Not the way I understand it was being applied and “IF” they reasonably believe a crime had been committed they could search?
They could relieve a person of their personal property without due process.???
What? The 4th amendment is anachronistic and out of date?
Well, how wonderful.
I argue that reasonable cause is unjust. Further over a period of 6 years they stopped more than 4 million people and had only a 12% arrest rate.
It’s wrong and unconstitutional. Don’t like gangs but, they need to work within the bounds of the law and stop constructing New rules giving them the imprimature to violate our rights.
While I have a lot of respect for the Libertarian point of view in many areas, there’s a part of me that can’t shake my old-fashioned “law and order” brand of conservatism.
That aside, if the NYPD, or any PD for that matter, we actually stopping people for no reason at all, I’d agree with you. But that’s not the case.
In order to even have an intelligent conversation, some rudimentary familiarity with the legal standards really is essential though.
The standard for a detention, which has been tried, argued, and adjudicated nearly to death is “reasonable suspicion”, not “reasonable cause” or “probable cause”.
The question of the constitionality of the “frisk” or “pat-down” search for weapons was settled in 1968 in Terry v. Ohio. Now, it’s fine to disagree with SCOTUS (I, myself, do all the time), but it would help to at least acknowledge that this wasn’t something that the NYPD just dreamed up six years ago and was out running amok.
The wikipedia entries for the above are actually pretty good, if you have any interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion