Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143:173]********

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Nope, since no due process is involved. What is an "illegal" X (which can just be taken) when no crime is even alleged?

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

I think it is needed sometimes in high crime areas. It would be similar to police setting up a roadblock late on a Friday night looking for drunk drivers.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Absolutely.

As long as the officer can articulate a reasonable cause for the stop I have no problem with it. That reasonable cause can and should include such things as loitering in a known drug area, being in an unusual place at an unusual time, and acting weird. For example, I was at a street fair a while back and some guy was walking quickly through the crowd in the opposite direction of the general flow of traffic while randomly flicking his fingers at people's faces and saying "ping". He didn't touch or assault anyone but he was damned sure someone the cops should have pulled aside and assessed for being under the influence of something. They should have also checked him for weapons.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

Here in Toronto, perhaps the safest large city on the planet, we used to have a police practice called Carding, where police officers on patrol, either in cars or on foot, could legally stop a person or group of people and ask them some questions, request their ID, and just generally announce the police presence in the area. The police were required to fill out a form when conducting such carding that identified who they stopped and the nature of the conversation.

In effect, this was a form of profiling because such carding was generally only conducted in high crime areas and usually only late at night when many crimes in these areas were conducted by gangs or just kids out looking for trouble. As a result, activists in minority communities, who just happened to also be resident in high crime communities, bitched and moaned about this practice because they saw it as racial profiling and although statistics on race weren't maintained by the police, police readily admitted that the vast majority of carding was conducted in minority communities.

As a result, police in Toronto ceased to do carding this past year and the Provincial government - Liberal - passed legislation outlawing it throughout the Province starting tomorrow. Police now have to tell anyone they stop that they don't have to answer any questions from the police and can, in effect, just tell the police to bugger off.

Liberals will tell you it's just coincidence, but statistics show that murders are up in Toronto, murders with guns are up over 50%, and other crime is also up since carding stopped. Liberals, incredibly, are wondering "what has happened" and immediately look to ways to spend money on minorities because their "economic situation" must be the problem, ignoring completely that since carding stopped, criminals feel free to walk the streets packing guns and other weapons and loitering in preparation for a criminal act without police hassling them.

If I lived in a high crime neighbourhood, I'd plead for carding to get the scum off the streets or to at least give them something to worry about. As it is, now, criminals have free reign and it's only going to get worse.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

High crime neighborhoods? I'd go stop, frisk, and arrest. I'd also start by patrolling those areas with three-man teams in vans, lots of vans.

You start taking people with drugs, illegal weapons and outstanding warrants off the street, you would be amazed how quickly the homicide rate drops.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

No, stop 'n frisk is clearly unconstitutional. Just do some good ole fashioned police work fer cryin' out loud.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

Terry v. Ohio was decided in 1968, so the kind of investigatory detention you're talking about has been recognized as constitutionally valid for going on fifty years. The Court has further defined the boundaries of these detentions in a series of cases after Terry, so the law on them is pretty clear. The jihadist cur who was eliminated in Milan recently got his comeuppance because of just this sort of stop. They are a valuable law enforcement tool, and of course I support them.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Could you ever support the Terry Stop?

Click to expand...

nope. it might produce temporary results (which also is debatable,) but it is more dangerous as precedence than the social ills that it seeks to prevent, IMO.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

countryboy said:

No, stop 'n frisk is clearly unconstitutional. Just do some good ole fashioned police work fer cryin' out loud.

Click to expand...

Really? The Supreme Court has repeatedly disagreed with you, and for more than forty-five years now. It has made very clear that temporary investigatory detentions by police--i.e. "Terry stops"--are NOT unconstitutional.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Then do it like you do drunk driving check points, and make everyone coming through face the risk. Stop and Frisk in NY targeted minorities and resulted in something like 85% of people being sent on their way. And of those that were not, the vast majority, also over 80%, were for minor drug possession. Using this experience, I would say you could stop and frisk in uptown club districts at 1 AM and get at least similar results with maybe more weapons and certainly better drugs. Make the areas random and I have less of a problem with it.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

Normally no. Probable cause or a warrant should be needed. The ONLY exception would be during martial law. And martial law should only be used in a crisis situation. I could however be convinced that a high crime area involving gangs could be considered as a crisis that could warrant a martial law decree. Better bring lots of evidence for it though before you try and convince me.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

matchlight said:

Really? The Supreme Court has repeatedly disagreed with you, and for more than forty-five years now. It has made very clear that temporary investigatory detentions by police--i.e. "Terry stops"--are NOT unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

I don't care, there have been a lot of bad SCOTUS decisions. This is one of them. SCOTUS has also "found" gay marriage, and abortion in the Constitution. Neither of which are there.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Kal'Stang said:

Normally no. Probable cause or a warrant should be needed. The ONLY exception would be during martial law. And martial law should only be used in a crisis situation. I could however be convinced that a high crime area involving gangs could be considered as a crisis that could warrant a martial law decree. Better bring lots of evidence for it though before you try and convince me.

Click to expand...

