Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott - Page 11
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 114

Thread: Police right in shooting Keith Lamont Scott

  1. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Have you ever actually read the Fourth Amendment?



    Have you ever actually read the Fourth Amendment?



    I'm shocked I tell's ya, simply shocked that a cop would advocate submission over standing for one's rights. There are those of us out here who both know our rights and the law that you are supposed to operate under, and we have researched and know your own department policy on the most commonly-violated issues you are likely to contact us about to boot. But as is beyond common, your attitude is that a cop's authority is never to be questioned. You have been trained to believe that the citizen is responsible for acquiescing all his liberties to you, and if there's ever a question, it is the citizen who must take it to court and prove that s/he should've never been harassed by you in the first place. Even if your subject has the law and department policy printed out for just such an occasion as them being illegally harassed, most cops won't even read it, and their questioning will result in exactly what you describe as "...something that it was not going to be." If we're still talking about S&F, it is always, 100% of the time, exactly what the harassed person thought it was going to be - that is - illegal harassment without a shred of RAS or PC. And you would be perfectly comfortable with statistics garnered from such illegal police-state tactics as to couch it as, "...just good police work."

    It is because of the ubiquitous nature of that exact attitude amongst LEOs that I would no more cooperate with someone violating my rights than I would volunteer to have them violated, but I repeat myself. The sad thing is that the system never holds the violator of citizens' rights to account, rather, it holds the municipality responsible for recompense to your victims. Getting killed by a cop is not the only way to be victimized by a cop. My rights are tantamount to being my property according to the man who wrote the Constitution.

    "As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is sage in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
    --
    James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

    The state of the police state proves the prescience of Madison in that essay, but it also seems to me to justify resisting cops at the moment they're violating my rights just like I would resist a burglar breaking into my home to steal any other property I might own from me. I'm reasonably certain that I can expect you will see it differently. So be it, but please, at least read the Fourth Amendment before suggesting again that it's "just good police work" for law enforcement to violate it as a matter of course.

    Blues
    "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"

    I do know and have read the fourth amendment and can recite it and have in court on numerous occasions. I have arrested many a college student that also knew his or her rights and a few even brought attorneys with them to court just to be convicted of misdemeanors, like underage consumption, possession of false ID's or drunkenness.

    It is plain to me and everyone else on this link that you are bias against the police and believe that police are just out to get you. At least that is how you come off. Cops don't start their day or let's say shift, with the mind set of "I think today I'm going to violate someone's rights today. Or I think I will go and harass someone today. No, some shifts start off boring if you are lucky, but most of the time in the city you can't even finish roll call before you are called to the Walmart to arrest a shop lifter or respond to an MVC. Or you are dispatched to a domestic or fight in progress. What do you think would happen if there were no one around to call for help during a crisis.

    It is easy to say that all Cops are bullies or corrupt until you need one.

    How about we agree that a small number of cops are bad or prone to be more aggressive than some believe is necessary. Also that cops have the same human responses to negative attitudes as any other Type A personally as the civilians they are sworn to protect. It is my experience that if an officer stops me and asks for ID I just give it to them. The most of the states that I have lived in the State's ID belonged to the state that issues it. Therefore why would I not relinquish it. To do otherwise is to escalate the issue instead of deescalate it. Think of it this way, you ask someone to leave your property and they refuse. Now what do you do, what do you have the right to do?

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  2.   
  3. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    . . .
    I'm shocked I tell's ya, simply shocked that a cop would advocate submission over standing for one's rights. There are those of us out here who both know our rights and the law that you are supposed to operate under, and we have researched and know your own department policy on the most commonly-violated issues you are likely to contact us about to boot. But as is beyond common, your attitude is that a cop's authority is never to be questioned. You have been trained to believe that the citizen is responsible for acquiescing all his liberties to you, and if there's ever a question, it is the citizen who must take it to court and prove that s/he should've never been harassed by you in the first place. Even if your subject has the law and department policy printed out for just such an occasion as them being illegally harassed, most cops won't even read it, and their questioning will result in exactly what you describe as "...something that it was not going to be." If we're still talking about S&F, it is always, 100% of the time, exactly what the harassed person thought it was going to be - that is - illegal harassment without a shred of RAS or PC. And you would be perfectly comfortable with statistics garnered from such illegal police-state tactics as to couch it as, "...just good police work."

