Replies

Constitutional Law Center > U.S. Constitution > Fourth Amendment > Annotations

the standard for stops for investigative purposes evolved into one of ''reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.'' That test permits some stops and questioning without probable cause in order to allow police officers to explore the foun dations of their suspicions

You know what, sometimes I could care less whether or not a stop and frisk is constitutional or not.

Here was a wise@$$ with chip on his shoulder taking time out of his busy life to bust the b@lls of the establishment... and he gets his b@lls busted in return... so what.

I sometimes whistfully long for the days when a nice crisp punch in the nose was an acceptible response to a wise@$$.

Hold it now!! You're talking about the Constitution. Don't you know we don't use that outdated document anymore? It just doesn't work in every case when the cops want to 'ask' you questions. Next thing you know, people might start thinking they have rights or something, and we can't have that

investigative purposes evolved into one of ''reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.''

I despise that word. Evolved. As if it was just an acceptable next step to the original intent. Activist judges (from both sides of the aisle) have twisted the Constitution into a document that's no longer recognizable. What I wouldn't give for a set of federal judges that read the document and ruled based on what it said instead of trying to gleam the 'intent' out of the argument