Will the Supreme Court Limit Police Power to “Stop and Frisk”?

One of the most controversial practices in modern policing is law enforcement's power to "stop and frisk" individuals without probable cause that a crime has been committed. On today's show, we talk about the origins of this practice, the court rulings that normalized and expanded it, and the need--and opportunity--for the U.S. Supreme Court to scale it back.
Host: Melanie Hildreth
Guests: IJ Senior Attorney Bob McNamara and IJ Attorney Keith Neely
More podcasts: ij.org/podcasts/deep-dive-podcast/
Hear about the cases, issues, and tactics advancing IJ’s fight for freedom-directly from the people on the front lines. Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice explores the legal theories, strategies, and methods IJ uses to bring about real world change, expanding individual liberty and ending abuses of government power. Each episode gives listeners an in-depth, inside look at how-and why-we do what we do.
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice/id1480726134
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/35xKoi0948xMAEW45Wzga7
Google: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pai5vcmcvZmVlZC9kZWVwLWRpdmUv
Sticher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice-2/deep-dive-with-the-institute-for-justice?refid=stpr

[@jerryglasses2229]

I think if you are found not guilty the state should pay all your legal fees

[@lookingbehind6335]

That should be signed into law

[@rimc8783]

Plus punitive damages.

[@CodyAF333voluntaryist]

So the tax payers should pay all your legal fees?? Nothing would ever change that way. I think it should come out the so called 'law enforcers' pay checks that issued the fees.

[@jssamp4442]

This would be unreasonable in the ordinary case of prosecuting crimes. However, in the case of perfidy by representatives of the state such as malicious prosecution or false arrest. It seems only fair that the person wronged should be made whole.

[@oleviajackson4651]

YES....Court cost is a drop in the bucket compared to LAWSUITS

[@DeleteLawz1984]

8:05 now let me help her out… The Supreme Court, did judiciary, does not create rules. That’s called legislation. The legislative body rights laws, the president signs those laws into effect. The Supreme Court never should’ve created any rules. The Supreme Court is not a legislative body of government. I don’t know why you would just suggest to people here, that the Supreme Court should make rules.

[@azza-in_this_day_and_age]

hear hear

[@IndependentThoughts911]

^^^^^ Dunce

[@gregred78]

I'm so sick of the words qualified immunity. Those are the most abused words in law enforcement period.....

[@MrSlicky77]

The funnt thing is most police do not "QUALIFY" for the immunity. You have to qualify for the immunity the police and everyone below a judge think they have what judges have which is absolute immunity. The powers that be made it nearly impossible for them to be held accountable for any of their indiscretions and criminal offenses. At most they would be removed or fined.

[@darleneclarke4001]

any system we all should have to pay for what we do even judges

[@FrankHeuvelman]

_"I thought that he was reaching for a gun..."_ _"Oh, well..."_

[@DerykRobosson]

A mental construct of the court causing harm to the individual should sicken.

[@didyasaysomethin2me]

They definitely rank near the top. But they might be neck and neck with "fit the description" and "Stop resisting!" A close second would probably be something like "suspicious" when they can't come up with a better excuse in the moment.

[@globyois]

Using the word “asking” is not appropriate when a cop “asks” a person in a stop to step out of the car. When a citizen “asks” someone to do something, if that citizen has a gun and the power to take that person’s life, that “innocent” asking becomes an order! So, cops don’t “ask” a stop to exit the car, they “order” a stop to exit the car.

[@DeleteLawz1984]

5:10… And now I have to listen tonher and she doesnt know the true. Wel, let me explain it to you… Martin McFadden started being a cop in 1924, what was his job from 1924 until 1963, to enforce black codes. Martin McFadden saw Jon Terry from across the street, a huge street, a metropolis street, at 2:30 in the afternoon on Halloween day, thousands and thousands of people around, think New York City, daytime. Then McFadden runs up and grabs them and says that they are casing a joint. Which- That’s not true at all… John Terry was mentally ill and he was milling around downtown Cleveland. The states had not be segregated. Black people weren’t allowed to hang around downtown Cleveland. McFadden saw Terry, and Chilton, and didn’t like that they were a couple black guys milling around downtown Cleveland. He ran up and grab them. In 1963, it was very common for people to carry guns. Especially Black people, who were being lynched, beaten, raped, murdered in the streets by roving gangs

[@davepirtle9790]

Please use proper spelling when posting these long comments. I doubt she needs your help as she works at the Institute for Justice. I have read Terry v Ohio and as this attorney says- it was very limited in scope and only because of abuse by cops and lower courts.

