"Stop-and-Frisk" use rising.

[dvcr8tor]

This would really **** me off... I don't understand how this is considered legal, even though SCOTUS has ruled it is... I'm fumbling for my keys at the door of my house (somehow this is cause for "reasonable suspicion") and the cops can come up to me and frisk me, search my backpack, etc. Ridiculous.

Cops? rising use of ?stop-and-frisk? questioned - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

 

[techres]

 

[Paco Bedejo]

If I'm on my front porch, they'd better bring a warrant or I'm going to jail for resisting...and you can sure bet that 6'-3" 320lbs can do a lot of resisting.

 

[Sureshot129]

Like most things LEO's do it's about officer discretion and can be usefull.
I got checked by the TSA in the airport because I didn't look away when he looked at me. He came back and selected me for a "random inspection" as my plane was boarding. I would have qusetioned his intent but I wanted to catch my plane so I stood there with a smirk on my face. It pissed him off beacuse he had nothing, and I still wasn't scared of him.

 

[femurphy77]

Like most things LEO's do it's about officer discretion and can be usefull.
I got checked by the TSA in the airport because I didn't look away when he looked at me. He came back and selected me for a "random inspection" as my plane was boarding. I would have qusetioned his intent but I wanted to catch my plane so I stood there with a smirk on my face. It pissed him off beacuse he had nothing, and I still wasn't scared of him.

Same thing happened to me in the city of brotherly love. He didn't like that I was smiling and joking about it so he called over the "supervisor". He told me that if I didn't stop wisecracking about it that he would make me miss my plane. The only problem with that is that I was coming back from 10 days in Cancun headed back to work, and that was supposed to scare me how? Gee you mean I can't go to work in the morning!!! Other than getting stuck in Philly of course that would be a good thing!

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

don't mind me... I'm just waiting for mjarrell to post something anti-law enforcement again.

 

[JetGirl]

How is that even legal? I mean...doesn't that fall under "search"? And if you're not arrested, do you not need to give CONSENT for any searches??
Can somebody explain that like I'm four, please?

 

[Denny347]

These are always good.

 

[Fargo]

The article is very misleading and pee-poorly written. In order for an officer to stop you, he has to have articulable evidence showing that he has a reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime or infraction. It is the same standard used to stop vehicles.

For him to frisk you he must have articulable reason to believe that:

1: you are armed

AND

2: you are a danger to him.

If he doesn't have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, the stop is bad and supressable. If can't explain to the court why he reasonably believed that you were armed AND dangerous the pat down is bad. The only reason the pat down is allowed is for officer safety so it is limited to a cursory check for weapons and nothing more.

This line of caselaw comes out of Terry v. Ohio for anyone who wants to look it up.

Joe

 

[SavageEagle]

The New York Police Department is among the most vocal defenders of the practice. Commissioner Raymond Kelly said recently that officers may stop as many as 600,000 people this year. About 10 percent are arrested.

Sounds like a REAL effective policy to me. Ummm.... Illegal search and seizure??? Hello?????

 

[SavageEagle]

The article is very misleading and pee-poorly written. In order for an officer to stop you, he has to have articulable evidence showing that he has a reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime or infraction. It is the same standard used to stop vehicles.

For him to frisk you he must have articulable reason to believe that:

1: you are armed

AND

2: you are a danger to him.

If he doesn't have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, the stop is bad and supressable. If can't explain to the court why he reasonably believed that you were armed AND dangerous the pat down is bad. The only reason the pat down is allowed is for officer safety so it is limited to a cursory check for weapons and nothing more.

This line of caselaw comes out of Terry v. Ohio for anyone who wants to look it up.

Joe

I believe all people are a danger to me. I also believe that every person I talk to is armed in one way or another. I guess I should also be allowed to frisk and BE frisked to/by everyone as well. I mean, if it's ok for the police to do it to ensure their safety, why shouldn't I be able to?

Oh, and just because you can site a case about it doesn't make it right. I can find a thousand cases that went through that were bogus. Even SCOTUS cases.

 

[x10]

Things have got way to complicated, I would like to see what number of these has resulted in any kind of arrest. But this just looks like another way for the less noble of the LEO's to push people around. It's like any profession you have good one and bad one's but in this profession its the people who are supposed to be watching out for me and my family. You never know when a cop is going to help or start beating you.

We have let our Top down gov't become immoral and unjust and how do we fix it.

How do we stop the crime?

these are rants and there's not really an answer that will fit all situations but If LEO's were more Nobel and were all Andy Griffith I wouldn't mind this process but there's too many Barney's out there.

There's my Old man yelling at the kids to get off the lawn rant. Smiles everyone go home and spend time with family and don't let the world spoil that just for one night. Lets start there.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This would really **** me off... I don't understand how this is considered legal, even though SCOTUS has ruled it is... I'm fumbling for my keys at the door of my house (somehow this is cause for "reasonable suspicion") and the cops can come up to me and frisk me, search my backpack, etc. Ridiculous.

Cops? rising use of ?stop-and-frisk? questioned - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

These are always good.

