What does ATOT think about stop and frisk?

[Pulsar]

We can't stop and frisk anyone who is out walking around without probable cause. We can ask anyone for an ID, since its a state law that everyone has an ID on them at all times out in public. If they dont have one, then we can get their name/dob and run them on records to see a picture if it matches up. If they refuse to give name/dob then their night just got a lot worse. They're cuffed until we can prove who they are. And when cuffed, they get a "Terry pat", for their protection and mine.

And where are you a cop at? Because it's completely ILLEGAL to demand people produce identification without probable cause. You're either not a cop, a liar, or a very misled cop who doesn't know the rules.

 

[Zenmervolt]

We can ask anyone for an ID, since its a state law that everyone has an ID on them at all times out in public. If they dont have one, then we can get their name/dob and run them on records to see a picture if it matches up. If they refuse to give name/dob then their night just got a lot worse. They're cuffed until we can prove who they are. And when cuffed, they get a "Terry pat", for their protection and mine.

What state? Do you have a source for this "law"?

I ask because U.S. Supreme Court precedent pretty clearly establishes that such "stop and identify" laws are void as unconstitutional. If you're truly detaining people for no reason other than failure to identify, your department is exposing itself to substantial risk.

At most, you are permitted to demand identification from persons when you have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S.177 (2004).

Now, a state may require that persons operating motor vehicles carry their driver's license when operating a motor vehicle, but a requirement that all citizens carry an ID at all times is simply not tenable in light of current Supreme Court decisions.

ZV

 

[zinfamous]

Heh, wake up. We DO live in a police state. Any civil rights you may have left need only be "observed" and exercised once you are in custody. Remember, you can be taken into custody for any reason the LEO deems proper at the time. Yes, you may be released later and exonerated, but that matters little at the moment. If anyone doubts this, I can bore you with the story of my son's two-year battle on a false DUI charge that stemmed solely from the judgement of the arresting officers.

I don't think you know what constitutes a police state.



pretty insulting, really, to believe this when perfect examples of such have existed, quite recently, and people today have actually lived through a real police state.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

1) 21 years ago in asstown detroit. got pulled over with three homies in the car. the cop said there were reports of folks making trouble in the hood. they put us against a wall, frisked us, and searched our car for a long time since dumbass friend carried bullets with him like a dumbass. no gun.

2) 11 years ago close to asstown Detroit on freeway. some fvcker cuts me off. i then cut him off. he called the cops and falsely reported that i had a gun. black car, tinted windows. thatwas me. its weird, the truckers on the road must have gotten a radio message and they kept trying to block me in or cut me off. 10 minutes later 6 or 7 squad cars pull me over. guns pointed at me. i wasnt scared but was like wtf. hands behind the head and kneeled on the side of the freeway. humiliating. they cuffed me, searched my car, and found nothing. i asked why they believed a fvxker that called that lie in. their response? he said he was a doctor and they believed him over me :\ they threatened to throw me un jail if i didnt just shut up and leave town. i just shrugged it off as i didnt know the law well.

fvckng copholes.

For some reason, when I read this Will Smith's 'The Fresh Prince Of Bel Air' tune pops into my head.

Also, first one that makes the call in to the cops wins.

 

[SlitheryDee]

All I'm hearing is that they caught 81,000 criminals. Good work boys.

 

[halik]

They cannot choose "randomly." In order to perform a Terry stop, officers must have specific and articulable facts that reasonably warrant the stop. Without specific and articulable facts which reasonably warrant the stop, it is a violation of a person's 4th Amendment rights under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).



Yeah... Lethal force definitely is NOT authorized here.



(1) "Officer, am I being detained?"

(2)(a) If the answer is no: "Thank you for you time, Officer, and have a good evening." [I walk away.]

(2)(b) If the answer is yes: "Please articulate the facts which reasonably warrant this stop."

(3)(a) If the officer cannot articulate such facts: "Without articulable facts which reasonably warrant this stop, you are violating the 4th Amendment under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio. Should you continue this search I will file against the city for violation of my 4th Amendment rights."

(3)(b) If the officer can articulate such facts: [I allow the search to run its course satisfied that the applicable requirements are met and that no law is being violated.]

ZV

This. The stop and identify statues are only in a handful of states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

 

[halik]

whoa whoa whoa...

stop

right

there.

Fraudian slip ROFLs pending.

 

[halik]

And where are you a cop at? Because it's completely ILLEGAL to demand people produce identification without probable cause. You're either not a cop, a liar, or a very misled cop who doesn't know the rules.

He's probably talking about pulling people over while driving, rather than stopping people on the street.

 

[Zenmervolt]

This. The stop and identify statues are only in a handful of states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Even with stop and identify, there are very limited circumstances in which an officer can detain a person for identification. Note that those statutes still require reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be committed (or, in certain cases, that a crime has been witnessed); the police still cannot just stop anyone for identification without a reason.

ZV

 

[jlee]

We can't stop and frisk anyone who is out walking around without probable cause. We can ask anyone for an ID, since its a state law that everyone has an ID on them at all times out in public. If they dont have one, then we can get their name/dob and run them on records to see a picture if it matches up. If they refuse to give name/dob then their night just got a lot worse. They're cuffed until we can prove who they are. And when cuffed, they get a "Terry pat", for their protection and mine.

You can approach anyone and ask for an ID, but in which state is there a legal obligation for someone who is not suspected of a crime to show identification upon request?

If you walked up to me for no reason, asked for ID, and then cuffed me while you figured out who I was, your Chief and I would be having a chat.

We cant pull over any car with probable cause either. But there are many reasons to do so, such as, no tag light, broken tail light, head light out, leaving a car running unattended, no mud flaps (on certain vehicles), a bumper too high, not using a turn signal, broken windshield, etc. There are so many reasons you can pull a car over if you want. If you think something is going on, or that they are up to no good, you can almost always pull a car over. However, if there is nothing wrong, and there is no probable cause, we cant do anything. In my beat, most people dont have one (or more) of the three state required things to have to drive, a) valid license, b) insurance, and c) registration that is up to date. 90% of the people I pull over are black, but thats because 90% of the people who live in my beat are black. Its all projects and crappy housing. You get a feel for who has everything, and who doesnt. Sometimes you get surprised though.

You don't need probable cause to stop a vehicle - you need reasonable suspicion. You're an LEO..where, exactly?

 

[HAL9000]

Why is that a bad thing? The police cannot search you without probable cause.

So instead of saying "I'm searching you for no reason" they have to say "I'm searching you because you match the description of x" or "I'm searching you because of x" Do you think it's really really hard to come up with "probably cause"?

 

[jlee]

So instead of saying "I'm searching you for no reason" they have to say "I'm searching you because you match the description of x" or "I'm searching you because of x" Do you think it's really really hard to come up with "probably cause"?

I'll assume you meant "probable cause." Is it hard to come up with if there's a reason you're stopping someone? Not at all. Is it hard to come up with if you just have a hunch with nothing to go on? Yes - you can't get probable cause out of a hunch.

Someone can/will be searched after they are placed under arrest. Someone may be searched if s/he gives consent. Someone may be searched during a Terry stop, but that is a search for weapons during an investigative detention and still requires articulable suspicion for the stop.

 

[TallBill]

..

 

[HAL9000]

I'll assume you meant "probable cause." Is it hard to come up with if there's a reason you're stopping someone? Not at all. Is it hard to come up with if you just have a hunch with nothing to go on? Yes - you can't get probable cause out of a hunch.

I'd could easily argue that my hunches are probably cause, I just wouldn't cause them hunches.

[QUOTE}
Someone can/will be searched after they are placed under arrest. Someone may be searched if s/he gives consent. Someone may be searched during a Terry stop, but that is a search for weapons during an investigative detention and still requires articulable suspicion for the stop.[/QUOTE]

.

 

[HAL9000]

..

You're back!

 

[mcmilljb]

I'll consent if I get the chick from Unforgettable to do the frisking!

 

[jlee]

I'd could easily argue that my hunches are probably cause, I just wouldn't cause them hunches.

Can I get a definition of probably cause?

 

[mcmilljb]

Can I get a definition of probably cause?

He lives in a nanny police state called the UK so his probable cause is whatever he wants it to be.

 

[HAL9000]

Can I get a definition of probably cause?

Sure:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:+probable+cause

He lives in a nanny police state called the UK so his probable cause is whatever he wants it to be.

It's definitely open to interpretation the world over.

Also, you say nanny state I say has a proper welfare system, you say police state I say... not a police state.

 

[SandEagle]

Can I get a definition of probably cause?

as an officer of the law, you should know what probable cause is. unless, they changed the training to shoot first, ask questions later? :sneaky:

 

[jlee]

He lives in a nanny police state called the UK so his probable cause is whatever he wants it to be.

It does seem that way.

I'd could easily argue that my hunches are probably cause

as an officer of the law, you should know what probable cause is. unless, they changed the training to shoot first, ask questions later? :sneaky:

As an epic troll, you should have more attention to detail.

probably cause

 

[pontifex]

If the question is do I think the police should be polite about how they conduct these searches, then obviously the answer is yes.

Should you have a choice? No.

wow...you just take everything you the ass don't you? They really have you guys brainwashed over there, huh?

This is ridiculous and HAS to be against some constitutional right.

 

[HAL9000]

It does seem that way.




As an epic troll, you should have more attention to detail.

I'm not hugely concerned with my spilling.

wow...you just take everything you the ass don't you? They really have you guys brainwashed over there, huh?

This is ridiculous and HAS to be against some constitutional right.

Just a selection of rhetorical questions? Fair enough, nothing for me to respond to then....

 

[jlee]

I'm not hugely concerned with my spilling.



Just a selection of rhetorical questions? Fair enough, nothing for me to respond to then....

Still waiting for a (your) definition of probable cause.

 

[HAL9000]

Still waiting for a (your) definition of probable cause.

Mine matches the Google definition.