Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stop and Frisk, randomly pulling someone over and searching them. You need probably cause to do that. You need an actually reason that can be proven. Otherwise, it is illegal search and seizure.
Traffic stops on highways are very similar to stop&frisk although for different reasons. They are usually performed on a highway so everyone is treated the same, not true for Stop& Frisk. If they used it equally down in Wall Street and treated everyone the same it would have been viewed differently.
Stop and Frisk, randomly pulling someone over and searching them. You need probable cause to do that. You need an actually reason that can be proven. Otherwise, it is illegal search and seizure.
What makes you think it will be hard to find probable cause. You're acting as if those going about their business normally are going to get stopped and frisked. They won't. Just like drivers obeying traffic laws aren't pulled over, but the driver weaving or speeding? Likely to get pulled over.
On the legality of S&F...
Quote:
Purely for his own protection, the court held, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe 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. The frisk, it held, was essential to the proper performance of the officer's investigatory duties, for, without it, "the answer to the police officer may be a bullet, and a loaded pistol discovered during the frisk is admissible."
After the court denied their motion to suppress, Chilton and Terry waived jury trial and pleaded not guilty. The court adjudged them guilty, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed. State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122, 214 N.E.2d 114 (1966). The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no "substantial constitutional question" was involved. We granted certiorari, 387 U.S. 929 (1967), to determine whether the admission of the revolvers in evidence violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. Mapp v. Ohio,367 U.S. 643 (1961). We affirm the conviction.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,473,841 times
Reputation: 12187
Wonder if he'll implement stop and frisk at gun shows to make sure all the guns are legal? Or make traffic stops where pickup trucks are tested for EPA compliance and not sitting up too high? Obviously that would never happen. That's the issue with Stop and Frisk, it would never be for everyone, just Black and Hispanic men.
Traffic stops on highways are very similar to stop&frisk although for different reasons. They are usually performed on a highway so everyone is treated the same, not true for Stop& Frisk. If they used it equally down in Wall Street and treated everyone the same it would have been viewed differently.
There are easily as many criminals on Wall Street as the rest of the city.
Wonder if he'll implement stop and frisk at gun shows to make sure all the guns are legal? Or make traffic stops where pickup trucks are tested for EPA compliance and not sitting up too high? Obviously that would never happen. That's the issue with Stop and Frisk, it would never be for everyone, just Black and Hispanic men.
Good point. Many who advocate for stop and frisk would have a conniption if they targeted gun shows. And why not trucks? Minding your own business but get pulled over just because the officer wants to check the emissions coming from your tail pipe.
Mind you, I support none of this but it is all the same.
Being unconstitutional doesn't mean it's wrong. The constitution isn't always right.
Actually, yeah, that's exactly what it means. Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional, therefore Trump is (as usual) full of crap.
Unless you endorse going full on Hitler/Stalin, and just tearing up the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
