Stop and Frisk is constitutional...

[Yssup Rider]

Racism notwithstanding, the ECCIE legal scholars have done everything but prove that stop and frisk was NOT declared unconstitutional in New York.

It's a lie. Repeated in sufficiapent frequency to get the weak minded to accept yet another horrible gaffe by their chosen candidate.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wow - you two fucktards are as clueless as they come! Why would anyone waste time trying to explain anything to either of you Beavis and Butthead faggots?

You're both incapable of offering any intelligent rebuttals. You only know how to post comments that are snarky and irrelevant.

(Forbidden topic) meet kettle!

Hypocritical, drunk and stuffed with fat dumplings is no way to go through life Junior!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not sure what you mean by "an ambiguous situation" ...

.. a problem with principles as expressed in Terry et seq is they are HIGHLY FACT oriented ... the officer must be able to articulate factually why the officer was "in fear" of his or her safety AND those facts must be "reasonable" under the circumstances.... meaning such factors as location and time of the day ... how many officers were present .... how many citizens were present .... bystanders and "co-suspects" .. etc.

That's why the Court has recently limited vehicle searches on traffic stops ..... in which the driver/passengers have been taken into custody and are "secure" in the back of a patrol unit. The officer(s) are no longer threatened by any weapon in the vehicle for which they might be wanting to conduct a warrantless search! The officer's safety is no longer an issue and neither is the destruction of evidence by the driver/passengers. The "exigent circumstances" justifying a warrantless search are no longer a factor.

BTW: That evaluation by the Court is based on a stricter construction of the 4th amendment (conservative justices) ... liberal justices tend to ALLOW a more relaxed interpretation of the 4th amendment (and others).... for those of you who are voting for POTUS based on potential appointments to the SCOTUS.

Another excellent response.

The ambiguous situation would be a person walking down the same street where a robbery has happened to occur, and he doesn't appear to be acting funny, nor is he fleeing - he is just walking. He would not have been seen as suspicious in absence of the robbery.
If he is a partial match for the robbery, and upon briefly questioning him he doesn't seem to know about it, could you still pat him down for weapons if he refuses? What if you find a gun but it doesn't match when the ballistic tests confirm it isn't a match - do you still get a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon?

[Yssup Rider]

Probable cause is not the same as stop and frisk as Drumpf proposes it.

And you know it.

You can develop all the hypotheticals you like, but racial profiling is a violation of citizens' rights and it's just wrong.

That's what Drumpf wants and what the court declared Unfuckingconstitutional.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

Another excellent response.

The ambiguous situation would be a person walking down the same street where a robbery has happened to occur, and he doesn't appear to be acting funny, nor is he fleeing - he is just walking. He would not have been seen as suspicious in absence of the robbery.
If he is a partial match for the robbery, and upon briefly questioning him he doesn't seem to know about it, could you still pat him down for weapons if he refuses? What if you find a gun but it doesn't match when the ballistic tests confirm it isn't a match - do you still get a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon?

On the facts as you posted ... the "gun" should not be admitted into evidence against him .... no facts that justify the officer "patting him down" ... to find the weapon.... and I'm "assuming" the "gun" is a handgun ... and I'm "assuming" he doesn't have a CHL.

Does it happen? Yes. He may have to appeal the trial court decision.

Therein lies the unfortunate part.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

On the facts as you posted ... the "gun" should not be admitted into evidence against him .... no facts that justify the officer "patting him down" ... to find the weapon.... and I'm "assuming" the "gun" is a handgun ... and I'm "assuming" he doesn't have a CHL.

Does it happen? Yes. He may have to appeal the trial court decision.

Therein lies the unfortunate part.

Factual question ..... re scenario you posited ...

Was the person walking down the middle of the street and refused to get out of the middle of the street when ordered to do so by the officer? I'm just asking!!!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Factual question ..... re scenario you posited ...

Was the person walking down the middle of the street and refused to get out of the middle of the street when ordered to do so by the officer? I'm just asking!!!

No, he was on the sidewalk of a heavily traveled street and he politely accepted the pat down, and no weapon was found. I felt the officer in question put himself in an awkward position if his polite request was turned down.

(I'm speaking hypothetically, of course.)

Thanks again for your excellent responses.

[CuteOldGuy]

I disagree with Trump on "stop and frisk". I think it's unconstitutional. No doubt.