..”Stop and Frisk”? How very nice.
So illegal search and seizures will become common place in America?
The constitution does still matter.
agreed. Thankfully this is Trump’s first draft. It will be very different by the 3rd or 4th round.
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).
You didn’t think ap carried the story because it would HELP DT did you? lol
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.
Are you dumb? If you look like a gang banger, you should be stopped and frisked, maybe even beaten a little.
Let the courts decide if the searches are legal. If someone appears to be a threat, check him out. Be as civil about it as he permits you to be. Politely explain the reason for the stop ("you fit the description we have of an individual who...") and apologize to the non-criminals you check.