for the love of god this false narrative will never end.
Posted on: September 24, 2016 at 21:43:13 CT
blake1771 MU
Posts:
14278
Member For:
19.42 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
i feel like a broken record explaining this to people. throw out whether you agree with the law for a moment b/c that's an entirely different debate, but no law enforcement agency has any special "stop and frisk" policies.
ALL stops and frisks are subject to existing supreme court decisions. primarily terry v ohio.
officers must have reasonable suspicion to stop the individual. i feel like most of you need a refresher on what that is so...
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts",and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.
you now know the basis for the stop.
moving on to the frisk. The officer must have reasonable suspicion that the subject is armed AND dangerous. Not armed or dangerous. armed AND dangerous.
The frisk is ONLY for weapons. a frisk is not for drugs or any other contraband.
there is no blanket authority or policy to stop and frisk people at will. there are departments who prioritize stop and frisk but it's still subject to existing law.
do some departments abuse this? maybe. i don't know. but i do know i get sick of hearing about stop and frisk like it's some new notion or something.
Edited by blake1771 at 06:27:41 on 09/27/16