Posted on 01/07/2017 1:49:29 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
If confirmed as state attorney general, Xavier Becerra could lead California in fights against the incoming Trump administration on stop-and-frisk policing, a national registry of Muslims and rolling back regulation of carbon emissions.
The Democratic congressman from Los Angeles highlighted those as proposed policies of President-elect Donald Trump with which he vehemently disagrees in his first public position statement since being tapped for the job: a letter to members of the special Assembly committee that will hold a confirmation hearing for Becerra on Tuesday....
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
They should not complain, it would mostly only be used in areas with high crime. What is wrong with that?
Photoshop, right?
The Federal government should have nothing to do with police procedure in California or anywhere else.
In this case, I suppose we’re talking about the idea that the Federal Department of Justice will stop filing civil-rights suits against police departments that stop-and-frisk. Great, see statement of principle above. However, that does not force any law enforcement anywhere to choose this method.
The ‘loony libs’ who control the Commie-fornia Government don’t live in high-Crime areas & don’t care....
“what is wrong with this?”
I believe this practice violates “probable cause”
How’d you like to be stopped randomly and frisked?
This is one area where Trump is wrong and I’ve on the Trump train for a long time
Stupid is as stupid does.
Xavier Becerra does not have science or common sense supporting his contention that stop-and-frisk policing, a national registry of Muslims and rolling back regulation of carbon emissions would be bad for the people of California.
Trump should just setup border patrol check points on all roads at.the California border. Any Illegal alien trying to leave CA will be apprehended. If they are going in, wave them through. Close as many military bases as possible let CA take care of itself. Good luck to them.
End all federal aid to ALL states. Let CA be a Marxist hellhole without my tax dollars.
I believe this practice violates “probable cause”
How’d you like to be stopped randomly and frisked?
...
The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue. Provided their guidelines are followed, no problem.
Stop and frisk is a policy of local police, not the federal government.
>
I believe this practice violates “probable cause”
...
The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue. Provided their guidelines are followed, no problem.
>
SCOTUS? Well, damn, I guess there’s no argument then. *rolling eyes*
“SCOTUS? Well, damn, I guess there’s no argument then. *rolling eyes*”
Yeah, I’d agree. This is a practice that anyone should be against. I can see a cop stopping someone on the street to ask them a question but there has got to be more than gut feeling the citizen is being evasive before they can be searched or frisked. It isn’t just minorities that should be upset over this type of thing.
I can understand anyone being upset at this practice.
I don’t care if they’ve got “I’m a gang member” or “I’m a Mafia hitman” tattooed on their forehead; people shouldn’t be searched when they are just walking down the street.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”
For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk,” or simply a “Terry frisk”.
>
...This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk,” or simply a “Terry frisk”....
>
Yes, and like govt prosecution, how many cases brought up about it get the ‘rubber gavel’ (another 98% ‘success’ rate)? We’ve ALL seen how well the justice system\wall-of-blue protects their own.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”. What is ‘unreasonable’? Cop on every block stopping? Ever other?
>
...if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”...
>
The rub, IMO, is that last part...In our once Con. Republic, we were ALL under the presumption of being armed; and thus ‘presently dangerous’.
This gets into the ‘thought crimes’ area and I, for one, don’t like it.
“S\he was *thinking* of robbing the place”. I’d presume those that commit crime don’t casually WALK down the street\side-walk....they RUN, drive fast, etc.
And no gumshoe is going to ask nicely to frisk someone CURRENTLY committing a crime.
As usual, the ivy league have educated themselves to stupidity.
If you want to torture yourself with such thoughts, then that is your right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.