more of the 4th Amendment taken away

SmarterthanYou said:
yes, it is.
Click to expand...

No it is not. The police may stop somebody they REASONABLY BELIEVE is committing, about the commit, or has committed a crime.

If they were only allowed to stop someone who they had probable cause to believe had committed a crime, then they would only be allowed to arrest people.
 
Taft2016 said:
Yes they were.

If not, any evidence obtained would have been inadmissable. Fruits of the poison tree they call it "counselor."

Why would the police department urge it's members to go out and seek out useless evidence?
Click to expand...

Ugh, I know what FOPT is, they were doing it to stop crime, not collect evidence. If you do a terry stop and find an illegal gun, you might not be able to prosecute the person for carrying an illegal weapon, but you can take it from them.

Additionally, often just because you made an illegal stop, does not preclude later prosecution based on evidence attained otherwise.

A cop can use FOPT to figure out who is guilty, then collect evidence that does not derive from that search, it makes things difficult, but its accomplished all the time.
 
Taft2016 said:
No it is not. The police may stop somebody they REASONABLY BELIEVE is committing, about the commit, or has committed a crime.

If they were only allowed to stop someone who they had probable cause to believe had committed a crime, then they would only be allowed to arrest people.
Click to expand...

now you are moving the goal posts.
 
Taft2016 said:
No it is not. The police may stop somebody they REASONABLY BELIEVE is committing, about the commit, or has committed a crime.

If they were only allowed to stop someone who they had probable cause to believe had committed a crime, then they would only be allowed to arrest people.
Click to expand...

PC to search and PC to arrest are two different things.
 
Taft2016 said:
They were not forced to do anything by a court. In fact, the judge on the case was removed by a superior court for transparent lack of objectivity.
Click to expand...

No, they were forced to change the practice by the new more liberal constitution following mayor!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
now you are moving the goal posts.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You said the police can not legally stop someone who has not committed a crime. I just demonstrated that they most certainly can.

A police officer can stop someone they believe is committing, has committed, etc, a crime. But once that doesn't pan out, and they release the individual.... NOTHING illegal has been done.
 
Taft2016 said:
Not at all. You said the police can not legally stop someone who has not committed a crime. I just demonstrated that they most certainly can.

A police officer can stop someone they believe is committing, has committed, etc, a crime. But once that doesn't pan out, and they release the individual.... NOTHING illegal has been done.
Click to expand...

semantics. I guess I should have been very word specific from the onset.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
semantics. I guess I should have been very word specific from the onset.
Click to expand...

Quit backpeddaling. You said it is illegal for the police to stop someone who has not committed a crime.

That was a blatant falsehood and you got called on it, and even defended it.

You said it. Own it like a man.
 
Taft2016 said:
To search a person, one needs reasonable suspicion.

To arrest a person, one needs probable cause.

"Counselor"....
Click to expand...

You are discussing something you don't understand the complexities of.

The phrase PC to arrest and PC to search are two different things. PC to search is a higher standard than RS to search, so one might have RS and not PC, but they cannot have PC without RS.

TO arrest someone requires different elements than to search and thus PC to search is a different standard than PC to arrest.

Did it make you feel smarter to make your smart ass ignorant comment?
 
Jarod said:
You are discussing something you don't understand the complexities of.

The phrase PC to arrest and PC to search are two different things. PC to search is a higher standard than RS to search, so one might have RS and not PC, but they cannot have PC without RS.

TO arrest someone requires different elements than to search and thus PC to search is a different standard than PC to arrest.

Did it make you feel smarter to make your smart ass ignorant comment?
Click to expand...

And how do you arrive at PC to search someone in a street encounter, other than with a court signed warrant, "Counselor"?
 
Jarod said:
The Bill of Rights, and to a large extent the rest of the Constitution applies to all people, not just citizens. Thus the government, for example, has no right to limit the freedom of speech of a non-citizen any more than it does against a citizen. The government cant say, hey... citizens can own this type of gun, but non-citizens cant. You cant conduct an unreasonable search of a non-citizen any more than of a citizen.

You cant kill a non-citizen without the same due process as a citizen.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on how one interprets "the people"....it obviously can't be interpreted as meaning the people in China but you seem to thing it does mean people in our country illegally, but it can be interpreted as meaning "citizens of the US".... our Constitution and laws don't govern the world or give rights to the earths population.

"We the People of the United States...", does this mean 'the citizens' only ? 'The People" can't mean one thing in one case and somebody else in another can it.

People the US has jurisdiction over, ie, people in the US or US citizens living our of the country.......our constitution has nothing to do with the citizens of other countries, living in their respective country....

"You cant kill a non-citizen without the same due process as a citizen."?

We do it all the time and always have.
So you think terrorists are protected under the constitution ?....Combatants in war are protected by the constitution ?....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top