• 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
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...

Right or wrong the courts have backed this. Also, they do not search you until they have probable cause. ie: smell alcohol or slurred speech. I'm not a big fan either but the particulars should be properly presented. The courts have also ruled that these stops must be advertised so you can decide to go another way.
 
1Perry said:
Right or wrong the courts have backed this. Also, they do not search you until they have probable cause. ie: smell alcohol or slurred speech. I'm not a big fan either but the particulars should be properly presented. The courts have also ruled that these stops must be advertised so you can decide to go another way.
Click to expand...
That's what is said, I had an officer shine his light into my vehicle without any cause, I know he didn't smell anything on me because I didn't have a drink that night, as well they only advertise that they are conducting a search, in a large area that is not sufficient for avoidance.
 
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...

Actually, people have gotten off after making turning around to avoid a checkpoint. The court ruled that turning around is not "probable cause" and did not justify the search the followed. However

1) This may not apply in all jurisdictions, so I wouldn't rely on it
2) U-turns are generally illegal, so turn around in a manner consistent with your local traffic laws.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That's what is said, I had an officer shine his light into my vehicle without any cause, I know he didn't smell anything on me because I didn't have a drink that night, as well they only advertise that they are conducting a search, in a large area that is not sufficient for avoidance.
Click to expand...

Shining a light into a car is not considered a search requiring probable cause or a warrant. It merely allows the officer to see things which you left in "plain sight".

Of course, this has nothing to do with why the cops stopped you in the first place. Stopping a car should require, at the very least, "reasonable suspicion" which is a lower standard than "probable cause"
 
sangha said:
2) U-turns are generally illegal, so turn around in a manner consistent with your local traffic laws.
Click to expand...

U-Turns are legal less otherwise posted.
 
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...

It's "implied consent" but there's not much choice to it. Less you live in a big enough city where public transport is adequate; functionally you often need a car. Which means you must agree to the government's terms.
 
X Factor said:
I see. So no arrest or search should ever occur without a warrant?
Click to expand...

Not without probable case, no. If out couldn't get a warrant, you have no business conducting a search.
 
Cephus said:
Not without probable case, no. If out couldn't get a warrant, you have no business conducting a search.
Click to expand...

Awesome, so if I'm driving drunk at 100 mph, get pulled over then stash the dope that had been in my passenger seat into the glove box as the cop is walking up to my window and he sees me, he needs to let me go until he can get an arrest and search warrant?
 
Ikari said:
It's "implied consent" but there's not much choice to it. Less you live in a big enough city where public transport is adequate; functionally you often need a car. Which means you must agree to the government's terms.
Click to expand...

That is the choice you make when you choose to drive. You really don't see any compelling need in enforcing traffic laws? Personally, uninsured drivers annoy the **** outta me, so catching them is ok in my book.
 
X Factor said:
Awesome, so if I'm driving drunk at 100 mph, get pulled over then stash the dope that had been in my passenger seat into the glove box as the cop is walking up to my window and he sees me, he needs to let me go until he can get an arrest and search warrant?
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the "not without probable cause" part. Drunk driving at 100mph is probable cause. Following all traffic laws is not.
 
Cephus said:
Maybe you missed the "not without probable cause" part. Drunk driving at 100mph is probable cause. Following all traffic laws is not.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did. I thought you were agreeing with what I asked (that searches and arrests should only happen with a warrant). You'll be happy to know, that searches do require probable cause - unless the person consents to the search.
 
X Factor said:
Actually, I did. I thought you were agreeing with what I asked (that searches and arrests should only happen with a warrant). You'll be happy to know, that searches do require probable cause - unless the person consents to the search.
Click to expand...

Yet there are people who are reporting that the police are attempting to do searches without a warrant and without probable cause that anything illegal has actually occurred, through coercion or force or implied threats. That ought to be illegal. If they have a legally valid reason for performing a search that would hold up in a court of law, great. If not, then trying to push people to allow a search through threats ought never be allowed.
 
X Factor said:
Actually, I did. I thought you were agreeing with what I asked (that searches and arrests should only happen with a warrant). You'll be happy to know, that searches do require probable cause - unless the person consents to the search.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the OP was to address wanton searches without warrant as they are occurring more and more. We're not talking about cases of probable cause but cases where there is NO probable cause and instead we are just seeing systematic and generalized searches of vehicles in specific zones.

Are you for or against that? Please clarify. Thank you.
 
Cephus said:
Yet there are people who are reporting that the police are attempting to do searches without a warrant and without probable cause that anything illegal has actually occurred, through coercion or force or implied threats. That ought to be illegal. If they have a legally valid reason for performing a search that would hold up in a court of law, great. If not, then trying to push people to allow a search through threats ought never be allowed.
Click to expand...

