What does ATOT think about stop and frisk?

[jlee]

Mine matches the Google definition.

Google is a search engine, not a dictionary. Stop being obtuse.

 

[preslove]

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

None of this matters. These stops are completely illegal. NY decriminalized pot a while ago, except when the pot is out in the open. So, if you have pot in your pocket, you are doing nothing illegal. But, when the cops stop you and force you to empty your pockets, low and behold the marijuana is in public.

The cops are just doing this to increase arrest statistics.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2011...-50383-new-yorkers-arrested-possessing-small-
http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/new-york-citys-marijuana-arrest-crusadecontinues

Anyone who supports this type of police behavior is a fascist piece of filth.

 

[preslove]

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

It's not illegal to posses marijuana in NYC. It's only illegal to have it out in the open. You are a disgusting little toad.

 

[amdhunter]

It's not illegal to posses marijuana in NYC. It's only illegal to have it out in the open. You are a disgusting little toad.

Eh? It's not?
Then why did that kid lose his life by the police who illegally raided his home?

 

[HAL9000]

Google is a search engine, not a dictionary. Stop being obtuse.

Click on this and see what pops up.


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


I'd have called it a definition at the top there, Google's definition in fact.

 

[preslove]

Eh? It's not?
Then why did that kid lose his life by the police who illegally raided his home?

It's still illegal to sell. But, possession of small amounts of marijuana has been decriminalized since 1977 as long as it isn't 'in public view.'

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/24/ray_kelly_to_nypd_marijuana_is_decr.php

Of course, the filth that is vacuuming up minority young men into the criminal justice system just force brown men to empty their pockets and the weed is suddenly 'in public.'

 

[jlee]

I want a definition, not a synonym. What constitutes probable cause?

Or, what fact(s), circumstance(s), situation(s), person(s), state(s) of mind, etc. must be present in order to constitute probable cause?

 

[jhansman]

To re-emphasize my earlier point, there are likely hundreds (if not thousands) of people in jails in this country right now who got there because the arresting officer made the choice to take the person into custody. Many of these people have access only to a public defender (whose case loads are massive) and cannot afford bail, or a private attorney. So, they sit in jail, waiting their turn before a judge while the DA's office tries to triage its caseload. Keep in mind that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

 

[Zenmervolt]

It's not illegal to posses marijuana in NYC. It's only illegal to have it out in the open. You are a disgusting little toad.

Sorry, but regardless of what NY state law says, Federal laws dominate the field and are controlling. NY can say that marijuana is "legal" all it wants, but that doesn't make even the tiniest bit of difference because Federal law still says it's illegal.

When state and Federal laws directly conflict, Federal law wins. You may not like it in all situations (I certainly don't), but that's how it works.

ZV

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i feel strongly this is unconstitutional

not sure our politicians or voters know what that means though

 

[Zenmervolt]

Click on this and see what pops up.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+probable+cause

I'd have called it a definition at the top there, Google's definition in fact.

You have a couple of problems with this.

(1) As has been pointed out, that's really more an attempt at providing a synonym, not a "definition" in the strict sense of the terms.

(2) Even as a synonym, it's wrong.

See, in the US legal system there are two standards, "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." "Probable cause" is much more difficult to reach, yet the purported "definition" you offer is clearly conflating the two separate standards.

If we turn to something that's actually, you know, authoritative (like, say, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition we see a more well-fleshed-out definition. "A set of probabilities grounded in the factual and practical considerations which govern the decisions of reasonable and prudent persons and is more than mere suspicion but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction."

The take-away here is that "probable cause," just as the name suggests, requires that the probabilities support the assumption of criminal activity. "Reasonable suspicion," however, does not require that criminal activity be more probable than not, only that an inference of criminal activity is plausible.

ZV

 

[jlee]

To re-emphasize my earlier point, there are likely hundreds (if not thousands) of people in jails in this country right now who got there because the arresting officer made the choice to take the person into custody. Many of these people have access only to a public defender (whose case loads are massive) and cannot afford bail, or a private attorney. So, they sit in jail, waiting their turn before a judge while the DA's office tries to triage its caseload. Keep in mind that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

Strictly speaking, I think just about everyone that's in jail got there because the arresting officer made the choice to take the person into custody.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Keep in mind that the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

Given the fact that there is widespread disagreement over how to interpret many sections of the U.S. Constitution, can you suggest a better way to interpret the document that does not simply boil down to "my own reading is the only correct one"?

I'm not saying that the USSC always gets the reading I agree with, but as a practical matter the buck has to stop somewhere and there needs to be some agency charged with providing at least a quasi-definitive reading of the constitution.

ZV

 

[Phoenix86]

If we turn to something that's actually, you know, authoritative (like, say, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition we see a more well-fleshed-out definition.
ZV

So much for separate but equal.

 

[HAL9000]

You have a couple of problems with this.

(1) As has been pointed out, that's really more an attempt at providing a synonym, not a "definition" in the strict sense of the terms.

(2) Even as a synonym, it's wrong.

See, in the US legal system there are two standards, "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." "Probable cause" is much more difficult to reach, yet the purported "definition" you offer is clearly conflating the two separate standards.

If we turn to something that's actually, you know, authoritative (like, say, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition we see a more well-fleshed-out definition. "A set of probabilities grounded in the factual and practical considerations which govern the decisions of reasonable and prudent persons and is more than mere suspicion but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction."

The take-away here is that "probable cause," just as the name suggests, requires that the probabilities support the assumption of criminal activity. "Reasonable suspicion," however, does not require that criminal activity be more probable than not, only that an inference of criminal activity is plausible.

ZV

I agree that the definition I posted is just a synonym, however when I think about probable cause that's what I think.

You may want to take this issue to Google.

 

[Pulsar]

Curious that our so-called cop Ackmed hasn't returned to this thread. I wonder.... perhaps I'll go poke him in another thread he's posting in and ask him why he ran away when about a dozen people called his lie.

 

[preslove]

Sorry, but regardless of what NY state law says, Federal laws dominate the field and are controlling. NY can say that marijuana is "legal" all it wants, but that doesn't make even the tiniest bit of difference because Federal law still says it's illegal.

When state and Federal laws directly conflict, Federal law wins. You may not like it in all situations (I certainly don't), but that's how it works.

ZV

Uh... the police are local cops, not federal agents. They're enforcing NYC laws. But, they're going against the spirit of the law.

 

[rudeguy]

Curious that our so-called cop Ackmed hasn't returned to this thread. I wonder.... perhaps I'll go poke him in another thread he's posting in and ask him why he ran away when about a dozen people called his lie.

Atot really needs a poke button

 

[Zenmervolt]

Uh... the police are local cops, not federal agents. They're enforcing NYC laws. But, they're going against the spirit of the law.

(1) Possession of marijuana is actually regulated by New York State law (NY CLS Penal § 221.05), not NYC local law.

(2) Even though it is classed as a "violation" and not a "crime," an officer may still legitimately stop a person upon reasonable suspicion that the violation is occurring. If officers could not detain people for violations, no traffic stops could ever take place.

(3) Local officers are not limited to only local laws; otherwise local police would, in most cases (New York City included), be unable to arrest people for murder since murder is typically a state offense, not a local one.

ZV