It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Police stop more than 1 million people on street

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by jdub297

I have a couple of comments to your post.

Even I've been involved in "stops" by wary police. It didn't upset me, as I was out late, alone, and felt a little safer knowing they were close by during my jogs.

First off, it amazes me that any American citizen would not be upset over a unlawful detainment and search.

Secondly, You mention safety. Why have we accepted a culture change to where the individual has to have a "law enforcement officer" around to feel or be safe. We have been dis-empowered and we continue to accept further dis-empowerment to the point where we are so afraid that we are willing to give up our "god" given rights! Ridiculous!

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

You are protected against unlawful searching of course, but that is for your property and yourself while on your property.

This is absolutely false. Show me where in the fourth amendment, or anywhere in the constitution for that matter, where it says my fourth amendment rights only apply when I am on my property.

You mention airports. The airlines must certainly have the ability to request that you submit to a search before you enter their airline. They cannot force a search but are able to deny you further entrance onto their property. However in recent years it is not the airlines conducting the searches it is TSA. TSA is acting outside of Constitutional law.


I am so shellshocked by my actual story and current life that I simply dont talk about it.
I am now without any civil rights and a battle coming up for me is for them to restore them.
but not as much to me as other measures (patriot act...cough) that have been blown through.

Am I reading that right. Are you being charged for something under the patriot act?

[edit on 9-10-2009 by harvib]

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:39 PM
i was detained once illegally when i was a kid (19).

i was coming out of my friends house with 2 other friends, and we were surrounded by 6 cop cars. the cops had said they were researching a robbery in a house next door and that we looked like we might know something about it.

first off, if they had been sitting there all that time watching, then they know we didnt even go near the place, and i (nor them) knew anything about any of it.

cops had their flashlights on us and when one of them shined a light on my pants leg, they swore that i had glass shards on me, handcuffed me, and proceeded to search me even though i told them not to.

they found a bag and 2 j's rolled in it, in my pocket. they stuck me in the copcar and took me to jail.

they got my friends for underage drinking, even though one had admitted to only have a beer, YET blew a 0 on the breathalizer. then went into the house and got the guy who bought it for them.

so the four of us go to jail.

i was the last out (wasnt terrible, it was a small town), but still sucked. the lady at the entrance tried to say i was going to general pop for a felony, over an ounce, and i freaked out. i demanded to see my ticket and pointed out that it clearly said UNDER.

i told my lawyer they searched me illegally and what they had done.

instead of getting misdemeanor under ounce, i got disturbing the peace. good grades helped as well, but this is what happens.

you get labeled prime suspect in a possibly made up scenario and they search you till they find ANYTHING wrong (well a little above anything in my case, but still).

oh yea 10% of criminals arrested. like i was really doing anything wrong that night, but hanging out and enjoying my break from college.

the same happens to truckers all the time.

they find any reason to search you, say, missed something on your logbook (DOT is department of terror). then they search the whole truck and find any lights out, anything wrong with your truck at all. they even have an equation that tells how long your mud flaps should be depending on how high the trailer is compared to length of truck. and cite you for all of it.

since when did the cops become the states MAIN source of revenue instead of being the helpful people that you call when you are in distress.

makes me so angry.

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:44 PM
I live in Cincinnati and I have seen this first hand . I am a professional Dog trainer and sometimes I go into some not so safe neighborhoods - One night i got picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and on my way to the jailhouse the officers literally would zoom up on someone they recognized - not doing anything suspicious and strip search them rith on the street - To me this is worsr than Nazi behavior. It is as dark as it gets - watch out - They're HERE!

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by MikeNice81

I remember sitting in an "American Government" course in college. It was less than a year after 9/11. When the professor asked how many people would rather live in a dictatorship, where there future was chosen and they could live without fear and uncertainty, more than 2/3 of the class raised their hand.

That is scary and sad. I hope these individuals also signed up for a world history class to learn the usual outcome of a society wanting to be provided for.

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by jdub297

In Terry v. Ohio, the Court addressed exactly this type of conduct.

Terry v. Ohio has been discussed on this board before. I think you were involved in that discussion? If I remember correctly the case had to do with the interpretation of probable cause.

The word probable means more likely then not. Based on these statistics from the article:

The New York Police Department is among the most vocal defenders of the practice. Commissioner Raymond Kelly said recently that officers may stop as many as 600,000 people this year. About 10 percent are arrested.

