Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court ruling on stop and search without cause?

This is a huge expansion of police powers and will encourage some police to stop people for no reason and see if they can find a reason to arrest them.

As a private citizen I don't like the idea of being stopped and searched without probable cause. However when I was doing the stopping I had less problem with it. Sort of depends on which side of the stop you are on.

Here in Detroit, police have a "Stop and Frisk" allowance where they can stop anyone on the street and frisk them for weapons (and any other bits that may be evidence to a crime). Why? Because we have a serious problem regarding felons carrying weapons illegally. And there's a major heroin problem on the streets, as well. Not that I've seen it done or anything, but I'm all for giving the police a little more power to do their jobs without having to witness a crime in progress or searching for a suspect after the fact. And I don't hear much about them abusing this power by stopping and searching every Tom, Dick and Harry walking around Detroit. What I do know is that there are far too many murders going on downtown, and a good majority of the ones that are caught are people who shouldn't actually be carrying a firearm at all.

I haven't heard of this. I disagree, but I need to read more into it. 4th amendment right.

I support the Constitution as written, so no need to expound about which amendments. They need to do their job correctly and follow the law, and giving them this leeway opens the door for abuse by any that might choose to do so. We are expected to maintain license, registration, and insurance so it's reasonable to expect them to abide by the law as well. It's a bit different but they already have Terry stops/searches per Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and if they truly are for officer safety I'm all for those because LEO's have a tough and dangerous job. If they are using Terry as a reason to frisk someone under the guise of safety while the real purpose is to find some contraband, then that's a stretch. Why? Because you can tell by looking if someone has a pistol or knife in their front pocket, provided it's in plain view. Unless they are looking for the world's tiniest pistol or knife then playing touchy feely with the lower edge of the pocket is not to find a weapon, but rather to find contraband that is now admissible due to discovery under Terry. Give LEO's what they need to stay safe and make reasonable arrests but only to a point that still upholds rights of the accused.

4

Now it's the car, when will it be our homes?

The constitution isn't ambiguous on this. The forth amendment clearly prohibits an illegal detainment. There was no reasonable suspicion of a crime. This is obviously an illegal search. Anything found while conducting an illegal search is inadmissible also any evidence that resulted from information illegally obtained is likewise inadmissible. There's a whole term for it. They refer to this as fruit of the poisoned tree. A truly bad call that flies in the face of the constitution and the justices duty to uphold it.

Is this for everyone or is this just for American Muslims?

As a former police officer, I've seen my share of instances where true probable cause was lacking. I've seen cars stopped on pretense of "no turn signal, burned out light bulb, low tire..."etc just to get a "whiff" of the inside of the vehicle. I wish I could say that my experience proves that ethical standards are high for most municipal and county law enforcement but unfortunately not. If you want to make an officer mad, make him wait to get a warrant before he searches your car. It's the legal process but if there is a hard nose by the book judge in your district, the officer knows that he won't get the warrant on suspicion. Our right to privacy and constitutional protections are evaporating before our eyes. Since I've worn that uniform, I appreciate the dangerous job that officers do but not every person they come into contact with is the enemy....