[@p.l.b.3061]

Those that give up freedom for safety deserve neither.

[@chrisbudesa]

B. Franklin?

[@edwardmiessner6502]

It's not that we're giving up freedom, it's been taken away from us without our consent by Congress and the legislatures, and by the state and federal courts.

[@p.l.b.3061]

You can vote members of Congress out. As well if you are on a jury with a case that started with a Terry stop, nullify the case. Jury nullification is a powerful grass roots tool.

[@jupitercyclops6521]

@@edwardmiessner6502 I agree 100% on the jury nullification. As far as voting people out; we'll have to agree to disagree , or we can just disagree without agreeing on it.

[@georgecraytin9838]

And will get neither in the end

[@DeleteLawz1984]

8:14… How have the decades after Teri gone? We had approximately 325,000 people in prison in 1968, today we have over 2 1/2 million. Over 7 1/2 million people have gone through the caging system, including the strip searched, including being hurt, often raped, sometimes they die… As a direct result of Terry versus Ohio. Do you have to use what’s called conceptual analysis. You can’t just say what’s happened in this particular position… No. You have to take a look at what the results of Teri have been. And not only are they’ve asked, they are continuing

[@johnfluke1358]

7 minutes of terror for everyone involved, except the police!

[@DeleteLawz1984]

10:58… At least your comparison of the house of bricks to the house of straws accurate… But you can’t compare terry versus Ohio to the fourth amendment. Terry versus Ohio is the opposite of the fourth amendment. It’s disgusting. Why don’t you just say that dude?

[@123lodge8]

What would they do without your advice? Shocked that they’ve become so successful without you. Bet they’re reading your comments and making training videos out of them. 😏

[@SuprousOxide]

If a private citizen had pointed a taser at a cop, would that have been illegal? Of course. Why are the cops held to lower standards?

[@crazyunclebob6901]

Because they have all the guns and the brotherhood of the thin brown line.

[@charlesfrazier9700]

I pray you win. This will help to quell the advancing Police State danger.

[@SirNic4180]

It's "we" you dork.

[@frankmoore3598]

Don't bet on it .

[@jackkirkwood2966]

This case is actually void and null. it violates the 4th amendment. the 1st amendment the bill of rights and the equal protections. No emergency can supersede the 4th is a supreme law of the land. or the bill of rights. I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights , Any laws made in conflict of the supreme law of the land, then its void and null and not bound to any American citizens.

[@jamesesposito3581]

I want to share that i have not been to NYC for years now. I was stopped while waiting for a train, grabbed , pushed in to a wall , and basically robbed by 2 plain clothes cops. Nothing was said until they grabbed me, and after that it was them taking thing out of my pockets , and demanding answers as to why i was in the city. I am a younger looking , but middle aged business owner in NJ who was on a day trip to the city for food n shopping. After being assaulted , and my rights completely violated , and threatened with arrest for waiting for a train, I refuse to travel to or give the city , and state of NY a single penny of my money.

[@DeleteLawz1984]

7:56… Keith let me help you out again buddy… The fourth amendment starts off being, saying, the fourth amendment is the right of the people. It is not a restrictive government amendment. It is the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers and affects against unreasonable searches and seizures, Keith.

[@paulcrumley9756]

Lately it seems like the Supreme Court has opted to stack the deck in favor of Qualified Immunity by rejecting a number of suits challenging that doctrine. As to "reasonable articulable suspicion," it is altogether too easy for an officer to say something like, "We got a call about you, and that raises suspicion to a level where you lose your fourth amendment rights. ID or go to jail." No articulation of a crime committed, in progress or about to be committed - they conveniently ignore that part of the "Terry Stop" criteria.

[@JustABill02]

Especially when the "Call" can be anonymous and officers have phones.

[@kurtwetzel154]

I doubt it the Gov’t doesn’t want to limit police officers power.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Heck they can stop you and not tell you why or that they're cops, even if they're in plainclothes or undercover and they come off to you as impersonators. That's how James King almost got murdered and ended up having to stand trial for defending himself but his assailants get off scot free. IfJ videos.

[@kurtwetzel154]

@@edwardmiessner6502 What bothers me is the cop can stop you and doesn’t have to tell you what crime or traffic infraction you did. That needs to change asap.

