Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143:173]********

[Kal'Stang]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

What? This thread is about so-called "Terry stops," formally known as investigatory detentions and sometimes called "stop and frisks." In Terry v. Ohio, the Court discussed at length this sort of detention short of arrest and the various forms it may take.

This thread is about Terry stops. Of course this subject involves reasonable suspicion, because that is the applicable standard in those stops.

That may be how you choose to define it, but that is not the usual definition. The Court discussed the phrase "stop and frisk" and what it implies at length in Terry, and I recommend reading its discussion.

Again, that depends on how you define that phrase. The Supreme Court did not say anything like that, either in Terry, or in its later decisions on investigatory detentions by police. It confuses the issue to toss around terms like "stop and frisk," "Terry stop," etc. without specifying what you mean by those things. I think it would help for a better informed discussion if everyone commenting here had at least read Terry v. Ohio.

Read the OP. Maggie specifically mentioned stop and frisk. From the context of her OP her main point was about the stop and frisk program like what NY had. Stop and frisk and terry stops are two completely different things in this context. While Terry stops allow stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion they do not allow what Maggie termed as a way to "clean up our inner cities and make them safer." For that to happen as she states then she is talking about the type of stop and frisk program that NY had, and which was subsequently ruled unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York. It was ruled unconstitutional because it was used inappropriately and did not follow the guidelines outlined in Terry v Ohio.

 

[jamesrage]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

The fourth amendment is clear. Police need a warrant based on probable cause describing the persons and property to be searched and to seized. There is no exception for crime infested parts of cities. Criminal behavior is not some 20th and 21st century thing. I am pretty sure James Madison knew that crime happened and that some parts of cities had a criminal problem when he wrote the bill of rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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

 

[MaggieD]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

The fourth amendment is clear. Police need a warrant based on probable cause describing the persons and property to be searched and to seized. There is no exception for crime infested parts of cities. Criminal behavior is not some 20th and 21st century thing. I am pretty sure James Madison knew that crime happened and that some parts of cities had a criminal problem when he wrote the bill of rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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

SCOTUS in the Terry Stop decision said the standard was less than probable cause...reasonable suspicion.

 

[Thoreau72]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

According to Wikipedia the Terry case came in 1968. So it's safe to assume that such stops have been conducted since that date or before in various jurisdictions, raising the question that if these stops are effective, why is there still so much violence? If the tactic works, why is it not working?

Are they applying it in Chicago, for example, and if they are, why are there still so many murders there?

 

[countryboy]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Careful. You might be a closet liberal. Next thing you know you'll be against pot prohibition.

I'm no closet liberal, as indicated by how many times you and I have butted heads. :mrgreen: But, I am against pot prohibition, and I think all drugs should be decriminalized, at the very least. It's called LIBERTY. And fiscal conservatism. It costs a lot of money to incarcerate all these non violent drug addicts. We should never be imprisoning drug addicts simply because they have a substance abuse problem. There are laws on the books to handle people when they turn violent or steal and rob, or commit other crimes.

 

[countryboy]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

The Court has pretty thoroughly defined reasonable suspicion as regards investigatory detentions, both in Terry v. Ohio and in its later decisions on this subject.

I asked YOU to define it. I want YOUR definition.

 

[radcen]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

A Terry Stop isn't exactly Stop and Frisk. Or it wasn't always.

From my days at the Academy, long time ago, Terry was a SCOTUS decision. If you pulled someone over for a traffic violation or reasonable suspicion, you could "detain" them a short while (rule of thumb was 20 min or less) while trying to determine if a serious crime had been committed, before committing to arresting them or letting them go.

You could ask questions. They didn't have to answer. If at any point they asked to leave you had to let them go unless you had probable cause.

A search of the vehicle or persons was, in my day, not allowed UNLESS you had a probable cause that a crime had been committed that you could articulate in court and that would be accepted by the court as such. We were cautioned repeatedly about that. The dividing line between mere suspicion and probable cause is distinct from a legal standpoint.

From what I was taught in my day (over 20 yrs ago), you had to have a better reason than just "well they looked suspicious" to turn a Terry Stop into a stop and frisk.

Now clearly if an officer is willing to perjure himself and claim he smelled drugs/etc you could do it.... I was never willing to lie under oath.

I always appreciate your posts. You provide a valuable balance between people who read the Constitution and SC decisions as allowing anything and everything and those who see them as allowing nothing.

 

[radcen]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Well I guess the practice in itself is not unconstitutional (athough it really should be IMO), but when it comes to New York City’s stop-and-frisk program, it was found to have violated the U.S. Constitution in how it was being applied.

I wouldn't support the program anywhere else either, for that matter.

There are many things that are not Constitutional in either letter or spirit*, but the SC continues to sign off on them anyway. Sometimes their rationalization is plausible, sometimes it is not. SC sign-off just means it's law and enforceable, not that it's legit per the Constitution. Anymore I feel the need to make this qualification in my mind.

Their rubber-stamping of civil asset forfeiture, as one example.

 

[matchlight]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Read the OP. Maggie specifically mentioned stop and frisk. From the context of her OP her main point was about the stop and frisk program like what NY had. Stop and frisk and terry stops are two completely different things in this context. While Terry stops allow stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion they do not allow what Maggie termed as a way to "clean up our inner cities and make them safer." For that to happen as she states then she is talking about the type of stop and frisk program that NY had, and which was subsequently ruled unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York. It was ruled unconstitutional because it was used inappropriately and did not follow the guidelines outlined in Terry v Ohio.

I don't know the details of what New York was doing. I do know that cops, given reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, can go up to people in public places and ask them where they live, what business they have there, and so on. If they have reasonable suspicion that the people they detain are armed and dangerous, they can frisk them for weapons. And if the detained person acts in certain ways during the temporary stop, his actions and demeanor may give rise to the probable cause needed to arrest him. It was exactly this sort of investigatory detention, carried out by police in Milan, that led to the jihadist SOB being eliminated recently. Without it, he could well have gone on to engage in other gruesome mass murders.

 

[matchlight]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

I asked YOU to define it. I want YOUR definition.

I agree with the definition of the reasonable suspicion needed for Terry stops the Court has developed in its decisions on this subject--that it cannot be a mere hunch, must be based on articulable facts, that the reasonableness is determined based on the totality of the circumstances, etc., etc. When it comes to Terry stops, I agree with the balance the Court has struck between individual liberty and the need to enforce criminal laws.

 

[countryboy]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

I agree with the definition of the reasonable suspicion needed for Terry stops the Court has developed in its decisions on this subject--that it cannot be a mere hunch, must be based on articulable facts, that the reasonableness is determined based on the totality of the circumstances, etc., etc. When it comes to Terry stops, I agree with the balance the Court has struck between individual liberty and the need to enforce criminal laws.

In other words, you are blindly following the concept, and cannot articulate a definition of what "reasonable suspicion", as it pertains to stop and frisk, means. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[RickJames3000]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Absolutely.

As long as the officer can articulate a reasonable cause for the stop I have no problem with it. That reasonable cause can and should include such things as loitering in a known drug area, being in an unusual place at an unusual time, and acting weird. For example, I was at a street fair a while back and some guy was walking quickly through the crowd in the opposite direction of the general flow of traffic while randomly flicking his fingers at people's faces and saying "ping". He didn't touch or assault anyone but he was damned sure someone the cops should have pulled aside and assessed for being under the influence of something. They should have also checked him for weapons.

You want to open up police to detaining people on the street, and frisking them for things like... " loitering in a known drug area, being in an unusual place at an unusual time, and acting weird"?!

Satire?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

As long as a Terry stop is conducted with reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot I have no problem with it.

I've been subject to Terry Stops before, last year I took a long walk along the coast and parked my car in the town of Westport, and as I'm coming back it's late at night and I'm walking around my pickup and a Westport policeman stopped me to ask who I was and who owned the truck, turns out there had been a lot of vehicle prowls in that town and he was just making sure I was the vehicle owner. This is a regular part of policing, you use facts and reasonable suspicion to find out what people are up to.

No prosecution, don't agree with, if the cops take a gun or drugs off a suspect and use discretion not to arrest or charge at that time they should still file a report so the prosecutor can review and determine to charge.

Terry stops are legal under the US Constitution, and in varying forms are legal in most states, although some states like Washington, Oregon, Michigan and Vermont interpret their own constitutions more strictly. crime rate has nothing to do with your civil rights.

 

[Lutherf]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

You want to open up police to detaining people on the street, and frisking them for things like... " loitering in a known drug area, being in an unusual place at an unusual time, and acting weird"?!

Satire?

Not satire.

Let's say the cops have had several complaints over the past couple of weeks of people getting their pockets picked in a certain area. The reports all cite a group of 4 or 5 men and women who distract pedestrians and then snatch stuff from purses or wallets. On a given day the cops spot just such a group in the same area these robberies are happening. I have no problem whatsoever with the cops engaging that group and identifying them. I also have no problem with a cursory pat down as part of the process.

There are all kinds of scenarios that warrant a field interview and it's just plain stupid to take that tool away from the cops.

 

[RickJames3000]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Do you live in the inner city, Maggie?

 

[RickJames3000]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Not satire.

Let's say the cops have had several complaints over the past couple of weeks of people getting their pockets picked in a certain area. The reports all cite a group of 4 or 5 men and women who distract pedestrians and then snatch stuff from purses or wallets. On a given day the cops spot just such a group in the same area these robberies are happening. I have no problem whatsoever with the cops engaging that group and identifying them. I also have no problem with a cursory pat down as part of the process.

There are all kinds of scenarios that warrant a field interview and it's just plain stupid to take that tool away from the cops.

How do the unidentified "suspects" in your example match the conditions for detention and frisking that you've laid out?:

"loitering in a known drug area, being in an unusual place at an unusual time, and acting weird"

 

[Lutherf]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

How do the unidentified "suspects" in your example match the conditions for detention and frisking that you've laid out?:

"loitering in a known drug area, being in an unusual place at an unusual time, and acting weird"

Come off it. Being in a "known drug area" is no different than being in a "known crime area". Being in an unusual place at an unusual time is SOP for this kind of stop. For example, hanging around the loading dock at 3am for a business that has closed for the night is pretty unusual. As far as acting weird, we also get that all the time. Often times it's mental health issues people have but drug or alcohol intoxication also gets people to act weird. The other day, for example, there was a guy riding his bike around in circles at a local gas station. He was weaving between moving cars and basically creating a hazard. That was "weird" behavior and absolutely warranted a stop.

 

[Bodi]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Terry Stop is the Stop and Frisk.

I'm coming from the place that we simply MUST clean up our inner cities and make them safer.

Is there any narrow enforcement that you could support?

For instance..no prosecution, just confiscation of all illegal weapons and drugs. Nothing else. No arrest? Using it only in statistically high crime areas?

The left keeps calling these stops profiling. But if we are "profiling" a high crime area, is that REALLY profiling by race?

thoughts?

I am straight up in favour of profiling. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. It is common sense. Look or act like a criminal then you should expect to be stopped by cops.

 

[Bodi]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

How do the unidentified "suspects" in your example match the conditions for detention and frisking that you've laid out?:

"loitering in a known drug area, being in an unusual place at an unusual time, and acting weird"

Visit some high crime and drug areas sometimes... it isn't that difficult to pick out criminals.

 

[Bodi]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Do you live in the inner city, Maggie?

Do you think that is relevant to the inner cities being a ess?

 

[RickJames3000]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Do you think that is relevant to the inner cities being a ess?

Quite often I see people on here spouting off about "inner city" conditions they have no personal experience with.
Yes. Perception is relevant.

Next...

 

[Bodi]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Quite often I see people on here spouting off about "inner city" conditions they have no personal experience with.
Yes. Perception is relevant.

Next...

Perception has nothing to do with personal experience. You do realize that, don't you?

 

[RickJames3000]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Come off it. Being in a "known drug area" is no different than being in a "known crime area". Being in an unusual place at an unusual time is SOP for this kind of stop. For example, hanging around the loading dock at 3am for a business that has closed for the night is pretty unusual. As far as acting weird, we also get that all the time. Often times it's mental health issues people have but drug or alcohol intoxication also gets people to act weird. The other day, for example, there was a guy riding his bike around in circles at a local gas station. He was weaving between moving cars and basically creating a hazard. That was "weird" behavior and absolutely warranted a stop.

There are already criminal trespass ordinances on the books for the situations you describe.

There is no reason to create additional categories with nebulous definitions like "acting weird" or "unusual places or times".
There is no reason to vest police with that type of authority based mainly on such a subjective determination.
Law enforcement procedures need to be defined specifically and narrowly.

What you are suggesting would fit in perfectly in a more fascistic society.

 

[RickJames3000]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

Perception has nothing to do with personal experience. You do realize that, don't you?

It does for me.
Perhaps it doesn't with you.
I don't know how you function.

 

[Bodi]

re: Could you ever support the Terry Stop?[W:143]

It does for me.
Perhaps it doesn't with you.
I don't know how you function.

What I mean is that a person can have perception from different sources. Reading about inner city crime can give one a perception. Personal experience is not a mandatory requisite to have a valid perception about the issue.