I can't say I disagree with any of this. All the things you say should be illegal actually are. The funny the thing is, the remedy for 4th amendment violations (the exclusionary rule) only benefits the people who are actually guilty. Weird, huh?
 
Temporal said:
The whole point of the OP was to address wanton searches without warrant as they are occurring more and more. We're not talking about cases of probable cause but cases where there is NO probable cause and instead we are just seeing systematic and generalized searches of vehicles in specific zones.

Are you for or against that? Please clarify. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way. I oppose forced searches without probable cause. I do not oppose searches or pat downs done without probable cause so long as they are conducted with the consent of person being searched. Does that clarify it for you?
 
Occupy Wall Street puts spotlight on police stop-and-frisk tactics | World news | guardian.co.uk

Stop-and-frisk refers to a common practice within the NYPD where officers detain people on the street, and, in some instances, search them. The department, along with the mayor's office, both contend that the stops have contributed to a considerable decrease in violent crime in the city, particularly in low-income communities and communities of colour.........Adams claims he attended a meeting that included NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly, in which the senior officer stated that the reason stop-and-frisk is instituted at its current levels is to "instil in every young man from those communities [black and Hispanic] that any time they leave their house they can be searched by the police."

"That's illegal," Adams says. "It's not the role of the police department to instil that level of fear in civilians."
Click to expand...

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/stop-and-frisk/
 
Last edited:
mattillac said:
Occupy Wall Street puts spotlight on police stop-and-frisk tactics | World news | guardian.co.uk



Stop and Frisk Law & Legal Definition
Click to expand...

Article's obviously a little skewed but the comments from NYPD do seem to suggest that they're actually detaining people and frisking them for no reason. There's no mention at all of consent. Not only should that be illegal, it is. Assuming something is found on one of the people that leads to a court case, I don't see how that evidence doesn't get thrown out.
 
X Factor said:
That is the choice you make when you choose to drive. You really don't see any compelling need in enforcing traffic laws? Personally, uninsured drivers annoy the **** outta me, so catching them is ok in my book.
Click to expand...

I think that there are plenty of good traffic laws out there to increase safety and that driving, while it shouldn't be forced to come with 'implied consent" (which was just something the State made up in order to get around that pesky 4th amendment), it does not mean you can break all the laws. I don't understand why your examples and dissent have to be made to be so absurd. You could argue reasonably.
 
Ikari said:
I think that there are plenty of good traffic laws out there to increase safety and that driving, while it shouldn't be forced to come with 'implied consent" (which was just something the State made up in order to get around that pesky 4th amendment), it does not mean you can break all the laws. I don't understand why your examples and dissent have to be made to be so absurd. You could argue reasonably.
Click to expand...

You first. :D

Ikari, I've never seen you support any law enforcement action. I mean, your sig pretty much indicates where you stand. Anything short of complete lawlessness, you take as evidence that we're headed for a police state.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That's what is said, I had an officer shine his light into my vehicle without any cause, I know he didn't smell anything on me because I didn't have a drink that night, as well they only advertise that they are conducting a search, in a large area that is not sufficient for avoidance.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it has to be exact. They can't state that they are going to search Main county. It has to be a specific site. Rt 33 1 mile before Rt 256.
 
X Factor said:
You first. :D

Ikari, I've never seen you support any law enforcement action. I mean, your sig pretty much indicates where you stand. Anything short of complete lawlessness, you take as evidence that we're headed for a police state.
Click to expand...

This is more unreasonable argument on your part. You engage so liberally in hyperbole. I'm not an anarchist, nor have I ever claimed. My sig doesn't mean I want lawlessness, it means to watch out and don't trust the government nor its goons. At some point these silly and childish exaggerations should stop if you're interested in real debate.
 
Ikari said:
This is more unreasonable argument on your part. You engage so liberally in hyperbole. I'm not an anarchist, nor have I ever claimed. My sig doesn't mean I want lawlessness, it means to watch out and don't trust the government nor its goons. At some point these silly and childish exaggerations should stop if you're interested in real debate.
Click to expand...

Just so I'm clear, all cops are goons? Why don't you actually look at the positions I've posted in this thread and tell me what's so unreasonable about them? Is the fact that I believe law enforcement should actually have some tools to, y'know, enforce laws?
 
X Factor said:
Just so I'm clear, all cops are goons? Why don't you actually look at the positions I've posted in this thread and tell me what's so unreasonable about them? Is the fact that I believe law enforcement should actually have some tools to, y'know, enforce laws?
Click to expand...

Your unreasonableness comes in your continued misrepresentation of what I say. Claiming I'm some form of anarchist who doesn't want law; when all I want is a properly controlled government. Heaven forbid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom