a few years ago I was walking to the bus stop on my way to work, in the morning. I saw a sheriffs car at the corner, bust a you turn and stop. Sheriff deputy jumps out in front of me telling me to put my hands on the hood because they was looking for a burglary suspect. Now if I miss my bus, I will arrive to work late, get written up or even get fired from work. HOW MUCH IS A LAW SUIT LIKE THAT IS WORTH WHEN IT COMES TO STOP AND FRISK ? this is why the rules of people rights are important.
Yeah but he isn’t arresting you. If you COMMUNICATE with him, then he or she should understand. If you was running late to the bus, tough luck I guess. Everyone gets unlucky like that due to a wide variety of reasons. Expect the unexpected
It seems like its hard to argue with an officer about "reasonable suspicion" when the stop is occurring, which stops people from really being able to resist a wrongful search. Regardless, great video- very informative. :)
You never resist but if you can record the encounter and state that you do not consent to any searches or seizures and you can talk to police by not answering questions but by asking questions. "What reasonable suspicion do you have that I have committed or am committing or am about to commit a crime and which crime?"
The Stop and Frisk concept is perfectly legal but as stated, it was unevenly applied. And if a LEO frisked you, it is supposed to be for weapons only that could hurt the officer. Cops would find drugs and charge people but they weren’t supposed to be frisking for drugs, so the uneven application of Stop and Frisk is what is unconstitutional and it is never used outside of large urban areas with large minority populations.
Thanks Willie. Yes you make a good point. The issue in New York for example were claims of the inappropriate (excessive) use of this police tool that when used properly is constitutional, along with charges that the impact of the policy disproportionally hurt poor and largely minority communities.
Great question. The question that usually arrises from an improper search or frisk is "Can the evidence be suppressed?" In other words, can it be thrown out for purposes of a subsequent criminal trial? It's a very interesting question. We recommend you check out this interview we did with Capra. He explains pretty well the complex issues involved. www.talksonlaw.com/talks/police-power-and-personal-rights.
Two questions. What is reasonable suspicion? Why do police ask your permission to search your car, if they pull you over for a traffic stop? You can say no to the search. They can detain you until you comply.
Axe Pagode here is some info on reasonable suspicion. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion. Since I’m just a moderator I don’t want to lead you in the wrong direction by over simplifying. That said, we will talk to prof Capra about doing an explainer on Reasonable Suspicion in the future with us.
Theodore Vegh, I think you are missing my point. The police need permission to search your car, even if they pulled you over for speeding or a broken tail light. However, if you are walking down the street, they can stop you and frisk you. All they need is reasonable suspicion.
@Theodore Vegh If they call for a drug dog after they stop you for a minor traffic infraction and have no reasonable suspicion that you are carrying drugs (usually what they say is that they smell drugs), the act of detaining you is illegal. Unfortunately the supreme court has ruled that drug dogs "keying" on your car is grounds for a search, even though there is no standard of training or certification of drug dogs (usually the cops train them in house) and there is no one but the K-9 dog handler's word that the dog "keyed" on the car. So there is no objective indication that the dog knows what it is doing or even that the dog has given a positive reaction.
I got pulled over for tinted windows but I knew they just wanted to get me pulled over to start fishing.. To make it short. They asked me about windows and then asked for paperwork. I provided all that and everything was good.. They then asked if I had weapon or drugs in car and I said no. They said well you don't have a problem with us looking them right.. I said yes I do not consent to searches.. They proceed to ask me what was in my cup and smelled it which was jus juice.. They wanted to "check my tint". So I barely rolled it down so they could get meter on it. And they kept pressing about searching and I politely declined.. They left and didn't even write me a ticket. Moral of the story :KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!!
@@axepagode33626 A search of your car requires consent or probable cause. Without consent or PC they still have the same reasonable suspicion grounds to do a pat down search for weapons. Unfortunately it's pretty easy to fabricate reasonable suspicion and possibly even easier to fabricate probable cause. Acting nervous? It's BS, but some cops will say it makes them suspicious - why would you be nervous just because you might get a traffic ticket? Do they smell pot? No, but if they honestly (no practical way to test their honesty, of course) think they do they have PC for a search. Absent PC detaining you for longer than it takes to check your documents and issue a warning or a ticket prolongs the stop illegally. If they've returned your documents that's a pretty clear indication that the traffic stop has been concluded, even if the 2nd cop with a dog is just shifting into park.
The Supreme Court decision was made as a result of an arrest my uncle, Detective Martin J. Mc Fadden made in Down Town Cleveland in 1963 in front of The United Airlines Ticket office. One of the men he arrested later shot and killed a drug store owner in Columbus Ohio during an attempted robbery. Detective Mc Fadden may have very well prevented a similar crime in Cleveland when he "patted down" Terry on that Halloween day in 1963. The specifics of that particular arrest definitely justify his actions and the final Supreme Court Decision.
The tricky part is probable cause... Probable cause means the officer has to be able to articulate a factual cause as to why he wants to search uou.. Ask if youre being detained.. If he says yes.. Ask for what PC.. If he says suspicion then tell him that suspiciousness is not a crime.. Invoke your 5th ammendment
Yes he did confuse those 2 probable cause means they have seen something like say drugs in plain site or a gun in plain site or open booze bottles that can give them the right to enter your vehicle reasonable suspicion means they think you might have something illegal on your person or in your vehicle under reaso banks suspicion they can't search your vehicle they need probable cause to search your vehicle
You guys have to understand how he is explaining things. He is explaining it fron a cops point of view. I will say the same thing from a citizens point of view: IT IS ILLEGAL FOR POLICE TO SEARCH YOU OR YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPENSION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED, HAS BEEN COMMITTED, OR WILL BE COMMITTED. A COP CANT TerrY STOP A PERSON WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED ETC. Lawyers use words of art to make the average person think which ever way they want. Please learn the law
Dan, for such a passionately debated topic I am surprised this video hasn't captured more attention. It is as you say down and dirty, providing the basics. Thanks... of course there are questions. There have to to be questions:) Since I 1st heard the term I heard of it used in the context of stopping people in high crime areas for no other reason that they were in high crime areas and perhaps secondary to that met the profile characteristics of the common perpetrators of crime in these areas (young/male/particular clothing style etc...). In the NYC use days, was your understanding of the coined term different? I was raised near Boston. Aside from Barney Miller, nearly everything New York City was bad. The prevalence of crime even in better parts of the city only perpetuated the image. It got much worse in the 80's it seemed. Then the city leaders went tough on crime. Different from LEO's doing things on their own, when leadership acts the effects are broad and more uniform, thus more likely to lead to intended results. I heard about what was happening in the 90's, saw the Constitutional issue of stopping someone with no real suspicion of criminal activity. But I didn't care. It made NYC a better place for ~everyone~. While it most assuredly violated the founding principles of our rule of law, did the ends justify the means in this case? Thanks for the video.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. We don't speak for Prof. Capra, but it seems you ask a fundamental question. Could something Unconstitutional benefit society? The answer most lawyers would give is that, if it's unconstitutional, it's by definition not permitted, without even considering the long term impact on society. I'm just a youtube channel moderator, but I could certainly imagine where one unconstitutional action could have a net positive benefit, but perhaps the "law and order" provided by having an overarching and fair-minded governing document (in this case the Constitution) has a more important long term net positive on society and rule of law?
Well the Constitution does provide for martial law. Perhaps severe cases like NYC in the latter 20th century illustrates a need for something short of military action but more than routine civil policing. Something to think about. If this isn't your video, did you get it off of someone else channel?
This is our video, Eli. We are a legal media company. Prof. Capra was our guest for an interview here: www.talksonlaw.com/talks/police-power-and-personal-rights. We were just pointing out that he isn't responding to these messages as he is busy teaching and writing about evidence and criminal procedure.
I think the average person is aware of the legality of these tenets, what most of us don't know is the nuances of the subjectiveness of "reasonable cause/suspicion" Who decides what is reasonable?
They have to have probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or about to be committed.. Meaning they have to be able to put into words a fact base statement of why they are detaining you..suspiciousness in itself is not a crime or a reason for detainment. They can make contact with you but always asked what is their RAS OR PC.. Ask if you are being detained or if you're free to go? If he says he's detaining you keep pressing about the RAS or PC.. IF they keep saying you're being detained then you have the right to invoke your 5th ammendment and tell them you don't want to say nothing without a lawyer present.
How long do you have to wait for the officer to get out of his car to ask you for your license registration and Certificate of Insurance i think if he pulled me over he should get out of his car right away
Goodness that's an interesting question. On the spot, the answer is you have to wait as long as they take, but perhaps you could record / document how long it took to potentially use in a future defense to show perhaps that there was something wrong with the officer's equipment or that the officer was behaving strangely. Were you stuck waiting for a long time in the past?
