The law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The US Constitution is supposed to protect us from illegal search and seizure *cough, cough this means you too TSA*. Here is the exact text:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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”
Beautiful isn’t it. I would refuse, allow myself to be arrested, and then sue the living H*** out of the city of NYC for violating my rights. I wish more people would stop agreeing to violation of our civil liberties in the name of some false sense of protection.
If a female officer isn’t present, yes, a male officer should be allowed to frisk, I remember back in the day dudes used o get girls to hold their stash or weapons knowing that the police would not likely search the women. To me whether women should be searched is irrelevant the question should be the law it self.
If a police officer is that certain that a female “suspect” may be carrying a weapon or someone else’s stash why can’t he just detain her until a female officer can come to the scene and do the frisk?
Does it matter if he is that certain? You only have so many female officers on the force, I am sure there not waiting around for some one to call them to frisk someone. And are we requiring female officers to wait for males officers to come and frisk males suspects?
0
The law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The US Constitution is supposed to protect us from illegal search and seizure *cough, cough this means you too TSA*. Here is the exact text:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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”
Beautiful isn’t it. I would refuse, allow myself to be arrested, and then sue the living crap out of the city of NYC for violating my rights. I wish more people would stop agreeing to violation of our civil liberties in the name of some false sense of protection.
“Stop and Frisk” is a prime example of racial profiling running a muck in our Law Enforcement. Police and private companies profit from the judicial process and bottom-feed off of minorities in this country. You can read about how private companies and crooked politicians have turned our Police forces on their ear in every attempt to squeeze money out of the general public at
The law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The US Constitution is supposed to protect us from illegal search and seizure *cough, cough this means you too TSA*. Here is the exact text:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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”
Beautiful isn’t it. I would refuse, allow myself to be arrested, and then sue the living H*** out of the city of NYC for violating my rights. I wish more people would stop agreeing to violation of our civil liberties in the name of some false sense of protection.
Thank you for covering this issue & referencing the Times article. I didn’t know the Times reported on Stop/Frisk’s targeting women (of color).
End discriminatory Mandatory Minimums & #unconstitutional Stop/Frisk http://chn.ge/LZDcrv
If a female officer isn’t present, yes, a male officer should be allowed to frisk, I remember back in the day dudes used o get girls to hold their stash or weapons knowing that the police would not likely search the women. To me whether women should be searched is irrelevant the question should be the law it self.
If a police officer is that certain that a female “suspect” may be carrying a weapon or someone else’s stash why can’t he just detain her until a female officer can come to the scene and do the frisk?
Does it matter if he is that certain? You only have so many female officers on the force, I am sure there not waiting around for some one to call them to frisk someone. And are we requiring female officers to wait for males officers to come and frisk males suspects?
The law is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The US Constitution is supposed to protect us from illegal search and seizure *cough, cough this means you too TSA*. Here is the exact text:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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”
Beautiful isn’t it. I would refuse, allow myself to be arrested, and then sue the living crap out of the city of NYC for violating my rights. I wish more people would stop agreeing to violation of our civil liberties in the name of some false sense of protection.
“Stop and Frisk” is a prime example of racial profiling running a muck in our Law Enforcement. Police and private companies profit from the judicial process and bottom-feed off of minorities in this country. You can read about how private companies and crooked politicians have turned our Police forces on their ear in every attempt to squeeze money out of the general public at