    It is because of the ubiquitous nature of that exact attitude amongst LEOs that I would no more cooperate with someone violating my rights than I would volunteer to have them violated, but I repeat myself. The sad thing is that the system never holds the violator of citizens' rights to account, rather, it holds the municipality responsible for recompense to your victims. Getting killed by a cop is not the only way to be victimized by a cop. My rights are tantamount to being my property according to the man who wrote the Constitution.

    "As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is sage in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
    --
    James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

    The state of the police state proves the prescience of Madison in that essay, but it also seems to me to justify resisting cops at the moment they're violating my rights just like I would resist a burglar breaking into my home to steal any other property I might own from me. I'm reasonably certain that I can expect you will see it differently. So be it, but please, at least read the Fourth Amendment before suggesting again that it's "just good police work" for law enforcement to violate it as a matter of course.

    Blues
    You may be legally right but are you willing to be dead right? That is, are you saying that you would rather risk physical resistance to an illegal stop or search than to comply at that time and pursue legal recourse later? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your stance correctly.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    You may be legally right but are you willing to be dead right? That is, are you saying that you would rather risk physical resistance to an illegal stop or search than to comply at that time and pursue legal recourse later? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your stance correctly.
    Well said, I have never been one to arrest without a warning on simple misdemeanors. I for one would rather use times like that for teaching. Such as open container, I like to have them poor it out and move along than punish them for having a beer that they are legally allowed to have, just because they are not in or on the premises of the bar. It is when the person acts out or becomes loud and boisterous as the PDC laws states. It's all about the attitudes that are brought to the encounter.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    I live in SC so this interests me but I don't understand this sentence. Can you please explain or rephrase?
    Sorry, I should have read it before I send it. What I was saying is; there are many websites that talk about "Stop and frisk" and it is part of legals training that is required by the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. Every Officer is mandated to watch a 3 to 4 hour video on the Academy Website and documented yearly. The video consists of several scenarios involving people at home, traffic stops, and street contacts. I hope that helps.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  6. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Sorry, I should have read it before I send it. What I was saying is; there are many websites that talk about "Stop and frisk" and it is part of legals training that is required by the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. Every Officer is mandated to watch a 3 to 4 hour video on the Academy Website and documented yearly. The video consists of several scenarios involving people at home, traffic stops, and street contacts. I hope that helps.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Thank you.

  7. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    You may be legally right but are you willing to be dead right? That is, are you saying that you would rather risk physical resistance to an illegal stop or search than to comply at that time and pursue legal recourse later? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your stance correctly.
    Just remember, to the police unions and the fanbois, you're wrong EITHER way.

    If you resist, you're a criminal.

    If you sue, ESPECIALLY if you're Black or Hispanic, it's the "ghetto lottery", even if you were KIDNAPPED as a minor by cops subsequently sent to prison for operating a home invasion, burglary, and kidnapping ring.

    Their attitude toward those wronged, even GRIEVOUSLY wronged by the police, is like that of the head of the Catholic League who exhorted victims of priest child molestation to be "martyrs for the Church".

  8. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Did I say all or most. I already said that I don't believe that the Kinsey shooting was justified. Stop and frisk is not torture by any means. I would not advocate torture ever. Not sure where you thought I would. My comments are based on facts and not speculation. It is my opinion that too much of the time the victims of violence are the ones that need Police to do their jobs. Community policing works only when the community works with the police to solve crime. It is not true that only black people were targets of stop and frisk. They were a [email protected] 83% but were the stops done in a predominantly black neighborhood? You are repeating the same line as the media.
    Your argument could be used to justify ANYTHING, including torture and summary execution. Certainly the South Korean military of the '70s and '80s thought so.

