• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stop and Frisk practices

Should stopping and frisking be illegal?


  • Total voters
    22

Utility Man

Sidewalk Inspector
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
9,161
Reaction score
11,992
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So I have heard this term recently "stop and frisk" and wondered what my fellow DP members thought about it.

Should the police have the right to stop you, pat you down and then release you.

Only 10 percent of stops led to summonses or arrests. The overwhelming majority of New Yorkers questioned and frisked by the NYPD were engaged in no criminal wrongdoing.
Stop and Frisk Practices | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State

In my mind, I see a police car pulling up next to a you as you are walking on the sidewalk, they get out and say put your hands on the car then proceed to ask you some questions as they are patting you down/looking though your belongings and after they don't find anything wrong with you or your belongings they say have a nice day, move along now.

Should this be legal ?
 
So I have heard this term recently "stop and frisk" and wondered what my fellow DP members thought about it.

Should the police have the right to stop you, pat you down and then release you.

Stop and Frisk Practices | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State

In my mind, I see a police car pulling up next to a you as you are walking on the sidewalk, they get out and say put your hands on the car then proceed to ask you some questions as they are patting you down/looking though your belongings and after they don't find anything wrong with you or your belongings they say have a nice day, move along now.

Should this be legal ?

Are they men or women? Cute or not? I say it totally depends.
 
In my mind, I see a police car pulling up next to a you as you are walking on the sidewalk, they get out and say put your hands on the car then proceed to ask you some questions as they are patting you down/looking though your belongings and after they don't find anything wrong with you or your belongings they say have a nice day, move along now.

Should this be legal ?

No, cops should be required to have reasonable suspicion before being able to intercede like that. It should be completely illegal from them to be able to do this at random with no proof or indication that the individual is breaking a law.
 
Stop you and ask you a few questions? Absolutely. Put their hands on you? Not without a damned good reason.
 
No, cops should be required to have reasonable suspicion before being able to intercede like that. It should be completely illegal from them to be able to do this at random with no proof or indication that the individual is breaking a law.


That. It is beyond ridiculous. I couldn't do **** like that as a SC cop.
 
I would be opposed to this outside of having some reasonable cause to at least suspect a person.
 
Yes, it's fine as long as the person gives their consent to the frisk. I believe this is what's referred to as a voluntary encounter. Without consent though, you need reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk and probable cause to arrest/search.
 
Last edited:
Better have probable cause in my opinion. If an officer stops me and says he want's to ask questions because a guy fitting my description robbed a convenience store I will happily answer questions as I didn't do it, as well if I fit a description it is understandable that the officer would be concerned for his own safety so I could see a frisk being necessary. Just for walking down the street? OH HELL NO!
 
You know, this reminds me of the checkpoints. In my state we have them for insurance/safety checks and OWI checks which I find ridiculous, they will literally stop the flow of traffic to test everyone who happens to be on the road, being on the road is NOT probable cause. In fact, when I was still working at a radio station in town I went on an emergency run when one of the feeds went off-air, this was during consumption peak hours and went through a checkpoint, the officers were actually pissed off that I was sober and "wasted their time", they looked at me like I had no business on the road.
 
Yes, it's fine as long as the person gives their consent to the frisk. I believe this is what's referred to as a voluntary encounter. Without consent though, you need reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk and probable cause to arrest/search.

I have been in the position of being pulled over and asked if they have permission to search my car. They put a lot of pressure on you, and if you indicate you would rather not, they start with threatening to hold you up while they get a warrant. Walking up to some one and asking for permission without some kind of cause is very iffy at best, and can be abused too easily.
 
You know, this reminds me of the checkpoints. In my state we have them for insurance/safety checks and OWI checks which I find ridiculous, they will literally stop the flow of traffic to test everyone who happens to be on the road, being on the road is NOT probable cause. .

Might ought to look up "implied consent". ;)
 
I can't say that I've ever seen this happen or know anyone it's happened to so it would be hard for me to comment without context. Nobody is frisking me though without good cause.
 
Might ought to look up "implied consent". ;)
So being on the road is implying consent in your opinion? And how then does that trump due process and probable cause in a traffic stop? In other words if I am working and on the road at the same time as partiers, I am stone cold sober, not weaving in and out of lanes, and driving in a perfectly safe and legal manner then what would lead police to think it's okay to summarily stop me, flash their lights into the cab of my vehicle, and ask me a bunch of questions in an accusatory manner? What is the justification past "the bars are open and serving while this guy is on the road"?
 
Last edited:
I goofed. I voted no because I misread, of course stopping and frisking should be illegal without cause.
 
I have been in the position of being pulled over and asked if they have permission to search my car. They put a lot of pressure on you, and if you indicate you would rather not, they start with threatening to hold you up while they get a warrant. Walking up to some one and asking for permission without some kind of cause is very iffy at best, and can be abused too easily.

Then they are not following the law. They can't hold you until they get the warrant, and without probable cause, they shouldn't get one anyway. That's just intimidation, and not only should be against the law, it is against the law.
 
I have been in the position of being pulled over and asked if they have permission to search my car. They put a lot of pressure on you, and if you indicate you would rather not, they start with threatening to hold you up while they get a warrant. Walking up to some one and asking for permission without some kind of cause is very iffy at best, and can be abused too easily.

I don't doubt the situation can feel coercive to someone who's being asking if they'll consent to a frisk, however, it doesn't really matter what the person detained thinks they're being compelled to do. If the objective facts show that it's nothing more than a voluntary encounter, I don't see how or why such practices should be prohibited.
 
I don't doubt the situation can feel coercive to someone who's being asking if they'll consent to a frisk, however, it doesn't really matter what the person detained thinks they're being compelled to do. If the objective facts show that it's nothing more than a voluntary encounter, I don't see how or why such practices should be prohibited.
So if an officer shows up to your house with his hand on his weapon while standing in your door and asks to "come in and take a look, just for giggles" you wouldn't feel a little threatened. Let's say you tell him to **** off and he says "K, I'll just wait here till the judge faxes me a warrant, I'll be a little more thorough then since I have the time, hope your stuff doesn't get ruined" you wouldn't feel a little compelled to comply?
 
Yes, it's fine as long as the person gives their consent to the frisk. I believe this is what's referred to as a voluntary encounter. Without consent though, you need reasonable suspicion to detain and frisk and probable cause to arrest/search.

I think this should be looked at as no you have not given consent and I would assume if you resist you would be arrested for something such as failure to cooperate.


Better have probable cause in my opinion. If an officer stops me and says he want's to ask questions because a guy fitting my description robbed a convenience store I will happily answer questions as I didn't do it, as well if I fit a description it is understandable that the officer would be concerned for his own safety so I could see a frisk being necessary. Just for walking down the street? OH HELL NO!

Reminds me of the time I was picked on the way home from 8th grade. I was frisked, placed in the cruiser and driven to a gas station that had been robbed so that the clerk could eye ball me. I wasn't really upset other than I was a juvenile and wasn't returned to the specific area I was picked up. If the cop had half a brain he would have realized I was at school when the robbery occurred, the joke was on him IMO.
 
Last edited:
Crap. I voted NO when I meant YES because I misread the question. :(

Police can question me if they have a reasonable belief that I may have witnessed something or I fit the discription of a perpetrator. They had better not put their hands on me unless they are putting me under arrest. To be able to frisk random people for no reason at all is not only subject to rampant abuse... I'd hate to be a stunning young woman with a body to die for... it's blatantly unconstitutional.

Can somebody who really wants to vote NO vote YES instead, for me? Thanks! :lol:
 
So being on the road is implying consent in your opinion? And how then does that trump due process and probable cause in a traffic stop? In other words if I am working and on the road at the same time as partiers, I am stone cold sober, not weaving in and out of lanes, and driving in a perfectly safe and legal manner then what would lead police to think it's okay to summarily stop me, flash their lights into the cab of my vehicle, and ask me a bunch of questions in an accusatory manner? What is the justification past "the bars are open and serving while this guy is on the road"?

My bad, you're talking about a traffic stop, where the police actually pull you over. I thought you were referring to checkpoints. I agree, in order to detain someone on a traffic stop, there needs to be reasonable suspicion. It's different for checkpoints which is where implied consent actually comes up.
 
Crap. I voted NO when I meant YES because I misread the question. :(

Police can question me if they have a reasonable belief that I may have witnessed something or I fit the discription of a perpetrator. They had better not put their hands on me unless they are putting me under arrest. To be able to frisk random people for no reason at all is not only subject to rampant abuse... I'd hate to be a stunning young woman with a body to die for... it's blatantly unconstitutional.

Can somebody who really wants to vote NO vote YES instead, for me? Thanks! :lol:

I really was going to vote no, but I voted yes on your behalf. :)
 
My bad, you're talking about a traffic stop, where the police actually pull you over. I thought you were referring to checkpoints. I agree, in order to detain someone on a traffic stop, there needs to be reasonable suspicion. It's different for checkpoints which is where implied consent actually comes up.
A checkpoint is a traffic stop, it's just that they stop all traffic and you have less due process rights than a normal one.
 
Back
Top Bottom