They don't stop and frisk on Wall St. They do it in high crime areas ! DUH Wonder why the ones frisk are blks and hispanics ? Its because they are the ones killing each other.

But the point is clear. If they were stopping and frisking everyone, which IMO they should be doing if they're going to do it, then white folks would have a flippin' come-apart and be calling legislators, police buddies, whoever they could to demand that it stop because it's unfair and they ain't done nothing wrong.

If White folks are in the high crime area you can bet your azz they get the same. Most whites don't get searched because they are not in high crime areas. Do you want to waste the polices times in low crime areas just so they can say they are fair ? Blacks cry because too many young blk men are in prison. I guess they'd rather have those animals loose in their neighborhoods. You don't do stupid things just to appear fair. Clem you are too liberal, you have never been shot at or carried a gun with instructions to protect lives. Look at the whole picture not just"lets be fair"

Police patrols don't infringe on the civil rights of poor folks. Of course they should patrol the projects more than my neighborhood.
But you can't say that just because someone is poor they lose their civil rights and should get frisked all the time, that's not how this works. Should they search their homes too? That might lower crime even more.

Because, next, they'll say that you're a risk because you're a white male. Point is, the government shouldn't get to decide who gets civil liberties, we should all get them.

Just so I'm clear, are we talking about Terry Stops? Supreme Court already ruled on that and they are fine or are we talking about just some random stop and frisk with not articulable reasonable suspicion? I've never heard of a court thinking that was OK and if it ever came up I think the Terry case pretty well lays it out.

don't be muddying up the legal waters there Mr. jawbone sir....

As long as there is reasonable suspicion, that changes everything.

Yep. We should never give up our freedoms because of what some folks have done,might do or could do.

The New York stop and frisk case was determined to be illegal. I don't care what Rudy said.

Stopping and frisking is not illegal in and of itself. But, the Terry standards must apply. Reasonable Suspicion that the individual is "armed and dangerous".

The court ruled that the baseless stop and frisk conducted by New York was no constitutional on two grounds. 1. It didn't require reasonable suspicion. 2. The evidence showed that the stops were conducted based on racial profiling.

Some of you may have no problem with racial profiling. But, just wait until it is Hitlery in charge and it is white males they are stopping and harassing.

doekiller, I agree. That same power can wind up bitin all of us in the butt.
Just because there is a statute or law doesn't mean that it's constitutionally legal.
Abe Lincoln did a lot of crap by the strong arm of the military/law but it was illegal.
Just showed the tyrant that he was.

No, this policy was requiring no reasonable suspicion.

Terry V. Ohio already covers this. That matter was asked and answered years ago and shouldn't be an issue unless The Supreme Court sees a reason to revisit it.

Does Alabama's Section 15-5-30 and 15-5-31 meet Terry standards? Is "reasonable suspicion" that a person MIGHT BE about to commit a public offense grounds for stop and frisk? That's Alabama law, not NY.

Pretty much except that Terry doesn't allow a "search". It only allows the LEO to "pat down" the subject. You can not conduct an invasive search unless a weapon is felt in the pat down.

How about DCNR rule 220-2-.12? Does it meet Terry standards?

I'm not familiar with DCNR regs except the ones I try to follow so I'll refer this question to Troy or one of our other wardens on here.

Ignorance is no excuse Jawbone.

Better not go hunting until you're familiar with all of 'em. Good luck with that.

220-2-12 calls for game and fish to be transported openly and allows fr the inspection of any car/boat/box/coat that carries game or fish to be inspected by officers of DCNR

not covered under Terry which covered looking for a weapon for officer safety.

Who says it's not covered by Terry?

Thanks for the advice, Eddie.