    How well do you think community policing works in the communities that the Chicago PD's SOS home invasion ring "policed"? How about in Abner Louima's or Kathryn Johnston's neighborhoods? Why would ANYBODY in those neighborhoods trust the Chicago PD, NYPD or Atlanta PD? "Community policing" only works when the community DOESN'T have a well founded fear of the police.

    You don't think ***83%*** is a significant figure? Who were the balance, Puerto Ricans? Do you think that makes it look BETTER?

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    I agree that not all police shootings are justified either but I refuse to say that everything I read or see in the media is true.
    Do you believe what the police union spokesman in the Kinsey shooting was true? It's demanded that the public does. Otherwise, in the words of NYPD union official Patrick Lynch, we're "un-American".

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    You sound and write like someone who is very intelligent and educated, but I can't seem to keep from wondering why you believe what the media is telling the world. You don't find it strange that the media ignores all the intercity violence unless police are the shooters. It is almost the same as the combat deaths of American soldiers when deaths by motor vehicles here in the the states were 12 times as great.
    That's Clinton-speak.

    Why can it not BOTH be true that:
    1. Black people kill other Black people at an alarming rate.
    2. Police act outside of the law at an alarming rate.

    How can one justify or nullify the other?

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    I know that I can never convince you of anything because you have already made up your mind. Thing is that you change my way of thinking and showed me one of my biases. Thanks for getting me to think about my personal biases, I challenge you to do the same thing. "That is to say; cops are not an occupation force out to get the black man. If we don't change our thinking we are bound to repeat the past. Ever race on this planet has been a slave of some sort or another. Today it is the people of the intercity, weather they be black, white or hispanic or any other peoples that depends on the government to provide them with sucker. That's economics of socialism at its lowest." Sheriff Clarke made that statement on CNN during the riots in Charlotte, NC.
    I don't know of what you're trying to convince me. I've never said ALL cops are criminals. A lot more are than the police unions and the fanbois want you to believe, and I provide documentation of it. Do you know how I can tell a bad cop before I'm under his control? Me neither. Is there an Android app for that? I treat cops like cluster bomblets lying in a field. I don't walk up and kick them to see what happens. I just avoid them wherever possible. Strangely, my desire to obey the law and avoid the police at all costs enrages certain cops. It's almost as if they're frustrated that I don't create situations where they have power over me.

    You're a relative newcomer here. I despise BOTH the police unions AND Black Lives Matter because they're BOTH sociopaths trying to make their respective constituencies immune from the law to which the rest of us are subject. Patrick Lynch and DeRay McKesson are perfect mirror images of each other.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Your argument could be used to justify ANYTHING, including torture and summary execution. Certainly the South Korean military of the '70s and '80s thought so.

    How well do you think community policing works in the communities that the Chicago PD's SOS home invasion ring "policed"? How about in Abner Louima's or Kathryn Johnston's neighborhoods? Why would ANYBODY in those neighborhoods trust the Chicago PD, NYPD or Atlanta PD? "Community policing" only works when the community DOESN'T have a well founded fear of the police.

    You don't think ***83%*** is a significant figure? Who were the balance, Puerto Ricans? Do you think that makes it look BETTER?


    Do you believe what the police union spokesman in the Kinsey shooting was true? It's demanded that the public does. Otherwise, in the words of NYPD union official Patrick Lynch, we're "un-American".


    That's Clinton-speak.

    Why can it not BOTH be true that:
    1. Black people kill other Black people at an alarming rate.
    2. Police act outside of the law at an alarming rate.

    How can one justify or nullify the other?


    I don't know of what you're trying to convince me. I've never said ALL cops are criminals. A lot more are than the police unions and the fanbois want you to believe, and I provide documentation of it. Do you know how I can tell a bad cop before I'm under his control? Me neither. Is there an Android app for that? I treat cops like cluster bomblets lying in a field. I don't walk up and kick them to see what happens. I just avoid them wherever possible. Strangely, my desire to obey the law and avoid the police at all costs enrages certain cops. It's almost as if they're frustrated that I don't create situations where they have power over me.

    You're a relative newcomer here. I despise BOTH the police unions AND Black Lives Matter because they're BOTH sociopaths trying to make their respective constituencies immune from the law to which the rest of us are subject. Patrick Lynch and DeRay McKesson are perfect mirror images of each other.
    Great than we agree because I would never work as a member of the corrupt unions in the same way that I would not be a politician. Unions had their place at first but now they are worse than the industries they first protected worked from. I don't work in any of the cities the you mentioned and I am considered a Hospitality Officer. I work in the Hospitality district of the city, my primary mission is to ensure the safety and security of the patrons that frequent the area. That said I meet a lot of interesting people in my work.

    I am not one of your ordinary run of the mill jack booted thugs in uniform. I look at a situation as if I were dealing with my own kids and act accordingly. 99% of the time when I interact with the public now the person is put into a cab and sent home. It the people who have the right to remain silent and take the ride home, but don't have the where with all to do so that take a ride the other way. I have never and hope that I never have to use any of the tools on my belt other than hand cuffs. There are some great cops out here and there are some that either should have never been or should not now. Most of the cops that I know would rather do something else than violate someone's rights. Not sure where you live but you might consider moving to a more pleasant spot. Just saying.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  10. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    You may be legally right but are you willing to be dead right? That is, are you saying that you would rather risk physical resistance to an illegal stop or search than to comply at that time and pursue legal recourse later? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your stance correctly.
    At one point while I was writing that post I put "non-violent" in parenthesis in front of "resistance" or a similar word, but apparently when I was rewriting something I wasn't happy with, I forgot to reinsert that parenthetical thought. So no, I'm not talking about physical resistance, I'm talking about resisting the attitude of superiority and all-encompassing authority that cops routinely portray without a shred of RAS or PC as-required in the Constitution and in nearly all state, county and municipal code sections defining both the citizen's and the government's legal roles in any interaction. I mentioned having the laws, statutes and department policies on one's person to demonstrate the actual laws, statutes and policies the LEO is violating. I open carry in a state where it's very rare for anybody to see a non-LEO or non-security guard doing it, so I keep the fairly new statute (from 2013) on me to present to any LEO who either doesn't know the fairly new law, or doesn't care about it and seeks to harass me over my OC'ed weapon in spite of it. I am prepared to defend my rights with the laws, statutes and policies that the LEO is sworn to uphold. That's what I mean. And while even that is no guarantee that they won't escalate to violence, either way, if they don't back off when shown that they're in the wrong, the taxpayers of the jurisdiction that they're illegitimately posing as "law" enforcers in will end up paying for his/her violations of my rights, and that's only the case because cops enjoy qualified immunity from all but the most egregious criminal acts, lest I would sue the cop personally and leave the innocent taxpayers alone. I neither created the system, nor particularly like what it has devolved to, but I do make it a point to know how to use it to my own best interests, which defending my rights is decidedly a part of.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  11. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,761
    I missed that you had replied to this post before, so sorry for the late reply, but here it is....

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Terry stop and stop and frisk are the same thing according to the courts.
    Absolutely not true. Show me a case where this is unequivocally ruled. You can't, because no such case exists. And if Terry and S&F mean the same thing, then why was it necessary for Giuliani or cops or anyone else to rename "Terry stops" to "stop and frisk?" They're different because a Terry-compliant stop has guidelines issued by the Supreme Court that qualifies it as a "Terry stop" when performed according to those guidelines. S&F is named something different because it is different in that there are no federal court rulings that give cops such guidance. S&F could just as easily stand for "Stop and start a Fishing-expedition," because no matter the individual department guidelines a cop on the street might be expected to be observing, in practice, it's nothing but stop for no RAS or PC and frisk to find whatever they find even if it's not a gun or banned knife or brass knuckles - what-the-heck-ever - that's how it works in practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    <...snipped because I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first sentence of your second paragraph...>

