Poll: Stop and Frisk

[mr1337]

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.

Absolutely. I cringe every time I see a video or COPS episode where the officer insists on ID'ing passengers and finds something on them (warrant or prohibited item) when they had no legal obligation to ID just because the officer "needs to know everyone he's dealing with." 4th Amendment still applies there.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

Absolutely. I cringe every time I see a video or COPS episode where the officer insists on ID'ing passengers and finds something on them (warrant or prohibited item) when they had no legal obligation to ID just because the officer "needs to know everyone he's dealing with." 4th Amendment still applies there.

I want to love that show but every time it comes on, I change the channel when the situation you just described happens. I usually last less than 5 minutes.....

[Acronym Esq]

TLDR - Asking if it's constitutional, is not enough. We should ask if it's reasonable and tolerable first. I say no. Voting for Trump is asking me to pinch my nose too hard.

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?

I haven't read Terry in a long time, but I remember the holding summarized as this: For officer's safety, a police officer may conduct a brief pat down search for weapons, when based on specific and articulatable facts he has a reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged or about to engage in criminal activity, and that the person is armed. The scope of the search (pat down for weapons) is limited by the basis of the stop (reasonable suspicion).

The Terry facts were exactly when I want a police officer to get involved - officer watching thugs case a store in preparation for a robbery. Waiting for the robbery to start is foolish. "Stop and frisk" as defined by Terry is clearly constitutional. However: 1) I feel like Terry has been abused and expanded in ways violent to our right to be secure in our persons, papers, and effects. 2) I agree with the intimation that police inevitably provide the "specific and articulatable facts" after the fact.

IMHO, relying on the court to find something unconstitutional is too late. Not only does the court get things wrong, but it's decisions are based on a dated, misunderstood, document setting the outer limits of legal. We have a right (and a duty?) to set the boundaries of policing at something more restrictive than the broad sweeping outer limit of the constitution.

Acronym 9/28/2016 2:20 PM

[Beiruty]

Unconstitutional, Period

[parabelum]

I support Trump but to me, this is unconstitutional.

While I agree with theoretical side of "if you have nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?", practical side says "I am worried that my 4th amendment is being stomped on".


I don't trust this. Invariably, I believe that under fascist regime, this will be used as another tool to intimidate law abiding citizens. Much like these gfsz's etc. Criminals could care less and we all know that our LE can only profile white Christian conservative land owners, under threat that profiling anyone else, such as the thugs in Charlotte, is racist.

So again, while I support Trump, he is getting bad advice on this.

Sorry if this offends anyone.

[LucasMcCain]

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.

Yeah, I got pulled over by troopers one time because one of my passengers had not fastened his seat belt. At the time that meant that he (not the driver) got a ticket. However, we got our persons and my car searched for more than 2 hours during that stop. Nothing was found; nobody was arrested; he got an $80 ticket. There's something wrong with that. We were guys with long hair, so the whole time they were asking us where the marijuana was. We kept telling them we didn't have any. They seemed really annoyed that we were telling the truth. We were really annoyed that we got home hours later than we were supposed to.

However, I would like to point out that neither of us got shot. Because we weren't criminals. Because we followed instructions and were polite.

A bit more on topic, this is the sort of problem I have with Stop and Frisk. I don't like being harassed just because someone doesn't like the look of me.

In case I haven't made it clear in this thread, I am a big supporter of police. I don't at all want it to sound like I'm bashing cops. I most certainly am not. However, police are human beings just like everybody else. Some are good, and some are bad. Policies need to take that into account.

[FastCarry]

Unconstitutional and I am not in support of it.

When I first got my driver's license, I was really into the modified car scene (still am but can afford nicer things). My car was fair to moderately modified but was still a 4cyl with 140hp - it was not fast by any means. My first year of driving I was pulled over 23 times, ticketed twice. Being pulled over and waiting for the LEO to try and find a reason to write me a ticket became normal. As I grew older I started to wonder, if I was not ticketed, then why was I pulled over in the first place? Because my car looked different than others? Was that enough probable cause? Not to me.

[The Wall]

Well, from what I hear the SCOTUS already said it's constitutional. So if you believe in them I guess it is. If you open carry there would be no reason to be frisked. Besides I seriously doubt the Feds can force the states to do this anyway. Not likely to happen in Texas. Now in Chicago perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea after declaring martial law. In cities like that they need to do something drastic. Getting rid of the Democratic bureaucrats would be a good start.

[RogueUSMC]

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

Let's say I was late to work two days ago...three tardies in a 90 day period results in termination...an officer stops me and frisks me (and find nothing (because I have nothing to worry about))...I am late to work (because of the 'routine' stop and frisk) for the second time in 90 days. I now have two strikes, one of which was not of my making....

[RogueUSMC]

...and then it happens again a month later...you know, because the officer was bored...

[rentz]

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.

Yeah, I got pulled over by troopers one time because one of my passengers had not fastened his seat belt. At the time that meant that he (not the driver) got a ticket. However, we got our persons and my car searched for more than 2 hours during that stop. Nothing was found; nobody was arrested; he got an $80 ticket. There's something wrong with that. We were guys with long hair, so the whole time they were asking us where the marijuana was. We kept telling them we didn't have any. They seemed really annoyed that we were telling the truth. We were really annoyed that we got home hours later than we were supposed to.

