Stop and Frisk can only be done to contents of your computer or cell phone.
It is Unconstitutional in NYC and when the NSA searches your emails.
Waiting for the 2nd ruling to come before celebrating.
I know little about the particulars of this program. However, I find it hard to think of a scenario where this is constitutional. Unless however, NYC changes this to a national security program then it can through out the constitution...
I thought “stop and frisk” had been rule unconstitutional long ago.
The Big Apple is tired of running behind Second City in crime and shootings statistics.
PROBABLE CAUSE
A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a “man of reasonable caution” to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).
It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).
Stop and Frisk works, but it is unconstitutional. NSA’s eavesdropping and recording will work, too, but it also is unconstitutional. SAFE is not enough. I demand to be FREE from unreasonable search and seizure.
Unfortunately, without Stop and Frisk crime will increase, and good people who can afford to move away from big cities will do so. Urban areas will become concentrations of the black, brown, and poor. With the tax base dwindling, each city—one by one—will devolve into a Detroit. Then what?
The black and Hispanic populations of NYC are too immoral (as evidenced by their crime rates) to be governed by the Constitution.
I believe roadstops are illegal, too.
The logic here in NYC seems to be that personal freedoms have to be infringed for “everyone” to be “safe.” Communist countries during the Cold War were probably “safer,” but no one was the least bit free. If we actually allowed the 2nd Amendment to prevail unfettered, the cops would go out of business and we would truly be “free.” That the crimes that are being “prevented” in NYC are predominantly in the “black precincts,” is a sad commentary on black society, but they have to take personal responsibility for the behavior in their own communities or suffer the consequences. They must be “free” to be whatever they decide that that is, and if they choose to be violent, so be it, but whey they export that violence to my neighborhood don’t expect me to sit idly by and let them do it.
This is the second instance that I’m aware of (GZ being the first) where a court or prosecutor has accused someone of “racial profiling” as a reason to prosecute or enjoin.
This is most strange. Is “racial profiling” now a crime? NYC has unbelievably low crime stats for a city of its size and demographics. Undoubtedly the widespread racial profiling by NYPD has something to do with this.
What statutory basis does this judge have for saying this should not be allowed?
It is definitely unconstitutional. How is it even a question?
Of course its unconstitutional to stop people walking down a sidewalk and search them for no good reason.