Featured Trump Is Right About ‘Stop and Frisk’

Yes. But it should include some overt act or obvious evidence that is suspicious. Rattling doorknobs counts. Running from the police counts. I doubt that "looking nervous" and shifting one's gaze counts, although I've seen both on police reports.

 

Back in the 80's I pulled up to a stop light beside a marked patrol unit. I looked over at the driver to see if I recognized him. I didn't. When the light changed I went on but he pulled in behind me and turned on his lights.

When he got up to my window I asked him why he stopped me. He said it was because I looked at him in a suspicious manner. I laughed and told him I had been pulled over about a month earlier for NOT looking at a cop beside me which, he said, seemed suspicious.

I then showed him my badge and told him, "You do know I am your boss, right?" He grinned and said, "I do now."

What may seem suspicious to one person may not to another. That is why the courts apply the "reasonable man" standard. Would a regular, civilian, common man, reasonably agree the activity was suspicious? If not the stop is thrown out. As it should be.

I remember reading a lot of incident reports and thinking, "You've got to be kidding me!" Unfortunately, they weren't.

 

Probably because it is wrong. The law was declared unconstitutional because it was vague. It failed to establish guidelines for making the stops.

 

Yes, it was. She said that, if the law were properly amended to include clear guidelines the new law would probably pass constitutional muster. But so far the city has not passed a new law, and the old one is now dead as the proverbial nail in door (with my apologies to William Shakespeare).

 

Yeah. That is what the law is all about. It is not called the "Stop and Frisk Law" for nothing.

 

Exactly. And that is why the Judge declared it unconstitutional. There are no guidelines limiting the police. They can basically claim anything is "suspicious" activity.

The law, in order to pass constitutional muster, will have to be changed so the guidelines are spelled out. You wouldn't think that would be necessary, but looking at the conduct of the NYPD over the past several years it appears they have been out of control for a long time.

 

It is if there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

 

Reasonable suspicion is the standard in every state. But the suspicion must meet two criteria:

1. It must be reasonable. The "common man" should be able to look at the circumstances and say, "Yes, I think that activity indicates a crime probably has been, is, or is about to be committed."

2. It must be articulable. The peace officer must be able to articulate the conduct he believes is suspicious and articulate why he believes that activity indicates a crime has been, is, or is about to be committed. (No police "super powers" such as "I just had a feeling in my gut" pass either test.)

"Here is what he was doing and this is why I believe that action indicated a crime had been, was, or was about to be committed."

Short of that "stop and frisk" is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment to the US constitution.