2 ms·

Seems to me like GP is using the word "assert" intentionally to make it seem like Scalia supports giving cops the power to make up charges then act accordingly.

Seems to me like GP is using the word "assert" intentionally to make it seem like Scalia supports giving cops the power to make up charges then act accordingly. No, Scalia didn't support police flying a helicopter up to your window and pretending they see marijuana then raiding your house. And yeah GP is going to argue that "assert" doesn't mean claiming something that isn't true. But the intention is obvious to the point that it's really difficult to see good faith here.

modriano 4y ago
It's really not possible to dispute that the Supreme Court just tells police what magic words they need to include in their reports to make unconstitutional searches constitutional. In Terry v Ohio [0], a plainclothes policeman saw three guys casing a store, saw the outlines of concealed items that he believed to be guns, he stopped and searched them on that basis, and two of the three guys had weapons. The Court ruled that the evidence was admissible and the officer's "reasonable suspicion" made the search lawful, as the officer's safety may be endangered if they're questioning individuals with weapons. Without a reasonable suspicion that an individual has a concealed weapon, though, the frisk is an unconstitutional 4A violation. In this NY Civil Liberties Union study of stop and frisk data [1], going through NYPD stop and frisk data, from 2003 to 2013, 2585945 frisks were performed but weapons were only found in ~2% (!!!) of frisks. If your suspicions are wrong 98% of the time, it's pretty hard to describe the suspicion as "reasonable", but the SC declared that asserting reasonable suspicion is all it takes to make those unconstitutional searches constitutional. I'm not anti police, I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago and I have immense respect for a number of the officers and detectives I've worked with. But I can't look at these facts and then pretend they don't exist. [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 [1] https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopandfrisk_briefer_2002-2013_final.pdf#page=9 https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopa...
- tptacek 4y ago
  I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago Whoah, neat, say more?

modriano 4y ago

It's really not possible to dispute that the Supreme Court just tells police what magic words they need to include in their reports to make unconstitutional searches constitutional. In Terry v Ohio [0], a plainclothes policeman saw three guys casing a store, saw the outlines of concealed items that he believed to be guns, he stopped and searched them on that basis, and two of the three guys had weapons. The Court ruled that the evidence was admissible and the officer's "reasonable suspicion" made the search lawful, as the officer's safety may be endangered if they're questioning individuals with weapons. Without a reasonable suspicion that an individual has a concealed weapon, though, the frisk is an unconstitutional 4A violation. In this NY Civil Liberties Union study of stop and frisk data [1], going through NYPD stop and frisk data, from 2003 to 2013, 2585945 frisks were performed but weapons were only found in ~2% (!!!) of frisks. If your suspicions are wrong 98% of the time, it's pretty hard to describe the suspicion as "reasonable", but the SC declared that asserting reasonable suspicion is all it takes to make those unconstitutional searches constitutional. I'm not anti police, I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago and I have immense respect for a number of the officers and detectives I've worked with. But I can't look at these facts and then pretend they don't exist. [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 [1] https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopandfrisk_briefer_2002-2013_final.pdf#page=9 https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopa...

tptacek 4y ago
I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago Whoah, neat, say more?