E
ezkl2230
Guest
Despite a judge ruling NYC's random stop and frisk policy unconstitutional, Detroit, which uses the same blueprint, will continue the practice -- one that most of us in Michigan outside of Detroit were unaware of. According to the police chief,
Constitutional police work. Let's consider what constitutes "Constitutional."
The Fourth Amendment says,
Probable cause is only part of the equation.
A reasonable search of one's person includes ALL of the following:
1. Probable cause. This is different than "reasonable suspicion," to which the Constitution NEVER REFERS. According to FreeLex, the online legal dictionary,
Just because "reasonable suspicion" is used to justify a search does not mean that it rises to the level demanded in the Fourth Amendment.
2. Oath or affirmation. While the Detroit chief says that all of these searches are documented, at no point is an oath or affirmation required of the officer conducting the search.
3. Specific details about what or whom is to be searched/seized. A warrantless stop and frisk doesn't require this.
4. A WARRANT. These are warrantless searches, requiring none of the Constitutionally-mandated pre-requisites seen above.
According to the Constitution, then, such stop and frisk procedures constitute unreasonable search and seizure.
Based on reasonable suspicion, the Detroit Police Department is already a stop-and-frisk policing agency. Detroit's population is mostly African American, so it stands to reason that a high number of African Americans will be stopped, based on reasonable suspicion. This is not racial profiling, just officers doing good constitutional police work.
Constitutional police work. Let's consider what constitutes "Constitutional."
The Fourth Amendment says,
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.
Probable cause is only part of the equation.
A reasonable search of one's person includes ALL of the following:
1. Probable cause. This is different than "reasonable suspicion," to which the Constitution NEVER REFERS. According to FreeLex, the online legal dictionary,
"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside. To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion.
Just because "reasonable suspicion" is used to justify a search does not mean that it rises to the level demanded in the Fourth Amendment.
2. Oath or affirmation. While the Detroit chief says that all of these searches are documented, at no point is an oath or affirmation required of the officer conducting the search.
3. Specific details about what or whom is to be searched/seized. A warrantless stop and frisk doesn't require this.
4. A WARRANT. These are warrantless searches, requiring none of the Constitutionally-mandated pre-requisites seen above.
According to the Constitution, then, such stop and frisk procedures constitute unreasonable search and seizure.