stop and frisk in philadelphia? yay or nay?

[cburwell]

Being a harmless looking white male, I wouldn't mind this policy. Hell even if I got stopped and frisked, I wouldn't mind at least they are trying to make a difference.

[PotenzaSub]

and this is why the Bill of Rights was created.

[BradC]

Originally Posted by S4toSTI

This will just end up being more harassment for legal gun owners like myself. I guess it is all for the greater good but at what cost to our civil liberties of privacy. I think this is nothing but the government showing its control over us and saying it can do what it wants in attempts to belittle the constitution. In my mind a frisk is a search period and that is usually protected by illegal search and seizure but hey they are the government they can do what they want. Too many people are quick to say well it will make us safer, no it won't it will make us more like a public that is bullied and harassed by our government and its officials. This may seem radical to some but where does it stop? Next it will be searches of your house cause a policeman happens to be walking by and thinks something may be not right. I am all for being safe and for the government making our way of life safer but i am not willing to give up my rights for that. Too many people have died for this countries freedoms for those freedoms to be washed down the toilet.
I am sure someone will quote this saying i am stupid or something similar but i am not going to be petty i will only respond to logical arguments.

Originally Posted by potenzasub

and this is why the Bill of Rights was created.

Agree with both.

Picture this, a foot patrol officer comes up and stops you. You inform him before being frisked that you have an LTCF and are carrying concealed. What does the cop do then? Does he disarm you and continue to frisk? Or does he draw down on me while calling in for backup? Where is my sidearm now that he/she disarmed me? Does his partner have it? Did I have to wait around for backup to arrive because I was exercising my rights?

Where is the line? I can see how a stop and frisk makes sense, and how it could help things out.

Conversely, I can also see this being a stepping stone for the removal of more of our personal freedoms...so where do you draw that line?

As Ray said earlier (think it was him), give them an inch...

[mostasteless]

It seems to me that quite a few people are unaware so I will just post a friendly reminder.

* Fourth Amendment *
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[ThePrimerSuspect]

i dont believe they can actually randomly stop you and frisk you. however, if they stop you and you have no license, prior convictions, they smell weed or alcohol, or you fit the description of someone who did something, then they can. and if you didnt do anything wrong, let them do their job and you'll be on your way. that has always been my perspective on things. i grew up in a family full of cops, they dont scare me. not to mention that, for the most part, if i dont know them they usually know me. you have to see things from the cops point of view. the murder rate is through the roof, and everyone expects the police to fix it. the problem is that in order to fix it, some peoples rights are going to be violated. thats just the way it is. if a cop performs a stop and frisk on a black man and finds an illegal gun, you never hear about it. but if he does it and finds nothing, then its a violation of his rights. and all of a sudden all the civil rights activists are involved, and they take the focus away from the real issue which is getting these piece of **** criminals off the street.

remember like 8 or so years ago when the guy robbed an old lady at pathmark in the northeast and stole her car, then led the police on a chase through the city and ended in north philly with the scumbag high on crack fighting with the police? anyone remember how it went down? the news chopper caught the cops beating the **** out of this asshole in the street, all the while he was fighting back, and then when he got processed, he played the race card. last i remember hearing he had a multi-million dollar suit against the city for excessive force and other **** like that, and everyone seemed to loose sight of the whole reason why force was necessary. he beat up and robbed an old lady, stole her money and car, and led a chase through the city. now i ask you, if the cops had stopped and frisked him, and found him in possession of crack, would any of this have happened?

[Vypurr]

The courts say that a Terry Frisk is ok, but I do not believe that this should be legal. Its my legal right to not be questioned and searched without a warrent unless 1 or a couple conditions are met...Those would be...

1) Reasonable suspicion
- I am shaking, studdering, looking around like i am hiding something, clearly impared, or acting suspicious
2) They spot something from outside the car
- They see a gun/drugs/open alcohol in the car
3) I am acting in a way which puts the officer in danger.

If I am not doing any of these, then I should have the right to my privacy..

Here's a couple good relevant reads for everyone

The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause.184 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.185 In Terry v. Ohio,186 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved "patting down" the subject of the investigation for weapons.

The case arose when a police officer observed three individuals engaging in conduct which appeared to him, on the basis of training and experience, to be the "casing" of a store for a likely armed robbery; upon approaching the men, identifying himself, and not receiving prompt identification, the officer seized one of the men, patted the exterior of his clothes, and discovered a gun. Chief Justice Warren for the Court wrote that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the situation, applicable "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away."187 Since the warrant clause is necessarily and practically of no application to the type of on-the-street encounter present in Terry, the Chief Justice continued, the question was whether the policeman's actions were reasonable. The test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police officer can point to "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts," would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a "frisk" was required.188 Inasmuch as the conduct witnessed by the policeman reasonably led him to believe that an armed robbery was in prospect, he was as reasonably led to believe that the men were armed and probably dangerous and that his safety required a "frisk." Because the object of the "frisk" is the discovery of dangerous weapons, "it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer."189 In a later case, the Court held that an officer may seize an object if, in the course of a weapons frisk, "plain touch" reveals presence of an object that the officer has probable cause to believe is contraband, the officer may seize that object.190 The Court viewed the situation as analogous to that covered by the "plain view" doctrine: obvious contraband may be seized, but a search may not be expanded to determine whether an object is contraband.191 Also impermissible is physical manipulation, without reasonable suspicion, of a bus passenger's carry-on luggage stored in an overhead compartment.

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

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/a...and-frisk.html