    In NYC it is unlawful to carry a concealed weapon without a permit so it is reasonable for a law enforcement officer to "stop and frisk" someone they think might be carrying an illegal gun, don't you think.
    With just the information you give here, no, I absolutely don't think it's "reasonable." A cop can say anybody "might be carrying an illegal gun." Terry stops mandate a 3-prong assessment, and simply *thinking* they might have a gun doesn't fit within that 3-pronged criteria. The 3-pronged assessment mandate is:

    1) A police officer must subjectively believe that a particular person is committing, is about to commit or has just committed a crime and;

    2) The officer must be able to articulate what actions by the subject or sets of circumstances her/his belief is based upon and;

    3) The belief must be objectively reasonable (meaning Jane or Joe Average, knowing what that officer knew at that time, would agree that the person in question was, at the time committing, about to commit or had just committed a crime).
    Everything I put in bold are mandates that must be objectively arrived-at by the cop conducting the S&F.

    In your above quote you neither mention the reasonable, nor the articulable, nor the suspicion parts of a Terry stop, which is perfectly understandable since we're not talking about a Terry stop, but a jurisdiction-sanctioned fishing expedition that has none of those basis as a foundation upon which the cop can legally act under color of law. Terry stops and stop and frisk are different, and no federal court has said otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    The problem is that some cops were using it to check even if they didn't have the RAS or PC.
    No, nearly all of them were acting in that illegal manner. Otherwise, we would be talking about real Terry stops, not S&F.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    That is a problem, and that is what the courts were trying to stop.
    No, that is the problem with S&F (as opposed to "legitimate" Terry stops), and only one district court has made any attempt to rein the illegal practice in. There is only one court that has concerned itself with S&F, so there's no "the courts" involved here at all. Terry is well-settled law. S&F isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    There are lazy people in every job, and far too often good cops look the other way rather than be ostracized by the peers. Is it a problem, yes. How can we fix that? Good question, by having leaders that back their good officers when they come forward instead of making them look bad.
    I see. So the depth of principle that most cops take to the job every day revolves around whether or not their leaders will make 'em look bad if they apply their "principles" while on the job? Isn't that exactly the risk that everyone takes when standing for an unpopular principle? But actually, I mostly agree with you on this score, except I don't think it's that they care one way or the other about looking bad, they care more about not breaking the code of silence that every cop-shop in America has active to a slightly lesser or mostly greater degree.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    I don't believe it can be fixed. Do you? And if you do how?
    No, I don't think it can be fixed either, which is exactly why I never trust cops until after an encounter and I can evaluate whether he/she upheld their oath and respected my rights, or trashed 'em like I believe is the most common occurrence, especially if the subject deigns to go through the motions of trying to get them to recognize that RAS and/or PC are necessary in order for the stop to be legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by trmac2016 View Post
    Yeah, I'm familiar with it. When I cite it though, I don't go to someplace where a private author gives his subjective opinions about it like the link you provide, I go to the ruling itself. Some things your pro-cop-biased link doesn't include in their incomplete analysis are....

    Held:
    1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9.


    2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 12.
    While I don't think they achieved it, SCOTUS was trying to maintain the integrity of the Fourth Amendment while at the same time weakening it by putting caveats about cops' safety over and above the rights of The People to be free from unreasonable searches absent probable cause. The admissibility spoken of in #2 was concerning the attempt by Mr. Terry to have his gun excluded as evidence since it was his contention that the search that revealed the gun was illegal. He lost because his actions leading up to the search were reasonably, articulably and objectively ruled by SCOTUS to have been suspicious. Assuming the facts that SCOTUS relied on throughout the several years of trials and appeals leading to their chambers are stated accurately in the Terry ruling, even I would agree that Terry's actions before the search were suspicious, but the point here is that what SCOTUS authorized from that point forward was solidly contingent upon such "reasonable, articulable suspicion" being present in every single case that might flow from that ruling going forward. The mention of "stop and frisk" within the Terry ruling does not describe the practice that was taking place rampantly in NYC, and to a slightly lesser degree in other jurisdictions. The words themselves are wrapped in quotation marks as a sort of shorthand by SCOTUS to describe the limitations they were subsequently imposing when they said:

    4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.
    "Followed here" means those actions by the cops who eventually arrested Mr. Terry after searching him and finding his gun. Their actions were a rather long, drawn out observation of Terry and an accomplice of casing a place that looked like they were getting ready to rob. Search "stop and frisk" on YouTube and you will find hundreds, if not thousands of instances of cops simply rolling up on one or more citizens standing on the sidewalk and starting a confrontation without having even a second's worth of time to have developed RAS that any criminal activity was afoot by them. As-practiced, S&F is very different than a Terry stop that uses "procedures such as those followed here" in the actual Terry case.

    (a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

    (b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.
    Many of those same YouTube videos show the cops going through pockets, emptying them, and even searching vehicles, all under the rubric of doing a "Terry stop" in ways that the ruling itself clearly and unambiguously prohibits.

    I said earlier that Terry itself has Fourth Amendment problems, and Justice Fortas' dissenting opinion, though powerless, nonetheless articulates the main problem I have with Terry....

    Dissent


    FORTAS, J., Dissenting Opinion
    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.

    I agree that petitioner was "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. I also agree that frisking petitioner and his companions for guns was a "search." But it is a mystery how that "search" and that "seizure" can be constitutional by Fourth Amendment standards unless there was "probable cause" [n1] to believe that (1) a crime had been committed or (2) a crime was in the process of being committed or (3) a crime was about to be committed.

    The opinion of the Court disclaims the existence of "probable cause." If loitering were in issue and that was the offense charged, there would be "probable cause" shown. But the crime here is carrying concealed weapons; and there is no basis for concluding that the officer had "probable cause" for believing that that crime was being committed. Had a warrant been sought, a magistrate would, therefore, have been unauthorized to issue one, for he can act only if there is a showing of "probable cause." We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a "seizure" and conduct a "search" than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again.

    In other words, police officers up to today have been permitted to effect arrests or searches without warrants only when the facts within their personal knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. At the time of their "seizure" without a warrant, they must possess facts concerning the person arrested that would have satisfied a magistrate that "probable cause" was indeed present. The term "probable cause" rings a bell of certainty that is not sounded by phrases such as "reasonable suspicion." Moreover, the meaning of "probable cause" is deeply imbedded in our constitutional history. As we stated in Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100-102:

    *************
    The requirement of probable cause has roots that are deep in our history. The general warrant, in which the name of the person to be arrested was left blank, and the writs of assistance, against which James Otis inveighed, both perpetuated the oppressive practice of allowing the police to arrest and search on suspicion. Police control took the place of judicial control, since no showing of "probable cause" before a magistrate was required.
    * * * *

    That philosophy [rebelling against these practices] later was reflected in the Fourth Amendment. And as the early American decisions both before and immediately after its adoption show, common rumor or report, suspicion, or even "strong reason to suspect" was not adequate to support a warrant for arrest. And that principle has survived to this day. . . .

    . . . It is important, we think, that this requirement [of probable cause] be strictly enforced, for the standard set by the Constitution protects both the officer and the citizen. If the officer acts with probable cause, he is protected even though it turns out that the citizen is innocent. . . . And while a search without a warrant is, within limits, permissible if incident to a lawful arrest, if an arrest without a warrant is to support an incidental search, it must be made with probable cause. . . . This immunity of officers cannot fairly be enlarged without jeopardizing the privacy or security of the citizen.

    (My note about that last line in bold - thus we have "stop and frisk" as-illegally-practiced by cops on a regular basis with impunity across this country.)

    There is more to Fortas' dissent, but if the above doesn't adequately describe that our Fourth Amendment rights have been at least in part gutted by Terry, then the person saying such never believed the Fourth Amendment had authority over the actions of cops on the street to begin with.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast