Liberal Policies On Parade !

[Paprika]

I'm a bit new to the debate, but how does stop and frisk not blatantly violate the fourth amendment?

The ambiguity of "unreasonable". That is, 'it's for the social good!'

[seer]

So yeah, you're leaping to a conclusion that is wholly unwarranted at the moment. Thanks for confirming.

No Homer, use your commons sense. If you take more illegal guns and criminals off the street will shootings generally go up or down? If the bad guys knows that a cop could stop and frisk them at almost any moment is he more or less likely to carry a firearm? Good grief man, use the sense that God gave you.

[JimL]

Because a "stop question and frisk" is different than an arrest. And the "frisk" is a very superficial search.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...Stop+and+Frisk

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

Stop and frisk is not investigating a situation.

[Cow Poke]

Stop and frisk is not investigating a situation.

Back to saying really dumb things without a purpose, eh? Stop and Frisk can most certainly be a component of an investigation, or even lead to one.

[JimL]

Back to saying really dumb things without a purpose, eh? Stop and Frisk can most certainly be a component of an investigation, or even lead to one.

No, you are saying really dumb things, particularly for an ex cop. Stop and frisk policy has nothing to do with an investigation.

[Cow Poke]

No, you are saying really dumb things, particularly for an ex cop. Stop and frisk policy has nothing to do with an investigation.

Jimmy - you're using the dummy version of "investigation" -- it is much broader than your little mind can conceive. If I see some guys hanging around a bank, and I suspect they're up to no good, when I walk over to them to confront them, it is the beginning of an "investigation" that may or may not lead anywhere.

In that case, the Supreme Court has held, I have the right to "stop, question and frisk".

[Cow Poke]

No, you are saying really dumb things, particularly for an ex cop. Stop and frisk policy has nothing to do with an investigation.

I'll highlight the main points for you so you don't have to wear out your brain thinking too hard.....

Source: LegalDictionary

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.

© Copyright Original Source

Did you notice the use of the word "investigation" there, Jimmy? (Note - "investigatory" is a form of the word "investigation" )

[JimL]

I'll highlight the main points for you so you don't have to wear out your brain thinking too hard.....

Source: LegalDictionary

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.

© Copyright Original Source

Did you notice the use of the word "investigation" there, Jimmy? (Note - "investigatory" is a form of the word "investigation" )

Try reading it objectively CP. The police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place or is about to take place. You can't just stop and investigate, i.e stop and frisk, anyone walking down the street which is what stop and frisk was all about. 684,000 people were stopped and frisked, the great majority of whom were doing nothing suspicious other than walking while black or latino.

[Cow Poke]

Try reading it objectively CP. The police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place or is about to take place.

Yes, a "reasonable suspicion", Jimmy.

You can't just stop and investigate, i.e stop and frisk, anyone walking down the street which is what stop and frisk was all about.

No, Jimmy, "stop and frisk", as noted in the article, and approved by the Supreme Court, is about the "reasonable suspicion" which is a much lower requirement than "probable cause". It is, as the article states, designed primarily for the safety of the officers AND BYSTANDERS during the initial INVESTIGATION as to what's going on.

684,000 people were stopped and frisked, the great majority of whom were doing nothing suspicious other than walking while black or latino.

Then those incidents should be reported and investigated, but it does not change what the Supreme Court has approved "stop question and frisk" to be.


Jimmy, let's try it this way....

When an officer arrives on a scene, either by happening upon it or being dispatched to it, he/she has a responsibility to "investigate" whether a crime is being committed, has been committed, or is about to be committed.

I think you're moving the goalposts because you can no longer defend your idiot assertion that "Stop and frisk policy has nothing to do with an investigation." It is a very important part of an investigation for the safety of the officers and innocent bystanders.

You're wrong (again). Admit it.

[JimL]

BTW, stop and frisk has also been determined by the courts to be in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

[Cow Poke]

BTW, stop and frisk has also been determined by the courts to be in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

Citation please. (This does not include a summary of your liberal pinko commie talking points - an actual reference to the actual court decision, please)

Here's my citation, Jimmy - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

Now, if you have a Supreme Court Decision that vacates that one, or strikes it down, I'd be interested to see it.

[Cow Poke]

Here's another citation, Jimmy....

http://scarinciattorney.com/terry-v-...top-and-frisk/

Indeed, there was a challenge...

Source: cited article

A federal court judge recently held that New York City’s stop and frisk program runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to finding that the practice disproportionately targeted black and Hispanics in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court found that many of the stops violated the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Central to the court’s Fourth Amendment analysis was the precedent established in Terry v. Ohio.

© Copyright Original Source

And the Supreme Court...

Source: same article

On appeal, the majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence should be admissible. However, it flatly rejected the argument that a stop and frisk did not implicate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person,” Justice Earl Warren wrote on behalf of the majority. He further stated that “… it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a ‘search.'”

Despite the general requirement for obtaining a warrant prior to search and seizure, the Court acknowledged that the procedure is not always possible when officers must make quick decisions on the beat. Accordingly, the Court concluded:

Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

Here's another citation, Jimmy....

http://scarinciattorney.com/terry-v-...top-and-frisk/

Indeed, there was a challenge...

Source: cited article

A federal court judge recently held that New York City’s stop and frisk program runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. In addition to finding that the practice disproportionately targeted black and Hispanics in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court found that many of the stops violated the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Central to the court’s Fourth Amendment analysis was the precedent established in Terry v. Ohio.

© Copyright Original Source

And the Supreme Court...

Source: same article

On appeal, the majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence should be admissible. However, it flatly rejected the argument that a stop and frisk did not implicate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person,” Justice Earl Warren wrote on behalf of the majority. He further stated that “… it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a ‘search.'”

Despite the general requirement for obtaining a warrant prior to search and seizure, the Court acknowledged that the procedure is not always possible when officers must make quick decisions on the beat. Accordingly, the Court concluded:

Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

© Copyright Original Source

Good CP, you found it all by yourself. I hope by reading this you recognize the fact that stop and frisk policy as carried out by the nypd was determined to be unconstitutional and in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments. Terry vs. Ohio, your citation, was merely used by the nypd as leeway to carry out random stop and frisk tactics without reasonable suspicion of a crime. But of course random stop and frisk was not what the Supreme court ruling allowed for in Terry vs Ohio.

[fm93]

No Homer, use your commons sense. If you take more illegal guns and criminals off the street will shootings generally go up or down? If the bad guys knows that a cop could stop and frisk them at almost any moment is he more or less likely to carry a firearm?

You think stop-and-frisk actually accomplishes that, or that criminals have no other options of obtaining/transporting firearms? Good grief, man, use the sense that God gave you.

Quality of stops is more important than quantity. Unless the police search literally every single citizen (which is essentially impossible), there will always be some people who go unstopped. Meanwhile, the vast majority of stops turn nothing meaningful up. If the police keep bumping up the number of stops but they keep stopping innocent people, that won't do anything to stop the crime rate.

And from the data showing that decreases in stops had been positively correlated with decreases in violent crime, and that in some years increases in stops had been positively correlated with increases in violent crime, it might well be the case that the anger and distrust that stop-and-frisk generates in certain communities is what incites some people to commit violent crime.

[Cow Poke]

Good CP, you found it all by yourself.

I try to help the less fortunate and the less informed Jimmy - I knew YOU would never get it.

I hope by reading this you recognize the fact that stop and frisk policy as carried out by the nypd was determined to be unconstitutional and in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments.

Ah, so NOW - as always - you're backtracking!

Terry vs. Ohio, your citation,

ONE of my citations, as opposed to your citations ... um... oh, that's right! You had ZERO citations! (unless, probably, we included traffic tickets or desk appearances )

was merely used by the nypd as leeway to carry out random stop and frisk tactics without reasonable suspicion of a crime.

You're not the only jackass who dishonors a whole class of people because there were, indeed, some abuses.

But of course random stop and frisk was not what the Supreme court ruling allowed for in Terry vs Ohio.

Typical Jimmy --- spew forth tons of horsecrap, then when proven wrong, pretend he was arguing something totally different.

HERE was your claim, Jimmy, that you seem to have forgotten you made:

Stop and frisk is not investigating a situation.

It's STILL horsiepoo.