New York police have a policy to stop, question and frisk. I was listening to a radio host named Mike Gallagher talk today about the policy and he seemed to agree with it citing that it could help reduce crime. A former marine called espousing the view that it is a violation of the 4th amendment to the US constitution. (a view I would agree with) Mike's contention to the marine is that by taking that stance that he was on the same said as people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Also that if you haven't done anything wrong or have nothing to hide that the frisking really shouldn't matter. Typical with radio hosts as the marine tried to make his point the radio host kept talking over him. But like I said, he seemed to be more for the policy because Al Sharpton and the ACLU were against it. Is that what we have come to, taking stances on issues because people we have opposed in the past have chosen a side and we must be on the opposite side of anything they say? Heck, I am happy that Sharpton and I have some common ground for once.

I really hate this party over principle attitude that all pundits seem to take.

The folks challenging this practice were just granted class action status; which immediately got the police commissioner to say the NYPD would modify their practice. Which means they won't change anything they're doing wrong, but want to look enough like they're doing it to try to sabotage the suit. One wonders if it will work.

I quite agree.

I also agree that the whole "if you haven't done anything wrong or have nothing to hide" is a horrible defense that seems to be used for all manner of rights infringement. I take issue with this.

"If you haven't done anything wrong or have nothing to hide" is pretty scary when you stop to consider all of the myriad things people like Mike Gallagher proclaim as wrong or even treasonous.

What constitutes probable cause for police to stop you in NY?

From what I've read of the problem, loitering while brown will get you stopped and frisked. It's basically a strategy to establish police presence in higher crime neighbourhoods. It doesn't matter whether the police think YOU have done something, they just figure if they randomly frisk enough people, they'll either catch somebody with drugs or deter the gangs.

Like the old joke goes, if President Obama said he were for mom and apple pie, his opponents would accuse him of supporting sexism and obesity.

Uuurgh. I hate the "If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem" argument. It smacks of willful ignorance. Everyone knows that people are capable of being cruel and lying. What's to stop someone with authority from being cruel and lying if the people don't keep him in check?

I'd love to know how someone who supports small government justifies illegal frisking in their mind.

I wish people would turn the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" thing on its head. If you "have nothing to hide", you shouldn't have anything to worry about, including invasive searches.

In their mind? "I'm not a young black man, so it isn't going to happen to me." Out loud they're a bit less direct.

I never took Criminal Procedure, but I'm studying it for the bar exam.

According to the simplified version of Fourth Amendment law provided by BarBri (the oldest bar exam preparation company), a police officer may only frisk a suspect when conducting a stop (which itself requires reasonable suspicion that the subject has committed a crime) to search for weapons, and only if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous.

So basically, according to the simplified version of Fourth Amendment law that is tested on the Multistate Bar Exam (and, therefore, known by EVERY SINGLE ATTORNEY IN THE COUNTRY), New York's policy permitting police officers to stop and frisk any suspect is unconstitutional.

I didn't need a bar exam to tell me that. (sorry feeling a little frisky myself)

It's easier to know something that to be able to support it with evidence.

Would it be illegal in the US for police to stop people randomly to check their IDs?

Yes.

Actually, no.

But they wouldn't be permitted to use force to stop them. Police can ask people for whatever they wish, including IDs. As long as the person being stopped is aware (or reasonably should be aware) that refusal is an option, it's fine.