I've heard of cops using stop and frisk to search for drugs, often times with humiliating cavity searches. How is this not a violation of Terry v. Ohio
manuel canino I don’t believe it has anything at all to do with that. If a crime was committed in the area, and then the police questions you, and you might be associated with the crime, then he arrests you
wait, if cops can’t illegally search anyone, some criminals will evade ? say it ain’t sooo! let’s give cops 100% free searches, abolish search warrants, let cops do whatever they want ! dirt brain
Cops have the right to ask you whatever you want. It is your right however to refuse to answer. If you are doing nothing wrong its best to just cooperate, there is no need to be a dick for no reason. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If they start to get too personal, then thats when you can draw the line.
its not racist and stop and frisk is the reason why crimes were at a all time low It's just the people the police pull over for stop and frisk acting like a "victim" then they bring their stupid race card out.
a few years ago I was walking to the bus stop on my way to work, in the
morning.
I saw a sheriffs car at the corner, bust a you turn and stop. Sheriff
deputy jumps out in front of me telling me to put my hands on the hood
because they was looking for a burglary suspect. Now if I miss my bus, I
will arrive to work late, get written up or even get fired from work.
HOW MUCH IS A LAW SUIT LIKE THAT IS WORTH WHEN IT COMES TO STOP AND FRISK ? this is why the rules of people rights are important.
You make a good point. There can be economic consequences to being detained as well.
Make the cop write you an excuse note
Yeah but he isn’t arresting you. If you COMMUNICATE with him, then he or she should understand. If you was running late to the bus, tough luck I guess. Everyone gets unlucky like that due to a wide variety of reasons. Expect the unexpected
Lazy Boi237 if it were that easy it wouldn’t be a problem
It's worth all the murders in NY in 2022....😂😂😂..which could have been stopped if the criminals were stopped and frisked...
All stop frisk is Sin fondling dirty
It seems like its hard to argue with an officer about "reasonable suspicion" when the stop is occurring, which stops people from really being able to resist a wrongful search. Regardless, great video- very informative. :)
You never resist but if you can record the encounter and state that you do not consent to any searches or seizures and you can talk to police by not answering questions but by asking questions. "What reasonable suspicion do you have that I have committed or am committing or am about to commit a crime and which crime?"
@@Madmok128 Thanks. Very well said. So true.
Exactly this is just like a police state is just like communism and it does need to stop now
does an officer need to report the reasonable suspicion he or she has before "stop and frisk"?
1:47 If you don't have a good answer, isn't it best to say "I don't have to answer that"? Or maybe in all cases don't answer any questions?
The Stop and Frisk concept is perfectly legal but as stated, it was unevenly applied. And if a LEO frisked you, it is supposed to be for weapons only that could hurt the officer. Cops would find drugs and charge people but they weren’t supposed to be frisking for drugs, so the uneven application of Stop and Frisk is what is unconstitutional and it is never used outside of large urban areas with large minority populations.
Thanks Willie. Yes you make a good point. The issue in New York for example were claims of the inappropriate (excessive) use of this police tool that when used properly is constitutional, along with charges that the impact of the policy disproportionally hurt poor and largely minority communities.
Great question. The question that usually arrises from an improper search or frisk is "Can the evidence be suppressed?" In other words, can it be thrown out for purposes of a subsequent criminal trial? It's a very interesting question. We recommend you check out this interview we did with Capra. He explains pretty well the complex issues involved. www.talksonlaw.com/talks/police-power-and-personal-rights.
Two questions. What is reasonable suspicion? Why do police ask your permission to search your car, if they pull you over for a traffic stop? You can say no to the search. They can detain you until you comply.
Axe Pagode here is some info on reasonable suspicion. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion. Since I’m just a moderator I don’t want to lead you in the wrong direction by over simplifying. That said, we will talk to prof Capra about doing an explainer on Reasonable Suspicion in the future with us.
Theodore Vegh, I think you are missing my point. The police need permission to search your car, even if they pulled you over for speeding or a broken tail light. However, if you are walking down the street, they can stop you and frisk you. All they need is reasonable suspicion.
@Theodore Vegh If they call for a drug dog after they stop you for a minor traffic infraction and have no reasonable suspicion that you are carrying drugs (usually what they say is that they smell drugs), the act of detaining you is illegal. Unfortunately the supreme court has ruled that drug dogs "keying" on your car is grounds for a search, even though there is no standard of training or certification of drug dogs (usually the cops train them in house) and there is no one but the K-9 dog handler's word that the dog "keyed" on the car. So there is no objective indication that the dog knows what it is doing or even that the dog has given a positive reaction.
I got pulled over for tinted windows but I knew they just wanted to get me pulled over to start fishing.. To make it short. They asked me about windows and then asked for paperwork.
I provided all that and everything was good.. They then asked if I had weapon or drugs in car and I said no. They said well you don't have a problem with us looking them right.. I said yes I do not consent to searches.. They proceed to ask me what was in my cup and smelled it which was jus juice.. They wanted to "check my tint". So I barely rolled it down so they could get meter on it. And they kept pressing about searching and I politely declined.. They left and didn't even write me a ticket. Moral of the story :KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!!
@@axepagode33626 A search of your car requires consent or probable cause. Without consent or PC they still have the same reasonable suspicion grounds to do a pat down search for weapons. Unfortunately it's pretty easy to fabricate reasonable suspicion and possibly even easier to fabricate probable cause. Acting nervous? It's BS, but some cops will say it makes them suspicious - why would you be nervous just because you might get a traffic ticket? Do they smell pot? No, but if they honestly (no practical way to test their honesty, of course) think they do they have PC for a search.
Absent PC detaining you for longer than it takes to check your documents and issue a warning or a ticket prolongs the stop illegally. If they've returned your documents that's a pretty clear indication that the traffic stop has been concluded, even if the 2nd cop with a dog is just shifting into park.
Thanks for your information. It answered my questions very well. Thanks for sharing.
Question: Reasonable Suspicion does not work while driving? Probable Cause is the stop then? Reasonable Suspicion is for walking or hanging around?
The Supreme Court decision was made as a result of an arrest my uncle, Detective Martin J. Mc Fadden made in Down Town Cleveland in 1963 in front of The United Airlines Ticket office. One of the men he arrested later shot and killed a drug store owner in Columbus Ohio during an attempted robbery. Detective Mc Fadden may have very well prevented a similar crime in Cleveland when he "patted down" Terry on that Halloween day in 1963. The specifics of that particular arrest definitely justify his actions and the final
Supreme Court Decision.
Interesting bit of backstory... Thanks for sharing!
also is stop and frisking somebody under the age 18 child molestation and those 18 and over sexual assault ?
Ironically Terry and Chiltons nephews both became Cloumbus Ohio Policemen Officers. I had the opportunity to meet them.
In a government class - this was legit. Thanks
eric netzel thx for the feedback!
The tricky part is probable cause... Probable cause means the officer has to be able to articulate a factual cause as to why he wants to search uou.. Ask if youre being detained.. If he says yes.. Ask for what PC.. If he says suspicion then tell him that suspiciousness is not a crime.. Invoke your 5th ammendment
carlton curry you’re confusing reasonable suspicion with probable cause.
Yes he did confuse those 2 probable cause means they have seen something like say drugs in plain site or a gun in plain site or open booze bottles that can give them the right to enter your vehicle reasonable suspicion means they think you might have something illegal on your person or in your vehicle under reaso banks suspicion they can't search your vehicle they need probable cause to search your vehicle
You guys have to understand how he is explaining things. He is explaining it fron a cops point of view. I will say the same thing from a citizens point of view: IT IS ILLEGAL FOR POLICE TO SEARCH YOU OR YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPENSION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED, HAS BEEN COMMITTED, OR WILL BE COMMITTED. A COP CANT TerrY STOP A PERSON WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED ETC. Lawyers use words of art to make the average person think which ever way they want. Please learn the law
Dan, for such a passionately debated topic I am surprised this video hasn't captured more attention. It is as you say down and dirty, providing the basics. Thanks... of course there are questions. There have to to be questions:)
Since I 1st heard the term I heard of it used in the context of stopping people in high crime areas for no other reason that they were in high crime areas and perhaps secondary to that met the profile characteristics of the common perpetrators of crime in these areas (young/male/particular clothing style etc...). In the NYC use days, was your understanding of the coined term different?
I was raised near Boston. Aside from Barney Miller, nearly everything New York City was bad. The prevalence of crime even in better parts of the city only perpetuated the image. It got much worse in the 80's it seemed. Then the city leaders went tough on crime. Different from LEO's doing things on their own, when leadership acts the effects are broad and more uniform, thus more likely to lead to intended results.
I heard about what was happening in the 90's, saw the Constitutional issue of stopping someone with no real suspicion of criminal activity. But I didn't care. It made NYC a better place for ~everyone~. While it most assuredly violated the founding principles of our rule of law, did the ends justify the means in this case?
