more of the 4th Amendment taken away

Jarod said:
A well regulated militia being necessary for the preservation of a free state...

That's what I was referring to as the limiting phrase.
Click to expand...


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So when this Amendment was written....who were the "Militia" and who are "the people".....

Are 'the people' different in this Amendment than those referred to in other Amendments ?

Does the intent of the writers carry any weight ?
 
Taft2016 said:
Explain PC to search someone in a street encounter, without a warrant, but not having PC to arrest.
Click to expand...

Look it up... Im not taking your test. Let me assure you it can be done. Study.

I charge people for that kind of information.
 
Taft2016 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am not backpedaling. I even stated reasonable suspicion. your insistence at hanging on to wordage clearly shows you to be one of those law and order cop supporting conservatives.
 
Taft2016 said:
And how do you arrive at PC to search someone in a street encounter, other than with a court signed warrant, "Counselor"?
Click to expand...

again, you are mixing two separate issues. one must have ARTICULATE reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate. At that time, they may do the terry search for any weapon. if they do not have reasonable suspicion, then the stop is illegal. in the NYC cases, they did not have RS and they were profiling.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I am not backpedaling. I even stated reasonable suspicion. your insistence at hanging on to wordage clearly shows you to be one of those law and order cop supporting conservatives.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are. You said stopping someone who has not committed a crime is illegal. Proven to be false.

Please show me where you said "reasonable suspicion."
 
Taft2016 said:
Yeah, you are. You said stopping someone who has not committed a crime is illegal. Proven to be false.

Please show me where you said "reasonable suspicion."
Click to expand...

has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime = has not committed a crime. semantics.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime = has not committed a crime. semantics.
Click to expand...

No, that was the ruling of the US Supreme Court. Paraphrased; "if a police officer reasonably suspects a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime..."

Not semantics. That's called "case law."
 
Hell, don't take my word for it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime
Click to expand...

Yeah. Semantics. :rolleyes:
 
you should stop using wikipedia for important shit like law. the ONLY reason the search can be done (and the only thing that can be searched for) is any weapon within reach of the subject for officer safety. if in the course of the terry stop a bag of drugs is found, it cannot be cause for arrest.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you should stop using wikipedia for important shit like law. the ONLY reason the search can be done (and the only thing that can be searched for) is any weapon within reach of the subject for officer safety. if in the course of the terry stop a bag of drugs is found, it cannot be cause for arrest.
Click to expand...

That only applies to the search, Jethro. Not the stop. The stopping and questioning can be made on reasonable suspicion.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i suggest, very strongly, that you re-read the opinion because you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Not at all. A frisk under reasonable suspicion is not authorized unless the officer has an articulable suspicion that the suspect may have a weapon.

If no weapon is suspected, the suspect may still be stopped and questioned to investigate the suspicions.
 
And this bears out exactly what I just said:

http://www.riddelllaw.com/when-can-police-question-me/

2. A “Terry stop” (a brief investigatory stop)

This second kind of police interaction involves a temporary detention. Not an arrest, but you are not free to walk away. This does require that the police have “reasonable suspicion.” It is not considered a “seizure” but is a temporary stop that is allowed when there is “articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.”

In other words, in some cases, the police can stop someone for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior — even when there is no probable cause to make an arrest.

This doctrine allows police to act when they think a crime is about to happen — they don’t have to sit back and wait until they have probable cause to arrest. What’s more, the police are even allowed to pat you down if they have a “reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety” before frisking. But in order to do a pat down, the police must have specific facts that they say make them afraid you might have a weapon — they can’t just say they had a hunch.

The test to figure out whether a stop is a “seizure” (a Terry stop) or just a voluntary consensual stop considers several factors:

◦Was there a threatening presence of several officers?
◦Did the officer display a weapon?
◦Did the officer touch the person?
◦Did the officer’s language or tone of voice indicate that the person was required to answer?
◦DId the officers approach the person in a non-public place?
◦Did the officers block the person’s path?
If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes”, then the officers must prove they had reasonable suspicion for the stop. If not, the stop is invalid and whatever happened next could be thrown out of court.
Click to expand...

Essentially, if the police suspect you are trying to jimmy open a car door with some kind of master key, they can stop and ask what the heck you're doing. But to pat you down for a weapon they'd have to be able to articulate some sort of reason for doing so, otherwise any weapon recovered would be inadmissable in court.
 
Taft2016 said:
Yeah, you might want to read something for a change. There's nothing illegal about that, it's done all over the country, not just New York City, and the US Supreme Court has approved it.
Click to expand...
WTF are you on about now idiot? How does "secure in their persons.... from unreasonable searches" not prevent stop and frisk?
 
Taft2016 said:
And this bears out exactly what I just said:

http://www.riddelllaw.com/when-can-police-question-me/






Essentially, if the police suspect you are trying to jimmy open a car door with some kind of master key, they can stop and ask what the heck you're doing. But to pat you down for a weapon they'd have to be able to articulate some sort of reason for doing so, otherwise any weapon recovered would be inadmissable in court.
Click to expand...

Yet that wasn't was what was happening during a stop and frisk in NYC under Bloomberg was it, RWAPOS?
 
It's kind of amazing how people wring their hands about Stop and Frisk in NYC (btw: a deliberate and calculated misnomer since the paperwork involved is called "Stop, QUESTION, & Frisk)... and yet know nothing about Terry v. Ohio, a US Supreme Court decision nearly 50 years old.

The reason the NYPD directed that paperwork be prepared for each SQ&F is that NYC is a liberal city, and they wanted to ensure that no abuse of police authority, racial profiling, etc., was going on. The piece of paperwork involved was instituted shortly after Terry v. Ohio. A SQ&F encounter can be a stop, a questioning, or a frisking, or any combination of one or more. Another piece of misinformation is that every encounter involved a frisking. Most police departments do not track stops the way the NYPD does, and certainly none have the degree of oversight the NYPD does.

A brief history: The first search and seizure case did not get to the US Supreme Court until 1913. Prior to that, ANY search and seizure by law enforcement was considered reasonable and Constitutional. And even that 1913 decision only restricted FEDERAL law enforcement, it wasn't until decades later that restrictions were put in place against local law enforcement.

So when alleged conservatives align themselves with these decisions as "originalist".... it's a crock. Such a position would have to assume that the original intent of the 4th Amendment went ignored for over 100 years, until "originalists" like Hugo Black and Thurgood Marshall came along to recognize the original intent of the Constitution.

Idiotic.

As for NYC and the NYPD, they were not doing anything every other police department in the country does. The liberals targeted the NYPD for two reasons:

1. The Police Commissioner at the time was a favored candidate for the mayor's position

2. The paperwork prepared (and not done by most other police departments) made it convenient to distort statistics. In a neighborhood of 30,000 people, such as Bedford-Stuyvesant, where 98% of the population is minority, they could pull the reports and say "Gasp! 97% of the stops done in this neighborhood were of minorities!"

This is the truth, this is the law, this is what happened. But please, carry on with the liberal and faux conservative idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top