Why is there no prosecution for the crimes?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Actually that is a bit incorrect. There was an arguement raised that Stop and Frisk was unconstitutional since Trump advocated for it (i.e. Trump is attacking the 4th amendment). I am not supporting his position here, but was only pointing out that Stop and Frisk was in fact ruled constitutional. i don't think the Trump advocation for it was anything beyond the rules outlined in Terry.

but that is your personal take on what trump means when he hails stop and frisk. even though he hails ny's misuse and devastating effects on community/police relations as successful.

[TBoneTX 45,308]

My layman's understanding of Terry (to be verified or amended by Maven) is as follows:

-- There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets, so no suspicion is required for a cop to merely contact us.

-- During a suspicionless contact, our rights are nearly total. We have the utter right to ignore the cop and walk away. We are not required to tell him our name, or much less provide ID*.

*I'm unclear how muddied this is in view of states' "stop and identify" laws -- see below.

-- The cop's powers during a contact are nearly zero. If we disengage, there's nothing that he can do without the required "reasonable articulable suspicion" (RAS) for detention or "probable cause" (PC) for arrest. However, he can walk along with us in public and observe.

-- He DOES have the power, during ANY kind of confrontation with us, to frisk us for weapons IF he has a reasonable belief that we are armed AND that we pose a threat to him or the public. He cannot routinely frisk everyone he contacts, or even detains. He must first have reasonable belief of a threat based on articulable facts. The "Terry frisk" is limited to the patting-down of clothing for weapons. He cannot reach into pockets for objects that are clearly not weapons.

-- He can most likely prohibit us from having our hands in our pockets. As a rule of thumb, the cop's "reasonable" perception of his safety will nearly always override our Constitutional rights.

-- There is NO advantage, EVER, to answering questions about ourselves during a contact. The courts will justify almost any preemptive frisk for weapons as the cop's legal right, so we don't want to prolong a contact until he suddenly decides on a Terry frisk.

A "Terry detention" seems to me to be a legally gray scene. The cop may, with RAS or PC, use a traffic stop as a pretext. He may order us and our passengers out of our vehicle. As long as he has RAS or PC, he can use any traffic violation to detain us for ulterior purposes.

-- During (I presume) a Terry or lawful detention, the cop may demand that we give our name (NOT always the same thing as being required to show ID). This was upheld by the (in my opinion) absolutely appalling Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada.

Maven? Thanks.

===============================

Here is what might still be the current Texas Penal Code on "failure to identify." Maven, could this be extended to suspicionless contacts as well?

From the Texas Constitition, Sec. 38.02. (Sec. 39.03 deals with Official Oppression, a subject for another time.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
© Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that
the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.

Edited October 21, 2016 by TBoneTX

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Weekend homework assigned.

[yuna628 9,676]

My layman's understanding of Terry (to be verified or amended by Maven) is as follows:

-- There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets, so no suspicion is required for a cop to merely contact us.

-- During a suspicionless contact, our rights are nearly total. We have the utter right to ignore the cop and walk away. We are not required to tell him our name, or much less provide ID*.

*I'm unclear how muddied this is in view of states' "stop and identify" laws -- see below.

-- The cop's powers during a contact are nearly zero. If we disengage, there's nothing that he can do without the required "reasonable articulable suspicion" (RAS) for detention or "probable cause" (PC) for arrest. However, he can walk along with us in public and observe.

-- He DOES have the power, during ANY kind of confrontation with us, to frisk us for weapons IF he has a reasonable belief that we are armed AND that we pose a threat to him or the public. He cannot routinely frisk everyone he contacts, or even detains. He must first have reasonable belief of a threat based on articulable facts. The "Terry frisk" is limited to the patting-down of clothing for weapons. He cannot reach into pockets for objects that are clearly not weapons.

-- He can most likely prohibit us from having our hands in our pockets. As a rule of thumb, the cop's "reasonable" perception of his safety will nearly always override our Constitutional rights.

-- There is NO advantage, EVER, to answering questions about ourselves during a contact. The courts will justify almost any preemptive frisk for weapons as the cop's legal right, so we don't want to prolong a contact until he suddenly decides on a Terry frisk.

A "Terry detention" seems to me to be a legally gray scene. The cop may, with RAS or PC, use a traffic stop as a pretext. He may order us and our passengers out of our vehicle. As long as he has RAS or PC, he can use any traffic violation to detain us for ulterior purposes.

-- During (I presume) a Terry or lawful detention, the cop may demand that we give our name (NOT always the same thing as being required to show ID). This was upheld by the (in my opinion) absolutely appalling Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada.

Maven? Thanks.

===============================

Here is what might still be the current Texas Penal Code on "failure to identify." Maven, could this be extended to suspicionless contacts as well?

From the Texas Constitition, Sec. 38.02. (Sec. 39.03 deals with Official Oppression, a subject for another time.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

© Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that

the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.

Bolded the part.... I don't think I have seen that done by an officer period. You're saying if an officer walks up and starts asking you questions, and you have the right to walk away from him and he doesn't have the right to keep approaching you, asking questions, or harassing you? I really truly don't believe this happens. If anything it would inflame the situation and the individual would surely be arrested or brought in on some charge... albeit dropped later with no answer as to why you were brought in the first place. The BCPD was notorious for this.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I missed the person who mentioned Trump -- my apologies. I think we are pretty much on the same page here. However, it is impossible to tell what Trump thinks a constitutional Terry stop looks like because, well, he's Trump and his interpretations of various concept are rather, shall we say, fluid.

I believe The Donald laid out in full detail his interpretation of a Terry stop to Billy Bush in the Access Hollywood bus.

[Rob L 3,811]

I believe The Donald laid out in full detail his interpretation of a Terry stop to Billy Bush in the Access Hollywood bus.

Billy and Donnie : a model for 12 year old boys without formal sex education everywhere.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Bolded the part.... I don't think I have seen that done by an officer period. You're saying if an officer walks up and starts asking you questions, and you have the right to walk away from him and he doesn't have the right to keep approaching you, asking questions, or harassing you? I really truly don't believe this happens. If anything it would inflame the situation and the individual would surely be arrested or brought in on some charge... albeit dropped later with no answer as to why you were brought in the first place. The BCPD was notorious for this.

one bajillion times YES. +9000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[Jacque67 7,328]

I believe The Donald laid out in full detail his interpretation of a Terry stop to Billy Bush in the Access Hollywood bus.

You kidding??? Have you seen Terry??? She's a pig!!!!

[smilesammich 10,727]

I believe The Donald laid out in full detail his interpretation of a Terry stop to Billy Bush in the Access Hollywood bus.

[Teddy B 17,252]

You kidding??? Have you seen Terry??? She's a pig!!!!

"Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you."

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

"Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you."

No uggos allowed, either in Trumpland, or on VJ!

[Teddy B 17,252]

No uggos allowed, either in Trumpland, or on VJ!

"You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p****. You can do anything."

[Teddy B 17,252]

If by some miracle The Donald becomes President, the word "tapped" will take on a whole new meaning when referring to any women Trump has chosen for administrative positions.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

If by some miracle The Donald becomes President, the word "tapped" will take on a whole new meaning when referring to any women Trump has chosen for administrative positions.

Augh, gross, man!

[Teddy B 17,252]

Augh, gross, man!