Thanks for the video.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. We don't speak for Prof. Capra, but it seems you ask a fundamental question. Could something Unconstitutional benefit society? The answer most lawyers would give is that, if it's unconstitutional, it's by definition not permitted, without even considering the long term impact on society. I'm just a youtube channel moderator, but I could certainly imagine where one unconstitutional action could have a net positive benefit, but perhaps the "law and order" provided by having an overarching and fair-minded governing document (in this case the Constitution) has a more important long term net positive on society and rule of law?
Well the Constitution does provide for martial law. Perhaps severe cases like NYC in the latter 20th century illustrates a need for something short of military action but more than routine civil policing. Something to think about.
If this isn't your video, did you get it off of someone else channel?
This is our video, Eli. We are a legal media company. Prof. Capra was our guest for an interview here: www.talksonlaw.com/talks/police-power-and-personal-rights. We were just pointing out that he isn't responding to these messages as he is busy teaching and writing about evidence and criminal procedure.
oic... excellent. I liked the production. Keep it up!
I think the average person is aware of the legality of these tenets, what most of us don't know is the nuances of the subjectiveness of "reasonable cause/suspicion" Who decides what is reasonable?
Matt Curley thanks Matt. We will look at doing an explainer or “what is reasonable suspicion soon!”
They have to have probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or about to be committed.. Meaning they have to be able to put into words a fact base statement of why they are detaining you..suspiciousness in itself is not a crime or a reason for detainment. They can make contact with you but always asked what is their RAS OR PC.. Ask if you are being detained or if you're free to go? If he says he's detaining you keep pressing about the RAS or PC.. IF they keep saying you're being detained then you have the right to invoke your 5th ammendment and tell them you don't want to say nothing without a lawyer present.
It comes down to!!! what ever cops want to do they do. Legal or illegal.
Stop & Frisk jammed up many people. Glad its gone in NYC, my home turf.
Good stuff
Explained very well..
Thanks
Thank you Dr. Jones!
How long do you have to wait for the officer to get out of his car to ask you for your license registration and Certificate of Insurance i think if he pulled me over he should get out of his car right away
Goodness that's an interesting question. On the spot, the answer is you have to wait as long as they take, but perhaps you could record / document how long it took to potentially use in a future defense to show perhaps that there was something wrong with the officer's equipment or that the officer was behaving strangely. Were you stuck waiting for a long time in the past?
@@Talksonlaw yes hade to wait almost 10 minutes he could have had all of his stuff done before you ever turned on his lights
What about "officer safety"?
I've heard of cops using stop and frisk to search for drugs, often times with humiliating cavity searches. How is this not a violation of Terry v. Ohio
IN HIGH CRIME AREA OK , CRIME IS DOWN NOT OK
manuel canino I don’t believe it has anything at all to do with that. If a crime was committed in the area, and then the police questions you, and you might be associated with the crime, then he arrests you
☻☻☻...8 years later ...you see the crime spike on NY after stop and frisk was abolished...😂😂
wait, if cops can’t illegally search anyone, some criminals will evade ? say it ain’t sooo! let’s give cops 100% free searches, abolish search warrants, let cops do whatever they want ! dirt brain
Well this doesn't sound very fun
But then sans and toriel SAVE you
Yup. Clear as mud...
Is this guy a lawyer or a cop?
Cops have no rights to ask anyone about what’s your name, where are you coming from, it’s unconstitutional.
Cops have the right to ask you whatever you want. It is your right however to refuse to answer. If you are doing nothing wrong its best to just cooperate, there is no need to be a dick for no reason. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. If they start to get too personal, then thats when you can draw the line.
its not racist and stop and frisk is the reason why crimes were at a all time low
It's just the people the police pull over for stop and frisk acting like a "victim" then they bring their stupid race card out.
Stop and frisk is very common in minority neighborhoods. And that’s a FACT. I don’t see police doing that in suburban areas lol.
CRT isn’t racist either
Joe Biden included this in the 1994 crime bill btw
So basically we have no rights. fabulous.
we do, they need reasonable suspicion of a crime and being armed … that’s a high threshold, most cops ignore it but just sue
What a wonderful thing,
Thanks for the kind words, Lorenzo!
I love that Hilary is a lawyer by trade and doesn’t know the law but not a lawyer trump did.
Are you on drugs? Trump didn't know shit. He did his usual word salad.
trump was wrong too
TRUMP 2020