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.

Preach!

---

Preach!

He is dead on.


But in America we seem completely willing to sacrifice constitutional rights. This is done in order for the police state to make some people feel safer?


America.

---

Don't think I'd care for a random pat down near the junk zone looking for my magnum. The bulging barrel would be obvious and I'd be subjected to pat downs every few feet. Too many, and it might go off. Then splat! Premature incarceration.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Don't think I'd care for a random pat down near the junk zone looking for my magnum. The bulging barrel would be obvious and I'd be subjected to pat downs every few feet. Too many, and it might go off. Then splat! Premature incarceration.

 

---

Don't think I'd care for a random pat down near the junk zone looking for my magnum. The bulging barrel would be obvious and I'd be subjected to pat downs every few feet. Too many, and it might go off. Then splat! Premature incarceration.

If people hate what the TSA does....

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I'm good with stop and frisk.

 

And I don't care if what PC America thinks about it lol

 

I'm OK with people NOT having guns that shouldn't. (Violent criminals, illegal immigrants, etc.)

I'm OK with people having guns that are allowed (pretty much everyone else)

---

If people hate what the TSA does....

Funny... all the times I've flown, I've never had much of a problem with TSA.

 

Guess I don't look terroristy enough.

---

If stop and frisk worked would not the murder rate have shot right back up after the method was no longer used?


Also, trump is getting hammered on this from last night's debate. It's clearly unconstitutional and obviously a tactic that won't win you votes in the black and brown communities.


I mean who is advising him? Yet another very bad look for the GOP.

---

Don't think I'd care for a random pat down near the junk zone looking for my magnum. The bulging barrel would be obvious and I'd be subjected to pat downs every few feet. Too many, and it might g6o off. Then splat! Premature incarceration.

That's gold, right there

---

If people hate what the TSA does....

Funny story by way of the business traveler circles, apparently if a TSA Smurf is patting you, ahem, down there and any one of a number of possible biological functions happen, it's considered assault.

 

Funny... all the times I've flown, I've never had much of a problem with TSA.

 

Guess I don't look terroristy enough.

You have not lived until your refusal to dance like a little monkey for them has a man in a suit staring you down and asking if you want to fly on that particular day.

---

Funny... all the times I've flown, I've never had much of a problem with TSA.

 

Guess I don't look terroristy enough.

 

They can't discriminate based on who looks like a terrorist, so they just pat down the pretty girls.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Don't think I'd care for a random pat down near the junk zone looking for my magnum. The bulging barrel would be obvious and I'd be subjected to pat downs every few feet. Too many, and it might go off. Then splat! Premature incarceration.

 

Dude, you don't have to worry about that, you're white.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Trump had it wrong on so many levels, I'll just provide a link explaining how.

 

Of course, it's the NY Times, so Trumpettes have a built-in knee jerk.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Dude, you don't have to worry about that, you're white.

But gots soul man.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Trump had it wrong on so many levels, I'll just provide a <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/nyregion/what-donald-trump-got-wrong-on-stop-and-frisk.html?_r=0'>link</a> explaining how.


Of course, it's the NY Times, so Trumpettes have a built-in knee jerk.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://youtu.be/tt4O62_VXs4'>https://youtu.be/tt4O62_VXs4</a>


Off duty cop gets stopped and frisked... Explains the quotas. Violates the constitution 100%

---

https://youtu.be/01rsXYIXOrU


High school kid stopped and harassed "legally."

---

https://youtu.be/XfcHk53Puxg


This guy is a Pastor... His commentary is good.

---

Trump had it wrong on so many levels, I'll just provide a link explaining how.

 

Of course, it's the NY Times, so Trumpettes have a built-in knee jerk.

 

Whether or not Trump had it right or wrong is immaterial. The president has as much say over local police policy as he does over what flavor of ice cream Gus is serving after the latest loss.


 

EDIT: and the NYT is spinning the numbers to support Hillary, as usual.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Whether or not Trump had it right or wrong is immaterial. The president has as much say over local police policy as he does over what flavor of ice cream Gus is serving after the latest loss.


EDIT: and the NYT is spinning the numbers to support Hillary, as usual.

It shows his lunacy and his inability to accept reality.


Not to mention a president can influence local policy. It's called the bully pulpit for a reason.


A president pushing stop and frisk can have a great effect on local police departments to implement it. And that's dangerous.

---