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

SFC (Join to see) - Exactly which is what I was waiting to see if TSgt Shirley to read or perhaps re-read as he missed the whole point of that before he went on his tirade.

We are all getting screwed. The false L vs R paradigm is designed solely to keep us at each other's throats rather than to see how we are all being robbed. Fundamentally, we all are likely to have things in common if we could get past the highly emotional trivial issues that are presented to divide us.

Ask yourself these questions: was there really a strong push for gay marriage? How about women in combat?

It is very likely that some amount of oppressive policies were emplaced in Ferguson that created this monster. Does that mean that all of the people there are angels? Certainly not.

Rational thought and a little bit of intellectual honesty should allow us to bring ourselves to some areas of common agreement. This is why "stop and search," without probable cause is a bad thing. Well intentioned, possibly, but a horrible idea in practice.

TSgt Frank Shirley So not only do you give me a thumbs down and not explain why, you refuse to read the article because the title is enough? Using that logic I suppose you believe that Melville's Moby Dick is about overgrown male genitalia. I disagree with 85% of MSNBC's content but will watch. Huffpo .. same but I will read ... Why do you choose to be willingly ignorant? That's a very Trumpian mindset.

TSgt Frank Shirley - Mr. Trump uses inane rhetoric, bluster and insults to detract from that fact that he is not well informed on an issue.

"NO NEED TO READ THE STORY THE TITLE IS ENOUGH." Inane rhetoric
Use of all caps despite being informed as to the breach of etiquette ... Bluster
Your condescending remark the first time I informed you of your breach of etiquette ... insults.

Since you insist on "e-yelling" after being informed on this breach of etiquette, you are no longer acting out of ignorance, you are acting in a Trumpian manner. Therefore, the comparison is valid and appropriate.

Had you read the entirety of the article from Fox news you would have discovered:
1. The 80% of Ferguson, Missouri residents have warrants as reported by Fox news … That was from a 2015 Justice Department investigation.
2. That the statement was not reported as a condemnation of the citizens but of the police who abused their authority to bring in revenue to the city.

Below are two links you can use to learn appropriate etiquette. I offer them to you as I would anyone un or misinformed on the proper manner to conduct themselves in order to insure there are no slights from miscommunication.

http://www.netmanners.com/426/courtesy-1/

https://newrepublic.com/article/117390/netiquette-capitalization-how-caps-became-code-yelling

PO3 Chris Scheide - It may, or may not, encourage unlawful stops. On one hand, some cop might be thinking, "Maybe I'll get lucky and he will have a warrant." But at the same time, the mayor and police chief might be saying, "Don't get the city sued for 10 million dollars by some guy you illegally stopped and he has a good lawyer. The risk is way too high for the potential reward of an occasional arrest."

TSgt Frank Shirley
Frank, on that we see eye to eye!

I had previously only gotten the barest details of the case, but today I read the whole article posted above and I'm pretty pleased that I pretty much nailed the thinking behind the decision. That either says I have a logical mind, or that Justices aren't any smarter than Jarheads..... And I haven't changed my position in this case, I think they made the right decision. My wife would be surprised probably because I usually refer to police as highwaymen waiting to rob the working man who is just trying to get where he needs to be to take care of his family. I used to drive a really fast shiny black car, they are kind of a fetish for me. Call it the white-boy version of driving while black, they were always after me. Then I discovered a legal miracle! I found a lawyer that specialized in traffic offenses, and he would defend traffic tickets for flat fee of $200. He got 4 tickets dismissed for me, and at last check among my friends and coworkers he was like 14:0 dismissals. So, over the three years I owned that car, I calculated that I paid about $20 a month to drive any way I damn well pleased! (not an admission of any driving offenses) Ah, freedom from tyranny! Before someone quickly points out the problem with my math, understand I eventually figured out my cars performance was completely in a class way above anything they were driving, and cops aren't nearly as good drivers as they think they are either (not their fault, they learned to drive in a full-size sedan that is not setup for NASCAR), so I stopped hiring the attorney and just increased my speed when I saw the cops coming. And before anyone says you can't outrun the radio...yes, yes you can. (Legal Disclaimer: Not saying necessarily that I outran the cops over and over, I am just saying I know that it can be done over and over.) A friend in law enforcement warned me my car was completely unfairly and arbitrarily placed on 'the list' to stop-on-sight (no idea why, after all, I'm not saying that I necessarily ever outran the police, over and over). Knowing that eventually because of my driving while black in a community where law enforcement clearly had it out for me, I decided I just needed to sell the car to escape their harassment. Midlife crisis in remission, at least until I buy my Aston/Martin V8 Vantage in about two years.....they really won't stand a chance of catching that car (of course, not necessarily with me behind the wheel).

Sgt Joseph Baker - That is an excellent point, especially in our lawsuit happy society.

Have had similar incidents as a kid, I feel your pain sir.

TSgt Frank Shirley - You need to re-read my comment, then go back to school to learn how to spell. I said I was against Stop & frisk. Not sure what the HUE of my skin has to do with anything. If you think the NYPD stopped only minorities during their stop & frisk day, you're stupid. While minorities suffer the brunt of these abuses, they are not the only people to have to endure it. And one does not have to be a victim of abusive police practices to be against abusive police practices.

I should have said, it is not a crime for looking wrong or dressing different. The crime comes in when you are illegally stopped and searched.

Was not the search a 'frisk' during the arrest, not a search of his vehicle? That is my understanding and being frisked during arrest is standard practice, there is no controversy on that. I still say SCOTUS is making a distinction here, not opening a floodgate for illegal searches. They are distinguishing between the arrest on a warrant for an act that occurred prior to the traffic stop. To say the police and the courts can't arrest you for an outstanding warrant during a traffic stop because the stop was improper doesn't make sense from a legal standpoint. What if the guy is a serial killer that has a warrant for murder, does it serve the greater interests of society to tell him to go on his way, we'll catch you later when you have a broken tail light? SCOTUS clearly approved of the arrest on the warrant, that is not at issue. The issue is the charge for possession when dope was found in his pocket when he was being frisked. The frisking was deemed appropriate because he was under arrest for an action that took place prior to the traffic stop and had nothing to do with the traffic stop. If the search was performed strictly because of the traffic stop, SCOTUS would not have allowed the evidence. I believe SCOTUS found the right balance of protection of the individual's right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, and the public's need to uphold the power of the Judiciary to force a person to appear in court to settle a matter-at-law. I know that many people disagree with the position I am taking, and I absolutely understand and respect their defense of the constitution against what they see as an assault. This is how democracy works.

Sgt Joseph Baker - You said " To say the police and the courts can't arrest you for an outstanding warrant during a traffic stop because the stop was improper doesn't make sense from a legal standpoint."

Actually it DOES make sense. If they hadn't illegally stopped the person, they would not have known his name, nor would they have been able to find out he had an outstanding warrant. If the police illegally search your home and find illegal items or substances, they cannot use that evidence because the basis for the search was improper. That's why we have the 4th Amendment. Every sentence in the 4th Amendment has meaning and protects against governmental overreach.

Except that the Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule is “applicable only . . . where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs.” We are not letting murderers go because an officer who can articulate what he believes is reasonable suspicion may or may not have been wrong. In this case SCOTUS found “the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee that has been violated would not be served by suppression of the evidence obtained.”

SCOTUS also says "And once Officer Fackrell discovered the warrant, he had an obligation to arrest Strieff. “A warrant is a judicial mandate to an officer to conduct a search or make an arrest, and the officer has a sworn duty to carry out its provisions.”

Further SCOTUS suggests the possibility that the warrant provides the necessary justification even if the officer was unaware of the existence of the warrant.

Could we make the evidence found admissible, but also punish the officer who is caught going on fishing expeditions?

SGM, assuming you didn't read the opinion (it is quite short), the majority talked a lot about the risk of fishing expeditions and what could happen to evidence if that were found. This want a roundup, and doesn't appear to be a law enforcement scheme to make unlawful searches lawful.

LTC (Join to see) - Sir not only did I read it, I read the dissent opinion as well. And it too spoke of fishing by LEO ..and suggested this ruling did infact embolden illegal searches

MAJ Carl Ballinger - Implied consent laws make it legal for law enforcement to check the operators license and proof of insurance upon request, as well as submit to field sobriety tests and breathalyzers. Where they cross into the gray area with their 'checkpoints' is when they stop vehicles for DL and sobriety checks then start fishing for other stuff. A study in Illinois last year revealed that less than 1% of thousands of citations/arrests at DUI checkpoints were actually for DUI.

MAJ Carl Ballinger - That is a matter of opinion and I respect that. But like it or not, the SCOTUS upheld it and it is the law of the land. My beef is that law enforcement uses implied consent for DL/sobriety checks as a loophole to find "probable cause" for other violations. Nobody in the car but the driver should have to produce a DL/ID at a sobriety checkpoint. But cops will sometimes ask all the occupants for ID and run a check if they feel like it.

MAJ (Verify To See) - I'm intrigued with your comment. What do you mean SCOTUS does not have Constitutional Authority for judicial review? (" the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.")

Article II of the US Constitution says:
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Thanks for the clarification. Admittedly I had to go look up the term Judicial Review, I thought you were saying SCOTUS did not have Constitutional authority for Appellate review which I now understand is different.