Quote:
Originally Posted by entruil
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Officer's may have a right to search people that they detain for safety reasons,however this does not give the officer's the right to detain anyone for any reason.
Stop and Frisk (whether constitutional or not, this actually has not been decided yet, much the same way they will drop charges on politicians for corruption once they get them out of the way) was abused under the guise of "Disarming" criminal's. Walking down the street does not make someone a criminal.
In New York, small amounts of marijuana were decriminalized as long as it was kept out of public view. Using this stop-and-frisk tactic many officer's would pull the marijuana out of citizen's pocket into plain view as a way to harrass and discredit(and arrest) people that they thought looked like they should be.
|
I wasn't familiar with the concept but it made it sound like they "randomly" went up to people, stopped them and continued to frisk them. I gather that this is what happened.
If that's the case I don't see how that fits in with what's described in this text:
"When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm. --Supreme Court, 1968 ruling in response to a 4th amendment case. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...onstitutional/"
If the stop-and-frisks could be compared to routine drunk driving stops then it doesn't seem to be protected under what is described.
The text described:
1) Individual displaying suspicious is investigated
2) Officer is justified in believing this person may be armed
3) Person is frisked
Stop-and-frisk sounds to me like:
1) Person is stopped and frisked
Or am I missing something?