Quote:It's kinda both. No probable cause to search in the first place, and certainly no probable cause to seize.


Actually, yes, it is. The concept of detaining someone and subjecting them to an unlawful examination of their person and property without them being granted the right to refuse (say no to a stop and frisk; see what happens) is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, and you could easily draw Two and Five in as well.


"Reasonable suspicion" is not a thing. It does not exist. Look at the Constitution and please tell me where it says "reasonable suspicion" in the Fourth Amendment. Here's a hint: it doesn't. The concepts of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are worlds apart, one requiring that the law enforcement official believe that a crime either will be or currently is being committed by the person in question, and the other being so broad that you could paint Moby [BAD WORD REMOVED] black in one stroke. The Fourth Amendment says "unreasonable" searches and seizures, not "reasonable". It places the onus on the government to prove that there was a clear and present need to conduct that search. Stop-and-frisk is based solely upon profiling and/or random pulls. There is no probable cause attached to it, and the whole practice is a violation of at least the Fourth Amendment, possibly more depending on the outcome of the unlawful, warrantless search.