Police stop more than 1 million people on street

[Chris_]

Police stop more than 1 million people on street

NEW YORK (AP) - A teenager trying to get into his apartment after school is confronted by police. A man leaving his workplace chooses a different route back home to avoid officers who roam a particular street.

These and hundreds of thousands of other Americans in big cities have been stopped on the street by police using a law-enforcement practice called stop-and-frisk that alarms civil libertarians but is credited by authorities with helping reduce crime.

Police in major U.S. cities stop and question more than a million people each year - a sharply higher number than just a few years ago. Most are black and Hispanic men. Many are frisked, and nearly all are innocent of any crime, according to figures gathered by The Associated Press.

*snip*

The practice is perfectly legal. A 1968 Supreme Court decision established the benchmark of "reasonable suspicion" - a standard that is lower than the "probable cause" needed to justify an arrest.

I can understand being asked a few questions, but would think that being searched should require "probable cause".  To me, searching a person, backpack, briefcase, purse, etc. is no different that searching a car or home.

MORE

[thundley4]

Most are black and Hispanic men.

Sounds a lot like profiling.

[Thor]

"I do NOT consent to search" and "am I free to go?" pop into my mind. This is clearly a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The practice is perfectly legal. A 1968 Supreme Court decision established the benchmark of "reasonable suspicion" - a standard that is lower than the "probable cause" needed to justify an arrest.

That correctly states the law.

Police can make investigatory stops without probable cause to question people about situations or circumstances that only potentially indicate criminal activity, they don't have to suddenly have to go from zero to 'Evidence is that more probaly than not, there was X crime here and you were involved in it.'  Nobody would ever get arrested if that was the standard, except possibly for people who got caught in warrant checks during traffic stops (Of course there would be a lot fewer warrants, because only about a tenth of the crimes solved now would ever make it that far).

The frisk is an adjunct to a lawful investigative stop based on simple reasonable suspicion that something is up and the guy being stopped may know something about it.  The primary purpose of the frisk is for officer safety, not so much for gathering evidence.

Cops being human cops, some of them, even some whole precincts or departments, get carried away with it and pervert the actual rule.