Search found 4 matches

by mr1337
Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:21 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Poll: Stop and Frisk
Replies: 63
Views: 12243

Re: Poll: Stop and Frisk

thatguyoverthere wrote:However, the LEO better have a REAL good, clearly defined reason to stop that person in the first place. That's where I get the heartburn.
Exactly. A detainment without reasonable suspicion is illegal. You can't detain someone just because they look like a thug. If you reasonably suspect they committed a crime, they can be detained and subsequently frisked for officer safety.

Unfortunately, that frisk is often more of a search because of the nature of the frisk itself.

To those asking how to get guns off the street without unconstitutional detainments (detaining without cause and frisking someone), I don't know the answer to that. But I do know one thing, I would rather be free than safe. Infringing on 4th Amendment rights is just as bad as infringing on 2nd Amendment rights. Cops need to work within the bounds of the law to enforce the law.
by mr1337
Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:56 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Poll: Stop and Frisk
Replies: 63
Views: 12243

Re: Poll: Stop and Frisk

allisji wrote: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.
by mr1337
Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:11 pm
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Poll: Stop and Frisk
Replies: 63
Views: 12243

Re: Poll: Stop and Frisk

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
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.
:iagree:

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.
by mr1337
Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:57 am
Forum: Off-Topic
Topic: Poll: Stop and Frisk
Replies: 63
Views: 12243

Re: Poll: Stop and Frisk

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.

Return to “Poll: Stop and Frisk”