[@cycleboy8028]

The courts have NO POWER if the Senate passes a law about what limits being "reasonable". Get on your Senators ASAP. Police reform needs to be a highlight of the next election cycle.

[@oliverave1234]

These people are doing the work of heroes.

[@stevegambone3573]

Who's side are you on Joe Stalin"

[@smolderingsheep]

@@stevegambone3573 I think they were speaking of the members of the Institute for Justice.

[@deborahnooneleftbehind9651]

The two that are on this channel? I agree!

[@bazinga7274]

Aha vidjeli smo u Uvade texsasu kako rade za sebe za svoju sigurnost a ne za sigurnost djece!Čizmo lizač

[@craftsandstuff3349]

🤢

[@The.Alabama.Woodsman]

Having been a cop for 20 years; understanding the 4th Amendment and the "lesser exaptation of privacy when away from the home" I can say this, "Stop & Frisk" is unconstitutional. I see the value of S/F but this can't stand.

[@funkydiscogod]

@@FuckALLauthorities The DEA does not have only good cops.

[@oliverave1234]

Thank you for your honesty.

[@oliverave1234]

@@FuckALLauthorities Most of us don't want your hatefulness around.

[@RamBowMike]

@@FuckALLauthorities Police don't make heaven so what does that say about cops? Police are Satan's foot soldiers and Qualified Immunity is Satan's greatest gift to law enforcement!

[@edwardmiessner6502]

@@FuckALLauthorities so I take it you're a convicted felon, amirite?

[@flipadoo]

Keith talks about how Terry has been interpreted to allow an officer to ask you to step out of the car. Yet, routinely they remove you from the car and claim to now have the lawful authority to tell you to sit in their car, sit on the curb, stand over here, stand over there. How does that all become "legal" under Terry, simply because they're removed you from the vehicle? And how is it not a giant leap from Terry to removing you from a vehicle, often by violent force, if you don't want to leave what is also interpreted as an extension of your home? IANAL, but it seems like officers wouldn't have the legal right to violently remove you from your home if you didn't want to step outside to be issued a "loud music" citation, but that seems far more like violently removing someone from their vehicle for a traffic citation. Are you obligated to step out of your house to receive such a citation, and if you refuse they can enter you home, taser you, beat you and remove you by force... then search it "incident to arrest"? You're absolutely right, it seems Terry is just a wild dance on the grave of the 4th Amendment.

[@johnzuggster375]

Very well put!

[@keithgregory8982]

The law that allows a cop to remove the driver from a car is not Terry v. Ohio, that is Pennsylvania v. Mimms, and another US Supreme Court ruling allows them to remove passengers from the car. These and many other bad rulings from the Supreme Court are not in the best interest of the citizens, and the cops know this and do everything they can, to use these bad rulings against the people. The Supreme Court also created qualified immunity, and tends to side to heavily on the side of law enforcement, which has helped to create this predatory policing. When you are pulled over driving, you have no option, but to give ID, because driving is considered a privilege, not a right.

[@tropicalco2339]

@@keithgregory8982 yes but you can't have Mimms without Terry

[@tropicalco2339]

#overturnterry #electoursupremecourt

[@123lodge8]

@@keithgregory8982 so true. IMO Supreme Court Justices are TOO OLD and out of touch. They grew up in a time before police departments became militarized, when cops were from the community they served so were not as likely to violate rights. They are giving cops more power than is constitutional because they were raised to think all cops are good.

[@hueyiroquois3839]

If that wasn't an arrest, doesn't that mean that pointing a gun at them is a felony?

[@suedenim9208]

No. The courts allow cops a great deal of leeway to protect themselves. That's often used as a BS excuse (and more so on places with stand your ground laws, such as the Trayvon Martin case), but it's not unreasonable to believe the adjustment of the shirt might be related to a weapon.

[@hueyiroquois3839]

@@suedenim9208 It's annoying when people call the Trayvon Martin case "stand your ground". "Stand your ground" is irrelevant when someone is sitting on your chest pounding your head into the sidewalk.

[@suedenim9208]

@@hueyiroquois3839 Maybe you should actually know something about the case before whining about it. Martin didn't start the encounter, and "self-defense" isn't a legal defense just because you're losing the fight you started.

[@MaydayAggro]

​@@suedenim9208actually in many cases it does. Usually you are required to retreat IF POSSIBLE. It was not possible, so your point is moot.

[@suedenim9208]

@@MaydayAggro You know what's moot? Arguments about duty to retreat in a stand your ground state. But thanks for playing.

[@bradleytenderholt5135]

Thank you counselor. I love how smart and thorough attorneys think!

[@Antoniobrady]

I absolutely love IJ. You guys give me hope for the world.

[@mattyham61tuber]

Hey have you checked out DeleteLawz he's got some answers to this tyranny

[@Antoniobrady]

@@mattyham61tuber most auditors don't even know the laws and make fools of themselves. I'll give it a watch but I'm skeptical

[@mattyham61tuber]

@@Antoniobrady no he's a real educated guy on constitutional law he does some audits , but if you see some of his work , I'm sure you'll like it,, Delete Lawz with a z,, actually he left some comments on this vid, check m

[@DeleteLawz1984]

7:52… Terry versus Ohio cannot intersect with the fourth amendment. They are diametrically opposed. They are the opposite. Terry versus Ohio cannot intersect with the fourth amendment because Terry versus Ohio is the opposite of the fourth amendment, goes against the fourth amendment and is everything our founding fathers did not want.

[@robertmcgee7083]

Maybe that’s why loitering laws were invented, to create probable cause for harassment.

[@XJWill1]

Loitering laws were around long before Terry v. Ohio.

[@JoeOvercoat]

@@XJWill1 Because authorities have been looking for ways to harass people that they find undesirable for ages.

[@koobs4549]

Honest question here, how would “seeing a gun sticking out of a pocket” overcome the threshold of probable cause? We have the right to bear arms & if I’m not mistaken, all 50 states have some sort of concealed carry laws. If I lived in one of these states & have a valid permit or conversely, if I live in a state with open carry, I don’t see how that would give them probable cause to search your person. It’s not a traffic stop so you wouldn’t even be required to alert the police to your concealed firearm in most states. It is my understanding that most laws that require you to inform the officer are related to traffic stops.

[@hubster4477]

True, there's a video of this very subject. Guy with a gun asked if the officer suspected if he was a illegal gun carrier. Cop didn't get I'd, or search and had to let him go.

[@billb3374]

It depends on the state if notification is required. In my 4 state area only Nebraska requires notification. When it comes to a firearm showing. The cops are not supposed to stop you if it's lawful to carry a gun in that place. For instance I live in a constitutional carry state so walking down the street with my gun showing is not grounds to stop me. However move the same scenario to a place without open carry and it can be a reason to stop someone.

[@darleneclarke4001]

don't worry they will make laws to cover that you will sustain a sever beating possible be crippled and if your lucky you'll live long enough to hear a judge tell you that you owe the court ie state money because the police did not know all of facts before they saw you up the street . thank you have a nice day

[@jannamwatson]

@@billb3374 interesting. I live in an open carry state (WI). We have a neighborhood "unique individual" who often open carries as if we were at war. AR-15, multiple clips, riot gear w/helmet, black clothing from head-to-toe, and a Glock also with multiple clips. She has a valid CCW for our state as well. About 4-6 times a year, she goes and "takes her guns for a walk" aka "exercising her second amendment rights" by roaming around our school parks while school is in session. While her actions are not the norm in Milwaukee county, they are completely legal. In fact, nearly every time she does this, some unaware neighbor calls 911, and the swarm will descend on her. Every time this happens, she certainly is detained in handcuffs while her ID is being run. If I am understanding you correctly, if we were a "constitutional carry" state, they wouldn't even be allowed to stop her and get her ID info, unless they believed her to have broken a law. Is that correct? PS- not an anti-gun person, but I find the laws behind guns to be very complex and confusing.

[@billb3374]

@@jannamwatsonit's not just constitutional carry state's. It's anywhere you are carrying a firearm as long as it's legal the cops are not supposed use it as a reason to stop someone.

[@DeleteLawz1984]

10:06 as one of the foremost expert on terry versus Ohio in the entire United States of America… Everything you’re saying right now is absolute crap. The Supreme Court has been exceptionally consistent? What the Hells a matter with you? Are you out of your god Blessed mind? What about Graham versus Connor… Officer safety is more important than our rights and so now you get the gram holding that says that, “use of force will be determined by the reasonable officer on the scene to apply the reasonable on the force that he believes is valid in his mind“… Is that the same supreme court you said that’s been amazingly consistent on Terry? And let’s not forget that the thorn Graham, was Terry stopped. The use of force continuum, created by Graham versus Connor, is based on Terry versus Ohio… It’s amazing… I guarantee all of you are smarter than me… And none of you know a damn thing. What an embarrassment

[@IndependentThoughts911]

Says the college dropout with zero legal training.

