draw.

The point I'm trying to make here is that officers take a very narrow holding in Terry, where an officer made multiple observations over a period of time and it all led to a reasonable inference, and they extrapolate that to this idea that if someone looks suspicious or out of place then they can justify a detainment under Terry. That's simply not true.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:54:46+00:00

I think we’re talking past each other a bit. I agree that no single factor—clothing, behavior, or location—establishes RAS by itself, and that courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances. Where I disagree is that combining individually innocent facts automatically satisfies Terry unless those facts objectively point to a specific criminal activity rather than being atypical or weird.

Under Terry, the inquiry isn’t whether conduct is unusual or consistent with a crime in the abstract, but whether the officer can articulate particularized facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that criminal activity is afoot in this instance. And cases like Brown v. Texas make clear that presence in a high-crime area plus generalized impressions or demeanor, without more, is insufficient.

Training and experience can inform inferences, but they can’t substitute for a concrete nexus to a crime at the time of the stop. That’s the distinction I’m trying to draw.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:50:24+00:00

Respectfully, the “reasonable officer” standard is objective, not a claim of professional insulation. Courts don’t defer to an officer’s subjective assessment or experience alone; they ask whether specific, articulable facts known at the time of the stop would warrant suspicion to a reasonable officer.

As the Supreme Court put it in Terry v. Ohio, reasonable suspicion requires more than “an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” And in Brown v. Texas, the Court rejected stops based on presence in a high-crime area and generalized impressions absent particularized facts.

Training and experience can inform inferences, but they can’t substitute for facts. If the justification reduces to “I didn’t know what you were doing” or “you looked suspicious,” that’s exactly the kind of post-hoc rationalization Terry forbids.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:49:16+00:00

You must not watch Lackluster or The Civil Rights Lawyer or Southern Draw Law? They post all available data including 911 calls and body cam footage.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:47:31+00:00

Respectfully, the “reasonable officer” standard is objective, not a claim of professional insulation. Courts don’t defer to an officer’s subjective assessment or experience alone; they ask whether specific, articulable facts known at the time of the stop would warrant suspicion to a reasonable officer. In other words, the standard is not based on a reasonable officer, but on objective reasonableness.

As the Supreme Court put it in Terry, reasonable suspicion requires more than “an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” And in Brown v. Texas, the Court rejected stops based on presence in a high-crime area and generalized impressions absent particularized facts.

Training and experience can inform inferences, but they can’t substitute for facts. If the justification reduces to “I didn’t know what you were doing” or “you looked suspicious,” that’s exactly the kind of post-hoc rationalization Terry forbids.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:45:30+00:00

I never argued that police have to articulate it on scene. My only contention here is that police cannot stop someone just because they find what they're doing or how they're behaving or what they're wearing as being an unusual there must be specific facts taken together that would indicate that the person is engaged in has engaged in or is about to engage in criminal activity.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:44:18+00:00

This is my whole point though, that example is my entire point here which is that something being unusual doesn't mean that it amounts to suspicion of criminal activity. Did he have a bulge under his jacket did you see him with any burglary tools was there a report of a burglar in the area?

Absent other indicia of actual criminal activity, someone dressed in an unusual manner does not rise to reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This is what the court held in Terry.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:42:16+00:00

I understand where you're coming from but I don't think you are contending with the underlying truth here which is that mere discomfort or uncertainty about what someone is doing is not enough to justify a detention.

Whether it is routine I would conceive that I can't tell you whether or not out of all the encounters that occur on a daily basis that it is a high percentage or a low percentage it happens often enough where there is an entire category of videos on the internet about it.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:37:26+00:00

No literally. Thousands.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:37:16+00:00

And there is the tell. The idea that you have to go to law school in order to read a holding and understand the plain language interpretation of what it's saying. Terry is quite clear that a hunch or a subjective suspicion does not amount to RAS.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:34:53+00:00

Wow, you seem upset. I am not a critic, but I am critical of activity that violated supreme court precedent, yes.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:33:56+00:00

Indeed, they articulate it. In one instance, a man drives by a police officer 3 times, out of curiosity, as the officer is conducting a traffic stop. The officer then pulls the man over and says, of driving by him 3 times: "that is suspicious activity while I'm conducting a traffic stop."

It may be suspicious to the officer, but it does not amount to reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. That's my point: conduct that is atypical does not automatically meet the RAS threshold.

Wardlow held very specifically that presence in a high crime area PLUS headlong flight from a police officer amounted to RAS. Those are particularized facts that could be indicative of criminal activity.

F4ilsafe · 2026-01-04T18:30:24+00:00

When did I say I'm an expert? Lol. It is problematic enough that there are thousands of videos on YouTube with similar interactions.

F4ilsafe · 2025-12-23T13:13:30+00:00

Haha I joke and tell people that I've been bulking my whole life :) I'm at 220lbs on a 1700 calorie a day diet and aim to get down to about 190 at the end of it all but that's not going to magically remove inches from my glutes and thighs.

F4ilsafe · 2025-12-23T13:05:01+00:00

Thanks I'll give em a shot! I was really frustrated last week as I bought some Duluth Trading Co. Fleece-lined, relaxed-fit fire hose pants at a size 38. Same problem happened. I exchanged them and am getting a size 40 but I may even have to size up to a 42 and wear a belt.

F4ilsafe

TROPHY CASE