[dblshot]

What's the difference between DUI checkpoints and Stop and Frisk other than you have to be licensed to drive and you are "free" to walk around. The thing about both is that there is no warraent needed so anything else that is found is admissible evidence in a court of law. Both would seem to violate the 4th amendmant?

“Before 1914, if police obtained evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment, they could still use the evidence at trial. However, in a case called Weeks v. United States, the United State Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule. Pursuant to the exclusionary rule, any evidence obtained in violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights (or in violation of any of a suspect’s Constitutional rights) is excluded from use at trial. In 1961, in a case known as Mapp v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court made clear that the exclusionary rule applies to the fifty states.” http://www.4thamendment.net/index.html

[Cen-Tejas]

NAY!

On “stop and frisk” though, I fortunately do not live in a high crime neighborhood and a cop stopping and frisking ANYONE out here not involved in suspicious activity would cause a riot. (Central Texas)

I just have to imagine though that if I was unfortunate enough to live in a neighborhood like the fifth ward in Houston or Oak Cliff in Dallas that I would be more than happy for the cops to be stopping suspicious characters and frisking them. If I ended up enduring one too, so be it. So, I think “neighborhood” has something to do with stopping and frisking. The NYC experience of stopping and frisking in high crime neighborhoods statistically proves my point, I think.