Stop and Frisk

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Again.  Hypothetically it happens to all white people. Can your brain do hypothetical?

It's not about me, Maddog.  Perhaps you feel insecure in your argument and you are angry at me for pointing out its weakness?  Concentrate.

Stop and frisk, without the racial component, is just a policeman doing his job.  Under Terry v. Ohio, a stop and frisk is legal when there is reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity:

Wiki wrote:Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a 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 and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." [italics added

Reasonable suspicion is the test, somewhat short of (less than) probable cause.  Where the problem arose is where, repeatedly, the suspect turned out to be black (in the southwest, Hispanic).  Stop and frisk turned out to be profiling: stopping and frisking merely because a person was black.  The reasonable suspicion turned out to be the skin color of the suspect.

Cops are supposed to be looking out for genuine criminal activity, not engaging in racial hatred.  In addition to racism, it turns out to be a dereliction of duty.  A cop is rousting a black on one block, when an actual crime is taking place on the next.  

Maddog wrote:Your opinion about stop and frisk is not about you?

Whom should I ask about your opinion?

Maddog wrote:BTW, you're wrong again. Stop and frisk doesn't need reasonable suspicion.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Your opinion about stop and frisk is not about you?

Whom should I ask about your opinion?

My opinion is about the Supreme Court opinion.

Maddog wrote:BTW, you're wrong again. Stop and frisk doesn't need reasonable suspicion.

Yes it does.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

My opinion is about the Supreme Court opinion.



Yes it does.

Dude, stop and frisk is stopping and frisking someone when you can't articulate what crime they are committing.  That's why most places never did it.  It occurred without reasonable suspicion.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Dude, stop and frisk is stopping and frisking someone when you can't articulate what crime they are committing.  That's why most places never did it.  It occurred without reasonable suspicion.  

That's only half the problem.  If the police didn't have an ulterior motive, it would make no sense for them to put forth the effort.

Cops don't roust people from Beverly Hills.  They only roust the poor and blacks.  As cops tried legitimize ethnic profiling, people said, hey, that's racism.  From that point it became a discrimination problem.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's only half the problem.  If the police didn't have an ulterior motive, it would make no sense for them to put forth the effort.

Cops don't roust people from Beverly Hills.  They only roust the poor and blacks.  As cops tried legitimize ethnic profiling, people said, hey, that's racism.  From that point it became a discrimination problem.

Dude, stop and frisk is stopping and frisking someone when you can't articulate what crime they are committing.

Maddog wrote:That's why most places never did it.  It occurred without reasonable suspicion.

HuffPost Blog wrote:How the Supreme Court Authorized Racial Profiling

By Gunar Olsen

After the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s dismantled explicitly racist laws, racism became colorblind to survive. Today, although no law explicitly allows for racial profiling by law enforcement, it still happens at an institutional level. What’s often left out of the discussion about why racial profiling happens is that the highest court in the country has approved it ‒ in more than one case.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

The Supreme Court’s first step to sanction racial profiling was Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), an 8-1 ruling that developed the “reasonable suspicion” standard (also known as the “stop-and-frisk” rule). The Court, whose opinion was delivered by the usually astute Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable searches and seizures” is not violated when a police officer has “reasonable suspicion” “in light of his experience” that a crime has been committed. By opening the door to greater law enforcement discretion with respect to whom to stop and search, the Supreme Court in Terry gave its first approval of racial profiling.

Several studies show that police officers perceive young black boys as violent and older than they actually are. One study from 2007 found that officers display a “robust racial bias in response speed” in a simulated shooting exercise of black and white targets. So when police officers are given greater discretion “in light of their experience” as Terry offered them, it’s no surprise that they disproportionately target black people. (That’s in addition to police departments institutionally over-policing poor communities of color compared to their presence in white communities.)

Since Terry, police departments ‒ and the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts ‒ have interpreted Warren’s decision as carte blanche for police officers, so much so that UNLV constitutional law professor Thomas B. McAffee described Terry‘s long-term impact on the Fourth Amendment as “truly disastrous.” “The Terry stop-and-frisk doctrine has lent itself too readily to supporting law enforcement efforts rooted in stereotypical generalizations and racial profiling,” he wrote in the Nevada Law Journal.

* * * *
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gunar-olsen/how-the-supreme-court-aut_b_9061838.html

Maddog wrote:A Terry stop is different than stop and frisk.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:A Terry stop is different than stop and frisk.  

How?

Legal Information Institute wrote:Terry Stop / Stop and Frisk

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing.  A Terry stop is a seizure within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.

In a traffic stop setting, the Terry condition of a lawful investigatory stop is met whenever it is lawful for the police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation.  The police do not need to believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity.

In a recent case, Floyd v. City of New York 813 F. Supp.2d 417 (2011), the court held the New York stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourth Amendment because it rendered stop and frisks more frequent for blacks and Hispanics.

Relevant reading:

Terry v. Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

wex: criminal law and procedure

Original Quill wrote:I asked you 'HOW' the stop and frisk differs from a Terry stop, and you tell me only that one "happens every day" whereas the other happens in New York City.  That's not even a mutually exclusive distinction.

First, there is no distinction between a 'stop and frisk' and a 'Terry stop'.  The latter was the name given to the procedure after the S.Ct. articulated its legitimacy in Terry v. Ohio.  The LII puts it this way:

Legal Information Institute wrote:Terry Stop / Stop and Frisk

A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. When a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down search of outer clothing.  A Terry stop is a seizure within the meaning of Fourth Amendment.

In a traffic stop setting, the Terry condition of a lawful investigatory stop is met whenever it is lawful for the police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation.  The police do not need to believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity.

In a recent case, Floyd v. City of New York 813 F. Supp.2d 417 (2011), the court held the New York stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourth Amendment because it rendered stop and frisks more frequent for blacks and Hispanics.

Relevant reading:

Terry v. Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

wex: criminal law and procedure

Second, after the S.Ct. legitimized the Terry stop, a derivative problem arose in that police confused reasonable suspicion with racial profiling.  That's what is wrong with a Terry stop, as raised in the Floyd v. City of New York, mentioned above.

The problem with the Terry stop is it permits racial discrimination as reasonable suspicion.  Read the HuffPost article I posted above.  It explains it all.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gunar-olsen/how-the-supreme-court-aut_b_9061838.html

LII wrote:A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio.

Maddog wrote:I don't know how else to explain it to you.

Original Quill wrote:

LII wrote:A terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name was generated from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio.

It can't be more clear than that.  I've asked you to articulate the difference so as to see where you are coming from.  But you stop short of explaining.

Maddog wrote:I don't know how else to explain it to you.

You could start by articulating the difference between them that you claim.  But you just keep repeating your conclusion.  You won't defer to the authority.  You don't read the clear language in the case.  You won't explain your reasoning.

If you can't or won't back up your own claim, I guess I'll ignore it too.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It can't be more clear than that.  I've asked you to articulate the difference so as to see where you are coming from.  But you stop short of explaining.



You could start by articulating the difference between them that you claim.  But you just keep repeating your conclusion.  You won't defer to the authority.  You don't read the clear language in the case.  You won't explain your reasoning.

If you can't or won't back up your own claim, I guess I'll ignore it too.

You don't want to understand.