"The RIGHT of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Sorry, a cop trying to meet a quota claiming a poor/urban/ethnic person made "furtive movements" does not meet the above test (and the courts agree with me).
It's baffling how people can support such nonsense. So scared of boogymen they give up their humanity and rights and justify it with "if I am not doing anything wrong. Why should I care?" nonsense.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 9, 2016 3:45 PM MDT
It worked in N.Y. and it would do wonders in Chicago, everyone has a right to live in peace and be safe and this is a tool to help make that happen in certain areas. It helps protect your rights not take them away.
A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicionthat a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. See Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967). rief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicionthat a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. See Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967).
Nothing. It has already been ruled constitutional. As long as the officer believes the above.
I think anyone wishing to challenge whether the suspicion was reasonable would need a lawyer. Of course the officer would always assert that it was whether he believed it or not.
Weeeelllll . . . I can see why you might like "stop and frisk" especially if the officer looks like that. (And if that's what floats your boat then more power to ya'!)
But given the Supreme Court's ruling on a similar practice, that of stopping drivers and "frisking" them for alcohol consumption just because they're out late, it might well be OK, or not. (A lower Court has apparently frowned on the practice.). The Supremes' Ruling noted that the safety of the many outweighs the Rights (or in this case the privileges) of the few. But it does carry with it the requirement that the several States (or local governments) that engage in the practice (for drinking drivers) do so in a fair and unbiased manner and that they have "rules" in place from "supervisors" that meet that requirement and are followed meticulously. Logically that should extend to any stops made "just because".
But personally, I don't much care for the practice and believe that just like the practice of "Civil Forfeiture" it clearly violates the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Those skilled in the circumvention of the law (lawyers) with political or financial ground to gain appear to believe otherwise . . .
This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at October 9, 2016 3:46 PM MDT
TomThumb 