Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: driftdiver
stop-and-frisk" is what is referred to as a "Terry Stop" from the supreme court case (around 1976, IIRC) that said it didn't violate the 4th amendment. 2 major qualifications:

1. Cop needs "reasonable suspicion" -- not full "probable casue" but not just at random -- say, people loitering around a liquor store without going in.

2. can only search to the extent of self-protection -- "frisk" for weapons, not "search" for drugs, stolen cash, etc.

19 posted on 01/06/2008 2:07:58 PM PST by BohDaThone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: BohDaThone

“stop-and-frisk” is what is referred to as a “Terry Stop” from the supreme court case (around 1976, IIRC) that said it didn’t violate the 4th amendment. 2 major qualifications:”

Yeah I know but everytime I hear that I remember a news video from NYC a couple years ago where the cop was requesting ID from people at random. Perhaps the liberal activist courts have made it ‘legal’ but IMO its not within the intent of the COnstitution.

I still think NYC is a police state. Their answer is more police and more obtrusive police. They continue to ignore the societal causes of crime such as the break down of the family.


21 posted on 01/06/2008 2:13:59 PM PST by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson