TexasCHLforum.com

I've never really thought much about "Stop and Frisk" as a policing tactic since I'm a non-LEO non-criminal non-political person. Upon hearing that Trump is promoting it, my gut reaction was "Uhoh, this is bad for Donald". Because of the constitutionality question, I have always considered this a bad idea. But now that it's becoming a mainstream issue in the Presidential race, I have to consider that maybe I don't fully understand the question.

I'm interested in reading opinions especially of current/former LEOs.

eta: I have allowed for people to change their votes.

100% unconstitutional to stop and detain someone without BARE MINIMUM reasonable suspicion.

The reason we have the 4th amendment is because the British would go around searching homes and ships in order to find something illegal. Sometimes that involved falsified evidence, and those people suffered.

It would be the same as police randomly stopping cars to do drug searches without them first committing a traffic offense or crime.

I am a former LEO, but I believe that this ruling in Terry v Ohio, was a bad decision, and has probably been misused more than any other civil rights violations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

It allows police to stop and frisk someone without true probable cause, and was ruled not to be an arrest, but if someone resists, then they would be charged with resisting arrest, additionally, if any contraband or unlawful weapons were found, Constitutionally, they should be fruits of the poison tree, and thrown out, but they are not. I never used this tactic when I was in law enforcement, and where I worked, I never saw this being employed by any other officers, but the potential is, and has been since 1968, there, for major abuse.JMHO

Just my lowly opinion, but if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

all citizens regardless of race, creed or color have the right to freedom from unreasonable searches. We cannot pick and choose which rights we want to enforce and which we do not.

Jusme wrote:I am a former LEO, but I believe that this ruling in Terry v Ohio, was a bad decision, and has probably been misused more than any other civil rights violations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

It allows police to stop and frisk someone without true probable cause, and was ruled not to be an arrest, but if someone resists, then they would be charged with resisting arrest, additionally, if any contraband or unlawful weapons were found, Constitutionally, they should be fruits of the poison tree, and thrown out, but they are not. I never used this tactic when I was in law enforcement, and where I worked, I never saw this being employed by any other officers, but the potential is, and has been since 1968, there, for major abuse.JMHO

lildave40 wrote:Just my lowly opinion, but if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

I couldn't disagree more.

lildave40 wrote:Just my lowly opinion, but if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

Isn't this the same argument that the left likes to use when advocating registering of firearms?

lildave40 wrote:Just my lowly opinion, but if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

It all comes down to the Fourth Amendment. If the police are given Carte Blanc to stop and frisk anyone that they can say looked suspicious, then they can stop almost anyone, because after all people who wear hooded sweatshirts have committed crimes, people wearing traditional Muslim clothing have committed crimes, teenagers have committed crimes, middle aged men in business suits have committed crimes. Where does it stop?
While I don't personally worry that they would find any contraband on me, nor anyone in my immediate circle, having my rights violated on a whim, without due process worries me greatly.

No one respects the job LEOs do more than myself, and as I said, I have not personally seen these tactics, employed, but if we don't want our 2A rights taken from us, we also have to stand firm in protecting the others.

lildave40 wrote:Just my lowly opinion, but if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

Seriously? Is this a serious question? Okay, I'll assume it is and answer it as succinctly as I can. Here goes:


Abuse.


If that isn't enough, I can be more verbose, and I'm sure others here can be as well. There are plenty of other legitimate answers, but that one is the scariest.

lildave40 wrote:Just my lowly opinion, but if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Wasserman Schultz.... Just for starters.

lildave40 wrote:Just my lowly opinion, but if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

OMG you didn't really just say that, did you?

I'm can't even respond to this....I'm just going to sit back and let the guys loose

lildave40 wrote:Just my lowly opinion, but if you have nothing to hide what are you worried about?

I'm sure you remember a few years back, when some Texas troopers were stopping women, and having a female officer perform "body cavity" searches on the road side. They tried to use the Terry V Ohio ruling as their justification. What do I worry about? What if it had been my wife or daughter?

How abour rather than "stop and frisk" they come up with another way such as LONGER jail sentences for repeat gun offenders?
Honestly, my first thought about this was, "how to you get guns out of the hands of gangs"? Thats where the real problem is...

mr1337 wrote:100% unconstitutional to stop and detain someone without BARE MINIMUM reasonable suspicion.

The reason we have the 4th amendment is because the British would go around searching homes and ships in order to find something illegal. Sometimes that involved falsified evidence, and those people suffered.

It would be the same as police randomly stopping cars to do drug searches without them first committing a traffic offense or crime.

But I also have an issue when police stop cars for a traffic infraction and then pressure the occupants into consenting to a search. If you are stopping me because you have reasonable suspicion that I was speeding (radar gun reading, etc), then by all means, investigate that potential offense. But you do not need to know where I am headed, or whether I have anything "you need to know about" in order to complete that investigation. Just issue me a summons and we can both get on with our business.