Posted on 09/22/2016 8:09:31 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Lamenting a “lack of spirit” between whites and blacks, Donald Trump encouraged racial unity on Thursday even as he called for one of the nation’s largest cities to adopt “stop and frisk” policing tactics that have been widely condemned as racial profiling by minority leaders. […]
“I think Chicago needs stop and frisk,” Trump said. “When you have 3,000 people shot and so many people dying, I mean it’s worse than some of the places we’re hearing about like Afghanistan, you know, the war-torn nations.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.
..”Stop and Frisk”? How very nice.
So illegal search and seizures will become common place in America?
The constitution does still matter.
The TSA are experts they could train millions
agreed. Thankfully this is Trump’s first draft. It will be very different by the 3rd or 4th round.
I heard this morning it was deemed unconstitutional and stopped (in NY). I'll see what I can find.
It didn't?
Everything the Dems/Liberals hate is automatically unconstitutional
Terry v. Ohio
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.”[1]
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”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
So, everytime the libs force something on us and we get upset, we are told this is the “new normal” (ObamaCare, gay marriage, transgendered bathrooms, massive joblessness) so why can’t we say that cops (of any race) shooting blacks is the “new normal”?
Maybe we could even wag our fingers and tell BLM they are “on the wrong side of history”. That’ll soothe their feelings.
But, seriously, why is it everytime libs force something on us, we are told this is how it will be and to get used to it. So, for blacks that are upset with getting shot by cops, get used to it. It is what it is.
(For anyone who doesn’t ‘get it’, I’m not endorsing shootings by or to police. I’m simply pointing out that conservative America has some grievances too so why aren’t we respected when we protest?)
“Stop and Frisk” gets a bad rap. It is not a license to arbitrarily search people. The legal or reasonable “stop” still has to be established, as well as a credible threat.
Terry v. Ohio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terry v. Ohio
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 12, 1967
Decided June 10, 1968
Full case name John W. Terry v. State of Ohio
Citations 392 U.S. 1 (more)
88 S. Ct. 1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345; 44 Ohio Op. 2d 383
Prior history Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence denied, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 489 (1964); defendant convicted, 95 Ohio L. Abs. 321 (Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County 1964); affirmed, 214 N.E.2d 114 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966); review denied, Ohio Supreme Court, November 19, 1966; cert. granted, 387 U.S. 929 (1967)
Holding
Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan, Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Abe Fortas · Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
Majority Warren, joined by Black, Brennan, Stewart, Fortas, Marshall
Concurrence Harlan
Concurrence White
Dissent Douglas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Terry v. Ohio
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.”[1]
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”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
Terry v. Ohio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terry v. Ohio
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 12, 1967
Decided June 10, 1968
Full case name John W. Terry v. State of Ohio
Citations 392 U.S. 1 (more)
88 S. Ct. 1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345; 44 Ohio Op. 2d 383
Prior history Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence denied, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 489 (1964); defendant convicted, 95 Ohio L. Abs. 321 (Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County 1964); affirmed, 214 N.E.2d 114 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966); review denied, Ohio Supreme Court, November 19, 1966; cert. granted, 387 U.S. 929 (1967)
Holding
Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan, Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Abe Fortas · Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
Majority Warren, joined by Black, Brennan, Stewart, Fortas, Marshall
Concurrence Harlan
Concurrence White
Dissent Douglas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Terry v. Ohio
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.”[1]
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”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
How about the rule of law?
Don’t like the law, change the law.
Terry v. Ohio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terry v. Ohio
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 12, 1967
Decided June 10, 1968
Full case name John W. Terry v. State of Ohio
Citations 392 U.S. 1 (more)
88 S. Ct. 1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345; 44 Ohio Op. 2d 383
Prior history Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence denied, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 489 (1964); defendant convicted, 95 Ohio L. Abs. 321 (Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County 1964); affirmed, 214 N.E.2d 114 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966); review denied, Ohio Supreme Court, November 19, 1966; cert. granted, 387 U.S. 929 (1967)
Holding
Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may frisk the suspect for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous, without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan, Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Abe Fortas · Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
Majority Warren, joined by Black, Brennan, Stewart, Fortas, Marshall
Concurrence Harlan
Concurrence White
Dissent Douglas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Terry v. Ohio
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.”[1]
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”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, “the exclusionary rule has its limitations.” The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.
...
Probably because there are still a lot of restrictions on what the police can do during a temporary detention.
You didn’t think ap carried the story because it would HELP DT did you? lol
Ask the TSA.
If a state or city government can abrogate the Second Amendment with impunity, then surely they can abrogate the Fourth Amendment to enforce it.
Maybe you should read the Supreme Court decision. Don’t make such broad statements - that is what Hillary does. The Court stated it was perfectly legal for an officer to stop and frisk an individual if they believe the individual might have been involved in a crime or if they are suspected of a crime or committing a crime. Nuff said.
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.