You may want to read Terry v. Ohio and the later Supreme Court decisions on the subject. Probable cause is NOT the applicable standard. It is reasonable suspicion, which is less demanding. Nor is any warrant needed for an investigatory detention. Normally a warrant is not needed even to arrest a person in a public place. You are giving the Fourth Amendment a more extreme interpretation than the Court gives it, and the problem with such an extreme interpretation is that it allows violent criminals to go free who might otherwise be apprehended.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Bob N said:

Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

The Terry Stop has been found Constitutional, yes? Maybe we need a different definition of unreasonable in extremely high crime areas...?

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

countryboy said:

I don't care, there have been a lot of bad SCOTUS decisions. This is one of them. SCOTUS has also "found" gay marriage, and abortion in the Constitution. Neither of which are there.

Click to expand...

It isn't just Terry. There is a line of Supreme Court decisions on this subject, and the law is well established. Your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is an extreme one. It does not protect against all searches and seizures, but rather against unreasonable ones. There is othing unreasonable about police stopping a person for brief questioning when they have reasonable suspicion that he may be involved in criminal activity.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's a self-reinforcing method.

Blacks and Whites use illegal drugs at approximately the same rate.

1) If you go to an area predominated by minorities, stop 100 people and find illegal drugs on 7 of them then the crime statistics go up by "7".
2) If you go to an area predominated by Whites, stop 100 people and find illegal drugs on 7 of them then the crime stats increase by "7".

In such a scenario the crime reported has increased. However we know that #2 doesn't happen because those areas are not patrolled with the same vigor. Thus a "high crime areas" are artificially created by police simply because the police have a higher engagement rate with the community. This is before you even take into account the possibility of bias. If the police are looking for crime eventually they're going to find it.

That's the problem NYC citizens faced. Police were literally looking for crime: jumping over turnstiles, jaywalking, spitting on the floor, putting your feet up on the train, and playing loud music. Now think about the pettiness of these misdemeanors. If you have a constant police presence in "high crime" areas eventually you're going to get all these charges because that's inevitable. These petty misdemeanors do not happen at a higher frequency than anywhere else but "high crime" areas will often report higher citations because there are more police patrolling.

This is why I utterly reject the notion of "high crime areas" because once a location gets such a designation crime will literally never decrease.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Bob N said:

Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Right. We know the text. The question centers on the word "unreasonable." The Supreme Court has made clear that these temporary stops, as long as the police conducting them respect the boundaries it has specified, do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

matchlight said:

It isn't just Terry. There is a line of Supreme Court decisions on this subject, and the law is well established. Your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is an extreme one. It does not protect against all searches and seizures, but rather against unreasonable ones. There is othing unreasonable about police stopping a person for brief questioning when they have reasonable suspicion that he may be involved in criminal activity.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it's quite unreasonable to stop a person for being black, or looking "suspicious". Police can, and do, abuse this.

Define, "reasonable suspicion that he may be involved in criminal activity". Please be specific.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

matchlight said:

You may want to read Terry v. Ohio and the later Supreme Court decisions on the subject. Probable cause is NOT the applicable standard. It is reasonable suspicion, which is less demanding. Nor is any warrant needed for an investigatory detention. Normally a warrant is not needed even to arrest a person in a public place. You are giving the Fourth Amendment a more extreme interpretation than the Court gives it, and the problem with such an extreme interpretation is that it allows violent criminals to go free who might otherwise be apprehended.

Click to expand...

Probable cause, reasonable suspicion, both are essentially the same. What is being talked about in the OP does not involve either one. Stop and Frisk is about stopping random people in order to check to see if they have anything illegal on them. It is not based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. It is simply "Oh lets stop that person!" And stop and frisk has been ruled unconstitutional.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Altruistic idea. Would be good in theory.

But we are nation of laws and laws are concrete. We can't have caveats to a law with subjective variables. (Like "high crime areas".)

Am a big fan of cops. But they have a natural tendency/pattern of pushing the limits. And an opening like this would be exploited/abused.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

A Terry Stop isn't exactly Stop and Frisk. Or it wasn't always.


From my days at the Academy, long time ago, Terry was a SCOTUS decision. If you pulled someone over for a traffic violation or reasonable suspicion, you could "detain" them a short while (rule of thumb was 20 min or less) while trying to determine if a serious crime had been committed, before committing to arresting them or letting them go.

You could ask questions. They didn't have to answer. If at any point they asked to leave you had to let them go unless you had probable cause.


A search of the vehicle or persons was, in my day, not allowed UNLESS you had a probable cause that a crime had been committed that you could articulate in court and that would be accepted by the court as such. We were cautioned repeatedly about that. The dividing line between mere suspicion and probable cause is distinct from a legal standpoint.



From what I was taught in my day (over 20 yrs ago), you had to have a better reason than just "well they looked suspicious" to turn a Terry Stop into a stop and frisk.


Now clearly if an officer is willing to perjure himself and claim he smelled drugs/etc you could do it.... I was never willing to lie under oath.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

MaggieD said:

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

Click to expand...

Nope. I don't support it one bit because it's unconstitutional.

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Nope.