Bloomberg and his Stop and Frisk.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah

Ask the USSC; that's what they are there for.......BUT, remember "Writs of Assistance" under the Brits? Where the opposers could get those for any reason, just about at any time? The Founding Fathers didn't want that and wrote against it......and stop and frisk sounds a lot like those things.

Did I ever do stop and frisk? I don't think so. I did two things under my watch, dedicated search warrants and gate/boat searches. The search warrants are pretty clear; in the gate searches, we stopped cars entering/leaving the base, looking for government material and contraband where, if found, it was returned to the work center or destroyed. It was more of an administrative search as oppose to a court case. As far as boat searches went, it was with the drug dogs but it was to make sure the boats were clear of drugs.

In any case, be careful of how much power one gives the government for they will surely use it to the full.....and then some.

like i said, read up on terry v ohio. as long as the officer has probable cause they dont need a search warrant to do a stop and frisk.


on a military installation the rules are different since one is entering a restricted area, and thus are subject to the rules of the base. want to get in? submit to a search of your person or vehicle. same with the TSA searches at the airport. in that case you are getting on a privately owned conveyance, and thus subject to the rules of the company that owns said conveyance.


i do agree with limiting the power of government though, too many issues with them abusing their power.

[LTU2]

Originally Posted by LTU2

How does "stop and frisk" "specifically" violate the 4th Amendment? Opinion is one thing, "specific" is another.

Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah

Ask the USSC; that's what they are there for.......BUT, remember "Writs of Assistance" under the Brits? Where the opposers could get those for any reason, just about at any time? The Founding Fathers didn't want that and wrote against it......and stop and frisk sounds a lot like those things.

That doesn't answer my question I posed to duck mercy. Warrantless searches are permitted in certain circumstances. The warrantless "Stop" or "Seizure" is not the issue, as that is guided by many years of precedent, assuming the officer does not make up a reason. The issue posed by the question is how a warrantless "frisk" "specifically" violates the 4th AM?

Warrantless arrests are constitutional, yet that seems to go against the 4th also, as it does not mention that.

[FC76-81]

Over this past weekend I happened to see a Bloomberg campaign ad on tv. He had on his face a great big happy smile surrounded by black people with great big happy smiles on all of their faces too. Ok. What happened before he was trying to run for the POTUS? Do they have any pix and/or videos showing the same exact thing before he was a presidential hopeful? Why all of a sudden, do I ask?

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by LTU2

That doesn't answer my question I posed to duck mercy. Warrantless searches are permitted in certain circumstances. The warrantless "Stop" or "Seizure" is not the issue, as that is guided by many years of precedent, assuming the officer does not make up a reason. The issue posed by the question is how a warrantless "frisk" "specifically" violates the 4th AM?

Warrantless arrests are constitutional, yet that seems to go against the 4th also, as it does not mention that.

the supreme court has consistently ruled that warrantless searches can be conducted under limited conditions. if the officer is in hot pursuit, they can run into the home where the person they were pursuing entered, so they can search that house for that person. there are limitations to that as well. for instance they cannot open drawers, cupboards, or other places they do not reasonably expect to find a person, closets are fair game, the oven is not. also any contraband in plain sight when they enter that domicile while in hot pursuit is subject to seizure and the occupants subject to arrest.


other exigent circumstances include things like a crime in progress, IE a kidnapped person in a house where there is probable cause to get a search warrant, but no time due to impending danger to the victim.


if the officer "smells" marijuana emanating from your car they can search the passenger compartment. if a drug dog "hits" on your car, they can search it. if you are arrested they can then search your car. if you invite an officer into your house, and you are subsequently arrested they can then search the house. if they initiate an arrest outside the house, but to avoid being arrested you enter the house, they can follow you and finish the arrest, and then search the house, but only if you go inside thee house. if you remain outside the house, the only thing they can do is look in the immediate room FROM THE DOORWAY, and only enter IF there is contraband openly visible, otherwise they can only lock and close your door to secure the premises.


the only other an officer can search a car or house, or even the person and their belongings without a warrant is by permission of the person in control of the house/car or permission of the person in question. in other words they cannot look in a womans purse unless she gives permission for instance.


one more way is if the officers have probable cause to get a warrant, but no time to get a warrant due to the high possibility of evidence being destroyed.


in the end its the courts that ultimately make the decision of whether a search was legal or not.