There is a serious flaw in what behavior is probable cause. The statistics alone show this type of behavior to be unconstitutional.

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by MikeNice81

Your situation was a wrongful arrest. They can "detain" you for a reasonable amount of time. But as soon as YOU feel you are no longer "Free to leave," you are legally under arrest.

Without probable cayse, the officer violated your rights.

"Refusal to cooperate" is NOT probable cause. You have every right NOT to consent to a search.

Once you consent, and most people do, the game is over.

You were 100% correct in your conduct and assessment, except for the "p.c." The officer clearly had neither "reasonable suspicion" nor "probable cause."

Will you do something, or let it go?


posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by harvib

Secondly, You mention safety. Why have we accepted a culture change to where the individual has to have a "law enforcement officer" around to feel or be safe. We have been dis-empowered and we continue to accept further dis-empowerment to the point where we are so afraid that we are willing to give up our "god" given rights! Ridiculous!

If I was afraid for my safety, I wouldn't have been out late at night alone, would I? You miconstrue reassurance for fear.

I don't "have to have" anyone around to feel safe. My place in Texas is rural, dark and infrequently patrolled by the county. My place in Indiana is less than 2 miles from one of the highest crime areas in the county.

I go out when I want. It's nice to know the cops know me, and that they're not afraid to stop suspicious people, including me.


posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 10:36 PM
reply to post by harvib

Terry v. Ohio has been discussed on this board before. I think you were involved in that discussion? If I remember correctly the case had to do with the interpretation of probable cause.

I've never discussed Terry here before. I did post in a thread about someone having cops come to their house while they were drinking outside.

Terry was not about "probable cause" (the standard for arrest), but "reasonable suspicion" (the standard for a 'stop and frisk").

Later decisions, by the way, have expanded the definition of "arrest."
If you (subjectively) do not feel "free to leave," you ARE under arrest and ALL your attendant constitutional rights attach.

The police have often accepted that unless they said some 'magic words' (i.e., "you're under arrest"), then they could do whatever they wanted. Not true.

"Just say no."


posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:26 PM
How can it be reasonable when their suspicion is only correct 10% of the time? Sounds like they need to rethink what makes someone suspicious.

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by jdub297

It obviously legal, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, defense lawyers are a dime a dozen in New York, you can literally pick one off the street. Under certain reasonable circumstances I can support it, someone leaving a known crack house or dope spot, for instance.

What bothers me is that they can stop and frisk anyone, anytime, anywhere, for whatever reason they come up with. It's one thing to be stopped by police and have them ask you a few questions but it's a very intrusive feeling to be stopped by a cop and know he can go through your pockets if he feels like it.

We never hear how many times they stop someone, frisk them and find nothing, then are forced to let them go. The article says that they only arrest about 10% of the people they stop and frisk!!

It creates an atmosphere of fear and tension in the city, I've seen it growing as of late. You could be taking the train and, without realizing it, walk right into a bag check station. You're treated like a suspect immediately, made to stand against a wall as a few cops go through your bag, open all the pockets, move things around. God knows what they might find in there, a pocket knife, maybe a box cutter you forgot to take out.

Being treated guilty until proven innocent, needing to "have my papers" on me, being answerable to police at their whim, this doesn't sound very constitutional to me.

Slavery was "legal", it didn't mean it was the right thing to do.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Shadowflux]

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:27 AM
I am a 19 year old white male who grew up in Providence RI. Growing up I had been subject to my share of random late night searces.

2 incidents that come to mind the best are:

One day when i was 14 at like 3 in the afternoon a friend of mine and myself are walking down the street in mid afternoon when a cop on a bike rolls up friendly enough and strats asking if we had seen two kids. Fair enough except it was a summer afternoon day so there were plenty of kids out and about. Then a marked cruiser pulls up and the officer gets and tells us to sit on the curb then he asks all of our information, Then an unmarked car pulls up and the detective inside gets out and pats us down and searches us then has us sit again. He then begins yelling at us and asking if we thought it was ok to shoot people with pellet guns. Up until this point we had no idea why we were being stopped but once we found out I was scared I was actually going to get in trouble for this. The had us in cuffs and ready to be put into the back of the car when the original cop comes over and says that the description was two black males. Now my friend is black but we are free to go since I am white and we no longer fit the "description". Had I been black then we probably would have gotten arrested... But what ever happend to "innocent until proven guilty..."

