• 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
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...
This was going to be my response, also. You beat me to it.
 
DiAnna said:
Crap. I voted NO when I meant YES because I misread the question. :(

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

Sorry, I am a confusing one lol, as you probably already know.
 
mattillac said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

As long as they have probabal cause, sure.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just because something stops traffic doesn't make it a traffic stop.
 
X Factor said:
Might ought to look up "implied consent". ;)
Click to expand...
There's something not right about requiring a person to waive their Constitutional rights just to take part in an otherwise legal activity (i.e.: driving, etc.).

Spare me the "driving is a privilege, not a right" claptrap. Being free from unnecessary search and seizure without or a warrant for ANY crime is a right... though lately I'm starting to wonder.
 
X Factor said:
Just because something stops traffic doesn't make it a traffic stop.
Click to expand...
You are correct. But stopping traffic to inquire about any level of lawbreaking from speeding to other offenses is a traffic stop, checkpoints are nothing but overblown unwarranted traffic stops with no prior probable cause.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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?
Click to expand...

What probable cause is he going to be able to base getting a search warrant on?
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...
The official line is that these checkpoints are voluntary. Just try telling the officer that, or making a u-turn to avoid the checkpoint, that and see how it works out for ya.
 
apdst said:
As long as they have probabal cause, sure.
Click to expand...

What if probable cause is you merely walking down the street in a neighborhood that has had a street crime committed in the past(most neighborhood have IMO)?

reasons.gif


Stop-and-Frisk Campaign: Stop And Frisk Charts | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
There's something not right about requiring a person to waive their Constitutional rights just to take part in an otherwise legal activity (i.e.: driving, etc.).

Spare me the "driving is a privilege, not a right" claptrap. Being free from unnecessary search and seizure without or a warrant for ANY crime is a right... though lately I'm starting to wonder.
Click to expand...

I see. So no arrest or search should ever occur without a warrant?
 
X Factor said:
What probable cause is he going to be able to base getting a search warrant on?
Click to expand...
Who knows, he could do the same thing Redress was speaking of and say he suspects drug activity based on your behavior, you don't have to be doing anything wrong but the officer may just be one of the bad, nosy ones who just feels like letting his ass show that day.
 
radcen said:
Exactly... he shouldn't be there and asking to begin with. There's a connection here.
Click to expand...

Ok, so tell him to go if it happens to you. He's not doing anything wrong by just talking to you, so long as you're willing to stand there and talk to him.
 
radcen said:
The official line is that these checkpoints are voluntary. Just try telling the officer that, or making a u-turn to avoid the checkpoint, that and see how it works out for ya.
Click to expand...
They don't even say that here, they say you must make an effort to pass through and cannot evade, the only legal way around is if you have a location to get to prior to the checkpoint, even then a police officer has the right to stop if you turn off. It's complete BS.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Who knows, he could do the same thing Redress was speaking of and say he suspects drug activity based on your behavior, you don't have to be doing anything wrong but the officer may just be one of the bad, nosy ones who just feels like letting his ass show that day.
Click to expand...

He'll need to swear to and describe exactly what it is about my behavior that makes him believe there's drugs in my house.
 
X Factor said:
He'll need to swear to and describe exactly what it is about my behavior that makes him believe there's drugs in my house.
Click to expand...
Don't be so sure about that, a lot of people were cleared of bogus charges to find their property sold off before the court proceedings were over with.
 
radcen said:
The official line is that these checkpoints are voluntary. Just try telling the officer that, or making a u-turn to avoid the checkpoint, that and see how it works out for ya.
Click to expand...

I disagree that anyone claims that submitting to checkpoints is voluntary. The actual rationale is that you've given your implied consent. You're confusing two separate things.
 
X Factor said:
I disagree that anyone claims that submitting to checkpoints is voluntary. The actual rationale is that you've given your implied consent. You're confusing two separate things.
Click to expand...
The whole point is that the implied consent legal argument is a bogus way to get around due process laws.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Don't be so sure about that, a lot of people were cleared of bogus charges to find their property sold off before the court proceedings were over with.
Click to expand...

LOL, ok well, I can see we're heading down the "all police are lying thugs" road. I'm not condoning police abuses, but neither do I assume that's all police ever do.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The whole point is that the implied consent legal argument is a bogus way to get around due process laws.
Click to expand...

Actually, implied consent is part of due process laws.
 
With more than half the NYPD being black, and latinos and black being the majority frisked, I'd say the ACLU is going to have a helluva time trying to figure out whom to blame.
 
X Factor said:
I disagree that anyone claims that submitting to checkpoints is voluntary. The actual rationale is that you've given your implied consent. You're confusing two separate things.
Click to expand...
No, the official line from (some) police departments is that checkpoints are voluntary. Yeah, about as voluntary as the income tax.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
I see. So no arrest or search should ever occur without a warrant?
Click to expand...
If something is in progress and in plain view of the officer then a warrant isn't necessary. I think there are some instances where a warrant is a hinderance to stopping a crime in progress but the burden of proof is heavily against law enforcement that want to make a warrantless arrest, they had better prove that the actions taken were of the utmost urgency to stop a clear and present threat to the general populace such as intercepting communications about a terrorist attack, an assassination/hit plot, or other nefarious activities. In contrast, an officer stopping someone without probable cause just to try and "find something", "anything" is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination.
 
X Factor said:
LOL, ok well, I can see we're heading down the "all police are lying thugs" road. I'm not condoning police abuses, but neither do I assume that's all police ever do.
Click to expand...
No, my argument isn't at all aimed at the character of police, I would wager that most are fine upstanding servants. Even though some due process abuses come out of good intentions I feel it necessary to say that good intentions(getting drugs, drunks, uninsured off the streets) is simply insufficient to warrant gross abuses of due process, it's very important that we fight for the rights we have left to have any prayer of restoring the lost ones.
 
X Factor said:
Actually, implied consent is part of due process laws.
Click to expand...
Not really, it's a selective legal definition of consent based upon subjective interpretations of a defendants actions. For instance the drivers license argument, I did consent to the breathalyzer rule by signing the contract, I did not consent to being stopped at a checkpoint for no damn reason at 11p.m. when I am trying to get home from work or even a coffee chat with a friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom