Stop and frisk / by kevin murray

Not all law is good law and not all law coincides with true moral law.  This is a country of laws and our 4th Amendment rights are directly challenged when we give in to dubious 'laws' such as 'stop & frisk'. Our 4th Amendment states that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…but upon probable cause…"  Stop and frisk as currently practiced is a direct violation of this statue.


Taking NYC as our template, their implementation of essentially a police state, all in the name, of reducing crime or protecting citizens, is a false flag to harass, embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, and abuse those that either have no power(s) within themselves, or are easily made to be scapegoats.  NYC tactics are deliberately setup to ostracize and marginalize peoples that don't meet a certain legally suspect criteria within the NYC power structure.


The proponents of stop and frisk, believe that they got their foundation for their validation of this application of 'law' from the Supreme Court Decision of Terry v. Ohio (1968), if this be the case, they are grossly mistaken, because the Terry v. Ohio (1968), does not and never will be the validation of stop and frisk laws. In fact, Terry v. Ohio (1968) invalidates stop and frisk and it always has.


First, let us get a better understanding of Terry v. Ohio (1968).  Chief Justice Warren stated in his opinion that: "we have no occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to arrest him."  Clearly, this says that in Terry v. Ohio (1968), there was probable cause to arrest Mr. TerryTherefore, had there not been probable cause, the Supreme Court decision in all likelihood would have ruled in favor of Terry.  In NYC, in 2011, 685,000 stops were made in which only 770 guns were recovered.  In Terry V. Ohio, each of the two suspects searched, Terry and Chilton had a firearm.  This demonstrates that NYC stop and frisk policies are virtually never about probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion (a clause nowhere found in our Constitution) but about harassment and extralegal tactics.


Further to that point, what exactly is a stop and frisk?  If I am stopped, by a police officer, without probable cause of some crime, I have for all intents and purposes been "seized" by said officer.  If I am then frisked, I have also been "searched" by the same officer.   At a minimum, according to any reasonable interpretation of our 4th Amendment, the officer needs to bring directly to my attention what action(s) that I committed that gave him "probable cause" to search and seize my person.  If that is not done, or if there are no penalties asserted against this action, we are essentially living under a police state in which at any hour, at any time, for any reason, while you are in a public area, you can be accosted by the police an unlimited amount of times with no probable cause to do so.