However, I would like to point out that neither of us got shot. Because we weren't criminals. Because we followed instructions and were polite.

A bit more on topic, this is the sort of problem I have with Stop and Frisk. I don't like being harassed just because someone doesn't like the look of me.

In case I haven't made it clear in this thread, I am a big supporter of police. I don't at all want it to sound like I'm bashing cops. I most certainly am not. However, police are human beings just like everybody else. Some are good, and some are bad. Policies need to take that into account.

i had a similar experience in my younger days, i'm sure i fit the profile of someone who would have drugs or contraband and being in the middle of nowhere rather than push for the warrant i was polite with the officer asked for his reason which he gave albeit very very weak and i agreed to let him look through the windows while i open compartments.

after he was satisfied i was sent on my way without a ticket


in hindsight i should have refused, though i was advised by a family friend LEO that i did the right thing because in the middle of nowhere they'll get the local judge to sign anything and then they will rip the car apart and leave you stranded.

[allisji]

Hopefully all of the strong objections won't suppress any supporters from making their supporting arguments.

I would assume that the supporting arguments would all be based on what constitutes the idea of "reasonable suspicion".

For instance, just because an officer has a feeling that a person may have bad intentions doesn't mean that the officers suspicion is reasonable. But if the person appears to be a possibly match for a suspect in the area, then that changes the situation. Should the officer stop the man, frisk him, and ask for ID was he justified as having reasonable suspicion?

My wife tells a story about when she was in HS and riding in a car or a minivan with friends. The vehicle apparently matched the model/color description of a vehicle associated with a dangerous criminal. Apparently when they were stopped by the officers, they were all roughed up a little bit, thrown to the ground, frisked, ID'd, and ultimately released. Seems a little excessive, unless one of them inside the vehicle matched the description of the suspect. The only experiences that I've had with Law Enforcement other than about 4 traffic stops in 16 years of driving have been my waving at Police cruisers as they go by.

[Soccerdad1995]

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.

Yeah, I got pulled over by troopers one time because one of my passengers had not fastened his seat belt. At the time that meant that he (not the driver) got a ticket. However, we got our persons and my car searched for more than 2 hours during that stop. Nothing was found; nobody was arrested; he got an $80 ticket. There's something wrong with that. We were guys with long hair, so the whole time they were asking us where the marijuana was. We kept telling them we didn't have any. They seemed really annoyed that we were telling the truth. We were really annoyed that we got home hours later than we were supposed to.

However, I would like to point out that neither of us got shot. Because we weren't criminals. Because we followed instructions and were polite.

A bit more on topic, this is the sort of problem I have with Stop and Frisk. I don't like being harassed just because someone doesn't like the look of me.

In case I haven't made it clear in this thread, I am a big supporter of police. I don't at all want it to sound like I'm bashing cops. I most certainly am not. However, police are human beings just like everybody else. Some are good, and some are bad. Policies need to take that into account.

with everything you said, including your support for police.

I also think that we are doing police officers a disservice when we allow things like stop and frisk to occur. It is precisely these types of things that cause bad blood to develop between LEO's and the people they serve. I am an upper middle class white guy with no criminal record. I drive a nice car, generally look presentable and I do not commit crimes. And when I see a police car near me on the road, my first thought is not "oh good, he will keep me safe in case anything bad happens". Rather, I think about the possibility of a negative encounter should I happen to interact with that officer. This is learned behavior on my part, and it started with encounters that I had as a young man who didn't drive a nice car, and may not have looked quite as presentable (but who also did not commit any crimes).

I think that my experience allows me to understand, in a little way, the tension that poor and minority citizens have toward police. And IMHO, using tactics like stop and frisk will only make that situation worse, not better.

[mr1337]

Hopefully all of the strong objections won't suppress any supporters from making their supporting arguments.

I would assume that the supporting arguments would all be based on what constitutes the idea of "reasonable suspicion".

For instance, just because an officer has a feeling that a person may have bad intentions doesn't mean that the officers suspicion is reasonable. But if the person appears to be a possibly match for a suspect in the area, then that changes the situation. Should the officer stop the man, frisk him, and ask for ID was he justified as having reasonable suspicion?

My wife tells a story about when she was in HS and riding in a car or a minivan with friends. The vehicle apparently matched the model/color description of a vehicle associated with a dangerous criminal. Apparently when they were stopped by the officers, they were all roughed up a little bit, thrown to the ground, frisked, ID'd, and ultimately released. Seems a little excessive, unless one of them inside the vehicle matched the description of the suspect. The only experiences that I've had with Law Enforcement other than about 4 traffic stops in 16 years of driving have been my waving at Police cruisers as they go by.

Reasonable Suspicion (RS) is pretty well defined in the court system, and it's exactly what it sounds like. The officer needs a reason to suspect the person is involved in criminal activity. It has to be more than just a hunch. "He looked like the kind of person who would smoke weed" is not Reasonable Suspicion but "I smelled the odor of marijuana" is Reasonable Suspicion, which is the legal standard for a detainment. Whereas "I saw a roach on the seat next to him" would be Probable Cause, which is the legal standard required for an arrest.

[nlyric]

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.

I think you fully understand just fine. Trump is simply ignorant of the law of the land. Hence why Cruz will hopefully be helping him fix that.....