Skip to comments.US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked
Posted on 01/26/2009 8:05:38 PM PST by jiggyboy
WASHINGTONThe Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.
-- snip --
The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
The case is Arizona v. Johnson, 07-1122.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Ergo, an armed citizen is a threat to police and to the public. So much for the Second Amendment. (And this BEFORE 0bama has altered the court.)
Liberty is an illusion. We have lost our republic.
Code words for "the id check found a CCW permit?"
Related threads in the past couple of days:
Do police have the right to confiscate your camera?
Question on requirement to present ID to police officer
May I see your papers, Citizen?
It’s getting closer and closer every day.
Good angle. It could be anything coming out of any one of the big computer in the sky that they pray to. Any prior arrest, any prior complaint against the guy, maybe even a tax issue is enough to decide that this is a guy who doesn't follow the law in quite the way he should.
can be frisked......if she’s really hot...
OK Frisk Zer0!
Can he produce a Drivers License, or a passport?
Then, can he produce a voter’s card?
Then, can he produce a Birth Certificate?
Then, what the hell is he doing as our usurper-in-chief??
Odd , isn't it..thinking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and frisking. It is probably a safe assumption that Ruth Bader Ginsburg , wishes someone would frisk her. Not going to happen Ruth.
Yet more Gestapo powers going to our local police. Socialism is an insidious process.
What the hell!!!!
well, it does hinge on the interpretation of reasonable, doesn’t it? I see the opening for abuse in a land unfriendly for RKBA. Let’s hope a slap-down under that circumstance is 9-0 as well.
I guess this chin-stroking conjecture is all you need as “reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous” these days: “A passengers motivation to use violence during the stop to prevent apprehension for a crime more grave than a traffic violation is just as great as that of the driver.”
So it’s “reasonable” to assume, every single time, in any circumstance, that any passenger is going to whip out the .45 because you were going 31 in a 25 zone when school let out. Hands on the trunk where I can see ‘em, Mom!
The State of Arizona does not have to listen to the Supreme Court, they Could still and should refuse to allow this evidence in. Force a Constitutional Crisis. Arizona is an OPEN CARRY STATE, Police are required to ASSUME EVERYONE IS ARMED. There story doesnt wash. Fire them and the idiots who appealed this to USSC. Maybe what we need is a State Proposition Making it a FELONY to be employed by the Federal Government in Arizona. by the way US Code Title 18,241 and 242 are still the law of the land, This guy should file immediately and bankrupt these individuals.
Rashid, Ayman and Abdul are speeding down I95. The police pull over Rashid, who then says to Ayman ‘here hold the C4’ and to Abdul he gives his piece. Ayman and Abdul are nervous as they aren’t quite ready to meet their virgins yet, and the police are suspicious.
some of you would have it so the police or ‘the pigs’ can’t search Ayman and Abdul ?
lets change the names then...three gangbangers named Anquan, Plaxico and Pacman are rolling through the hood. yadda yadda yadda.
still the 5-0 can’t do a simple pat down ?
whats wrong with you people...you want those pigs to be bacon ? srsly.
the supremes found it reasonable because it IS effing reasonable...if it isn’t then police your own damn neighborhoods. whiners.