I don't see how they're good at all, Denny... I can understand if an officer drives by and sees someone at the front door of a house, wondering if that person is there lawfully or not... but wondering and watching or even stopping the car and walking up to ask vs. going up and doing a frisk, a search, whatever... those are very different animals.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN​

Let us please keep this civil and maybe actually for once listen to what our local LEOs can offer on this without the stupid practice of calling anyone a Nazi, jackboot, or any other pejorative.

LEOs, this applies to you, too, meaning that pictures of Nazis, sarcastic references to yourselves as such, and similar non-productive non-answers will not help anyone understand why you do what you do.

I've had many polite conversations with many of you. With mutual respect, things can be understood and the hostile attitude some of you have noticed may begin to go away. I think it is unlikely that it will do so without both sides of the question listening to each other and showing mutual respect.

Thank you all for your help in not making this thread be closed down like so many of the others have been.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mrjarrell]

don't mind me... I'm just waiting for mjrarell to post something anti-law enforcement again.

Learn to spell my name. The article speaks for itself and says it all. I really don't need to add anything to it. I guess you come down on the side of stop and frisk?

 

[jsgolfman]

You don't stop crime, you punish people for committing crimes.

 

[40calPUNISHER]

I don't see how they're good at all, Denny... I can understand if an officer drives by and sees someone at the front door of a house, wondering if that person is there lawfully or not... but wondering and watching or even stopping the car and walking up to ask vs. going up and doing a frisk, a search, whatever... those are very different animals.

I think he was saying that it's fun watching these threads blow up, ya know, people going on their little rants. Im right there with Denny, this is going to get good.

 

[CarmelHP]

I believe all people are a danger to me. I also believe that every person I talk to is armed in one way or another. I guess I should also be allowed to frisk and BE frisked to/by everyone as well. I mean, if it's ok for the police to do it to ensure their safety, why shouldn't I be able to?

Oh, and just because you can site a case about it doesn't make it right. I can find a thousand cases that went through that were bogus. Even SCOTUS cases.

I think you misunderstood him. According to Terry, you must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed. An LEO can then stop, question, and do a light patdown of the outer clothing for weapons to ensure office safety during the stop. No searching of bags, boxes, or rifling through clothing. Otherwise, it is unreasonable (meaning: without a reason other than fishing and intimidation).

 

[Bill of Rights]

The first part of this post may seem to contradict my last. It does not; I post it solely for historical perspective and do NOT say that this is true or applicable to any LEOs here or elsewhere in the US.

I noted (as I'd heard before) that Rudy Giuliani pushed for an increase in police stops and that this led to a decrease in crime. I am also familiar historically with the fact that some totalitarian nations have used the same rationale. When I was young, I often wondered... We have freedom in America, and this is a positive goal of which we can be proud and use to motivate our children to maintain... So if the Russians don't have that, what positive goal do they use? For years, I had no answer. I couldn't imagine what they could possibly see as the benefit of living in a society where you live in constant fear of such things as KGB, where your every action was monitored and controlled, where you had to stand in line for bread and where stores were available for the rich and powerful that were well stocked, but those for everyone else often had empty shelves, not because everything sold but because so little was made available.

Finally, someone explained it to me: Security. That's what they have. They had the knowledge that if someone stepped out of line, they would be caught and punished. The countries were polar opposites, in that all for which we stood, they decried as lawlessness, while all for which they stood, we decried in the name of totalitarianism.

Enough with the history lesson. Mr. Giuliani created a police state in NYC. Sure, crime went down, and if that's the only benchmark you use, I suppose you'd call that a success, but at what cost? We all know Benjamin Franklin's quote on the subject.

So.... I'd like to know why wondering and watching or stopping your car and walking up to (verbally only, unless challenged/threatened) ask what's going on is preferable or can be seen as anything but good, especially as compared to the alternative of what, if anyone else did it, would be a battery.

And 40cal, I'd really like to see one of these threads not go like that, and I'm not alone in wanting that. I hope it does get good, but by good, I mean that the animosity we see so often takes a hike and we talk like the adults we are, politely and civilly.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[level.eleven]

I think you misunderstood him. According to Terry, you must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed. An LEO can then stop, question, and do a light patdown of the outer clothing for weapons to ensure office safety during the stop. No searching of bags, boxes, or rifling through clothing. Otherwise, it is unreasonable (meaning: without a reason other than fishing and intimidation).

The linked article specifically says that bags were searched. Besides, if the rules are over-stepped, the law enforcers know that a latch key kid in Brooklyn (per the article) probably doesn't have the funding to take on a civil rights case. Even if he does, the law enforcers still have the good ol' probable cause defense to fall back on, regardless of the truthfulness of the filed report.

The part of the article that stuck out to me was people having to change the way they walk home from work just to avoid being detained daily and the fact that community leaders are offering classes on how to deal with frequent detainment. That's textbook tyranny....well, at least if I'm teaching the course.

 

[WWIIIDefender]

It's the New America of course it's legal. The Police State is almost complete.