OTHAL TOREYANE RESHEEN WALLACE
THIS MAN HAD NO INTENTIONS OF CAUSING BODILY HARM! THIS MAN, MR. WALLACE WAS SITTING OUTSIDE IN HIS CAR. HE WAS ALONE, NOT MAKING EXCESSIVE NOISE, NOT CAUSING A SCENE. HE WAS APPROACHED, PHYSICALLY TOUCHED, AND HARRASSED, NOT EVEN BEING TOLD WHY HE WAS BEING QUESTIONED BY A POLICE OFFICER. THE COP EVEN FELT IT NECESSARY TO USE UNNECESSARY FORCE BY ATTEMPTING TO REPEATEDLY PUSH MR.WALLACE BACK INTO HIS VEHICLE. THIS WHOLE ENCOUNTER WAS NOT NEEDED AND CONTINUES TO SHOW THE OFFICERS TAKING THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS
A multi-agency manhunt for a man accused of shooting a Daytona Beach police officer in the head ended early Saturday morning when he was captured near Atlanta, authorities said. Othal Toreyane Resheen Wallace, 29, is accused of shooting Daytona Beach Officer Jason Raynor, 26, after Raynor approached Wallace as he sat in a vehicle Wednesday night. Raynor has been hospitalized since then.
Wallace is charged with attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer with a firearm. Daytona Beach Police Chief Jakari Young said at a news conference Saturday morning that Wallace was found in a treehouse on a 3-acre property outside in Atlanta during the execution of a search warrant about 2:30 a.m. Saturday by U.S. Marshals, the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, Georgia State Patrol and police. Young said several firearms and multiple flash-bang grenades were also found in the treehouse and more weapons were recovered on the property.
Police said the property is affiliated with a Black nationalist paramilitary organization. Four other people were located on the property, Young said. Police used Raynor’s handcuffs to arrest Wallace. Othal Wallace waives formal extradition process, expediating return to Florida. Authorities say Othal Wallace was found in a treehouse on the property associated with an organization called NFAC. The acronym stands for the "Not F------ Around Coalition," a self-described militia composed exclusively of Black members.
Young said authorities used Raynor’s handcuffs to arrest Wallace. Raynor remains in critical condition after being shot, but Young says he has shown some signs of improvement. "(Raynor has shown) positive signs of improvement. He still has a ways to go," Young said. "His outlook is improving, it is a positive one."
Bodycam Video Shows Wallace Getting Out of His Car and Talking to the Officer, Saying, ‘Why Are You Asking, ‘Do I Live Here?’ and ‘Don’t Do This’ Before Shooting Him During a Scuffle, Police Say.
Police delivered a 29-second bit of the body camera video recorded by the injured official. The video shows Raynor moving toward Wallace’s left vehicle as he is leaving it’s anything but a parking area and asking, “How’s it going? Do you live here?” Wallace, who is standing up out of the vehicle as the official methodologies, asks, “What’s happening?” Raynor then, at that point says, “Plunk down. Sit, sit, sit, sit, sit, sit, sit. Would you be able to plunk down? I’ll converse with you.” Raynor then, at that point puts his hands on Wallace and keeps advising him to sit.
On June 24, after Wallace was blamed for shooting the Daytona Beach official, Shabazz composed on Facebook, “take a gander at the video proof in OZ case. We should take a gander at the proof. Disregard the yelling of the white press. Take a gander at the proof. Truly we truly don’t have the foggiest idea what occurred here and can’t hypothesize. The official might have shot himself. There may have been two cops here. Once more; every litigant has an option to a guard. Each litigant is blameless until demonstrated blameworthy past a sensible uncertainty as per the law.”
Wallace’s Facebook profile says he is initially from Gainesville, Florida, and has lived in Hollywood, Florida. The Facebook page shows a few photographs of Wallace with his youngsters. His Facebook profile records his name as “O-Zone Wallace (Son Of Yah).” Wallace had also lived for a time at the Florida United Methodist Children's Home in Enterprise. Wallace left the independent living program at the home in 2012, Mark Cobia, a spokesman for the group home, wrote in an email.
U.S. Supreme Court
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Terry v. Ohio
Argued December 12, 1967
Decided June 10, 1968
392 U.S. 1
A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.
The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station.
Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.
1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 392 U. S. 8-9.
2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 392 U. S. 12.
3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 392 U.S. 13-15.
4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 392 U. S. 16-20.
(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 392 U. S. 16.
(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 392 U. S. 16.
5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous
Page 392 U. S. 3
regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 392 U. S. 20-27.
(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 392 U. S. 20.
(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 392 U. S. 21-22.
(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 392 U. S. 22.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 392 U. S. 24.
(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 392 U. S. 25-26.
(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 392 U. S. 26-27.
6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 392 U. S. 27-30.
(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 392 U. S. 28.
(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 392 U. S. 29-30.
7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 392 U. S. 30-31.
IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT SOMEONE GOT INJURED IN THIS SCENERIO. BUT AS IT'S COMING TO THE LIGHT EVERYDAY, IT'S NOT USUALLY THE OFFICER GETTING INJURED OR WORSE KILLED. FROM WHAT I SEE IN THIS VIDEO MR.WALLACE WAS SIMPLY DEFENDING HIMSELF. THERE WAS NO CRIME BEING COMMITTED. BUT THE OFFICER THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY TO USE FORCE. THIS OFFICER CAN CLEARLY BE SEEN ON VIDEO PHYSICALLY TOUCHING THIS MAN WHO WAS DOING NOTHING BUT SIMPLY SITTING IN HIS CAR. UNFORTUNATELY, THE OFFICER FAILED TO REALIZE THAT MR.WALLACE HAS EACH AND EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND HIS SELF.