-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump Is Right About ‘Stop and Frisk’
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
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.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Stop & Frisk is not unconstitutional. The way that it was carried out in New York was ruled unconstitutional in '13. The program itself, when carried out properly, is not unconstitutional.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
As I recall, they were talking about what took place in NYC because that was Trumps point of reference. Lester Holt was right in that the NYC version of stop and frisk was unconstitutional.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Not sure why that has to be explained.
Probably because it is wrong. The law was declared unconstitutional because it was vague. It failed to establish guidelines for making the stops.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
The law itself was not declared unconstitutional. If so, why did not Judge Scheindlin do away with the law at the time she ruled the way it was being carried out in New York unconstitutional?
She said, "To be very clear: I am not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this Opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection."
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/750446/stop-and-frisk-memoranda.pdf
I have a basic understanding. The difference doesn't seem to be relevant considering that LA has passed the necessary ordinances, and they have the injunctions. It is a legal tool, used to break up gangs congregating in public spaces.
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).
"without probable cause" is the key.
Having black skin is obviously NOT probable cause.
"suspicious activity IS probable cause (at least here in WA State). Problem: Suspicious activity is a subjective call.
HankD
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Where does this judge say that the law itself is unconstitutional? Every time she uses the word "unconstitutional" it is referring to a stop, a frisk, a conduct, or a practice - never once does she refer to the law itself as being unconstitutional.
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.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
Granted, however, not every stop is unconstitutional and not every frisk is unconstitutional. That is why the law itself was never ruled unconstitutional - only the unconstitutional practices by some within the law. Again, that is why she did not immediately order an end of the practice, which she surely would have if the law itself would have been deemed unconstitutional.
Please paste a statement from her judgement (in context) that says the law itself is unconstitutional.
It is if there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.
Suspicious activity is reason enough here in WA State.
Of course now that cannabis has been legalized here that reduces the list of "suspicious activities" (like he/she was smokin' a joint in the car).
HankD
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.