Another story which may shock a few. I was walking to the bus stop one night around 11pm catching the last bus of the night to go home when a cop pulls up and tells me that there had been a break in at a local school and that I fit the description. He was asking what I had been doing that evening and I told him I had just left from a friends house. I then tell him that I am in a rush to catch the last bus He ignores my statement then starts asking if I had gang affiliations. I told him no. He said that the hat that I was wearing gave a different message and that I was a punk. He then asked if I had any sharp objects or needles in my pocket. I said no. He then said I have two choices. He said I can willining agree to a search or I can be detained until I agree to a search. At the time I was like 15 so I agreed not knowing my rights. He then offers to give me a ride home because I had missed my bus. I tell him where I lived and he drove in the direction, except he didnt drop me off at home. He dropped me off in Chad Brown Projects about a half mile from my house. Before he dropped me off he said that he hopes nothing happens to me so late in that neighborhood wearing that hat. I had to walk myself out of those projects and all the way home because the officer didnt agree with the hat I was wearing. It was an all red Boston fitted with a white logo.

However wrong the random searches may have been I do agree with them to a certain extent. It is easy for people who only view these situations from outside of the box... Myself howevere have actually been in these situations where I am giving a first hand account and knowing that a skinny white kid teenager in a bad neighborhood dressed semi acceptable in crime ridden neighborhood is still suscpicious in an area where it is hard to determine who is the target. That made me breath easier knowing that if I were being targeted then the individuals who were actually out there up to no good are just as suscpisious as I was and could be subject to random searches at any time. It made me think twice about walking down the street with a dime let alone someone else carrying a gun.

I do however think it is going to far when you drop someone off in a really bad section of town knowing he is out of his element in that situation. Our law enforcement need to come up with some better tactics to target crime or drastically improve those tactics already implemented.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by SAR_E]

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:28 AM
that is a terrifying artical!! here comes the police state..or rather, here IS the police state! police were meant to protect and serve, not harass and disturb (KMK)..i know we as the majority need to fight back against this, but it seems a lot easier said than done..

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:49 AM
reply to post by squidboy

Oh good heavens.

Your comparing crime rates to scores on a test.

It doesn't work that way. But there is something cute about the simplicity.

You have to compare the data to the percentage of the population that commits crime. In even bad cities, that data ranges about 7-8% of the population. At least that is what I could gather. So 10% means that they are catching higher the number then the general population commits. Which also means, unfortunatley, there may be something to profiling suspect behavior.

And it only takes ONE crime to really ruin someone's day. Have your car broken into once and tell me that even catching one person is a bad thing.

Does this mean I support it? No. But I am not going to argue against its effectiveness either.

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:03 AM
No one has the right to stop and search you without evidence of a crime, at least not without you having the right to defend yourself. This practice breaks the entire point of our justice system's "innocent until proven guilty" standard, and could also be argued as unconstitutional. Did I get all the typical slander against it?

It's gray area guys, no one is right here.

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by jdub297

This was nearly two years ago. I just let it go because several officers told me that failure to consent to a search is probable cause. Even one that teaches American Government at a local community college.

I didn't know that it was illegal on his part.

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by nixie_nox

Executing each and every person convicted of any crime would cut recidivism down 100%. Does that mean I like it, no but I will not argue against its effectiveness.

I had moles under my deck so we took 4 tons of TNT and blew up the entire property. I did not like it but I could not argue with its effectiveness.

This is still the United States of America isn't it? Asking people to prove who they are at random is a great way of catching criminals and herding Jews onto trains.

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by jdub297

Terry was not about "probable cause" (the standard for arrest), but "reasonable suspicion" (the standard for a 'stop and frisk").

The Constitution is very clear, it does not mention reasonable suspension, it mentions probable cause. In order to detain and search you must have probable cause. "Reasonable suspicion" sounds like a good term to justify violating the Constitutional rights of 90% of those who were stopped.

I go out when I want. It's nice to know the cops know me, and that they're not afraid to stop suspicious people, including me.

It is just too bad that we are so dis empowered that we are now willing to accept that we are "suspicious" and therefore deserve to be detained and searched in order to feel safe.

The powers that have been given to "law enforcement" have been taken away from the people and we are seeing the effects. Maybe instead of supporting measures that violate our Constitutional rights we can demand legislation that would re-empower the people to be self sufficient.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by harvib]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in