It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Rules That It Is OK To Frisk Passengers

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Supreme Court Rules That It Is OK To Frisk Passengers


www.blacklistednews.com

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.

The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.

The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
The question here is what constitutes a reasonable suspicion?

Skin colour?

Nationality?

Ethnicity?

Wearing Glasses?

Parting in the hair?

Basically, what they are saying with this, is that a police officer can now frisk anyone for anything for no other reason than a "feeling"

I understand that police officers have a dangerous job, and they should be able to take steps to defend themselves, but IMO this is a recipe for disaster and an infringement of civil liberties.

www.blacklistednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski

The question here is what constitutes a reasonable suspicion?

Skin colour?

Nationality?

Ethnicity?

Wearing Glasses?

Parting in the hair?



Also remember the new article about odd first names are more likely to commit crimes. If you have a common first name you might get off scott free.

Here is a link to story.

Unusual names = More crime



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
to anyone believing we're heading towards a police state

boy,,, this sure is some good proof

what was that little paperr thing called with rights that said something like
unreasonable search and seizure

what's that thing called????



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Basically, what they are saying with this, is that a police officer can now frisk anyone for anything for no other reason than a "feeling"

I understand that police officers have a dangerous job, and they should be able to take steps to defend themselves, but IMO this is a recipe for disaster and an infringement of civil liberties.
[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]


Don't police already do that...when they aren't in airports? If a cop pulls you over and thinks you're suspicious they can search your car and frisk you...I don't really see how this is infringing on anything...especially since you're on government run property.


Originally posted by shortywarn
to anyone believing we're heading towards a police state

boy,,, this sure is some good proof

what was that little paperr thing called with rights that said something like
unreasonable search and seizure

what's that thing called????


The government owns the airport, they too have public property rights. If someone comes on to your property don't you have the ability to frisk them? or even shoot them? This is completely not violating anything

[edit on 29-1-2009 by yellowcard]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
[



The government owns the airport, they too have public property rights. If someone comes on to your property don't you have the ability to frisk them? or even shoot them? This is completely not violating anything

[edit on 29-1-2009 by yellowcard]


who is talking about an airport,,, this was a traffic stop,,,did you read the link???????????


do people even read the links anymore ,, or just read the snippet and comment?????????



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Here's the original link...

AP

and what's even more interesting is Blacklisted News POSTED the original link....not sure why the majority of ppl on ATS gives online news sites that are 'alternative' a condescending statement like.. "oh.. even though it's *insert news site*:...even when they post the original source!!

Kinda like AJ does..



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join