[@Sarge395]

Cops don't deescalate. They simply are untrained and go right to barking and yelling in most cases. So many videos of these cops doing this that it is not a one off or rare case.

[@solventtrapdotcom6676]

Why do anything but play chicken when you don't have to?

[@XJWill1]

The worst part of this whole situation is that the kids were just slowly walking down the street. All the cop had to do was sit there and watch them, maybe radio in what he saw. The kids likely would have gone into their house and that would have been the end of it. But for some reason the cop had to force a confrontation and then escalate the situation, and then escalate again. Why are cops not trained to take the lower risk option of just watching and waiting whenever it is feasible?

[@craftsandstuff3349]

@@XJWill1 he wanted to be the one to make the big arrest and he just blindly ran with it. They're trained to "barrel through" and ignore any contradictory evidence.

[@DeleteLawz1984]

19:15. Let me answer the question before he says something completely ridiculous. Let me answer it so that people can get the right answer to the question and not someone who didn’t truly study this case with everything that they are… So, when the supreme court created rules, and legislative rules, based on officer safety… Being more important than our lives and all of our rights… Police departments around America build their policy around the Supreme Court holding a footing officer safety first… You see? That’s the answer… Nalami here with this guy says

[@IndependentThoughts911]

Word salad

[@rockymntnliberty]

Another great example of the law of unintended consequences. They come up with a rule or a law and people will twist, stretch, and manipulate to satisfy their own ends. I've noticed a lot of police now using the excuse of recent break-ins or crimes in an area as their excuse for probable cause. So what qualifies this? We've had two petty thefts within 15 miles, over the past 10 years? Or we've had 20 break-ins in a four square block area, in the last 2 months? The courts and law enforcement seem to think that because last year 3 miles away there was a break-in in the middle of the night, it's justification to tackle a guy mowing his yard in the middle of the day and demand ID.

[@georgecraytin9838]

That is so typical of govt actors. That camel gets it nose under the tent he will try and get his head every time

[@noanyobiseniss7462]

I was pulled over with that exact excuse and car ransacked.

[@DeleteLawz1984]

11:56… These two white guys, the young brothers, you can’t imagine what’s happened in communities of color since 1968. These two kids were subjected to having guns pointed at them, treated badly, scared… You can’t imagine what Teri has done to the communities of color.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Terrible things. It's a running meme since before the internet that police would plant weapons and drugs on people of color during those Terry stop and frisks

[@solventtrapdotcom6676]

@@edwardmiessner6502 They do it to white far more often. But since whites are the political target, nobody cares.

[@angelg.s.1053]

Not only was I stopped and frisked, but also tackled down by two brutes who proceeded to rub my entire body. Then they tried to accuse me of "resisting". I'd love to charge them with sexual abuse, only no attorney will take my case.

[@curtishand6180]

Get your friends. Pay a visit

[@DeleteLawz1984]

5:43, McNamara is wrong once again. The 1949 case of Breniger versus the United States; gives police the right to believe probable cause exists in their minds. Morbid it may be, unconstitutional for sure, probable cause can exist in an officers mind after the Breniger case of 1949. And let’s just caveat to put these together… For the stupidity that she just said plus the stupidity the McNamara‘s going to say… The fourth amendment is very clear about what probable cause is. Probable cause is when a warrant can be issued for your arrest. Meaning probable causes when you have broken the law. You breaking the law, isn’t enough for you to be warranted, get a warrant for your arrest. Because of Locke theory of natural law… Probable cause Hass to be supported by oath or affirmation, the victim.… How does the institute of justice have these people up here speaking about Terry versus Ohio when they don’t even understand supreme court case law… You’re incorrect McNamara. Police can have probable cause to believe in their mind from the 1949 case of Breniger. Look it up.

[@PatrickKQ4HBD]

A point of contention: Qualified Immunity did not chop up this case. The right of immediate appeal on the officer's behalf is what chopped up this case.

[@charlesfrazier9700]

LEOs should be required to carry and pay for Professional Liability Insurance just like Doctors, Lawyer’s, Engineers, Architects, etc.

[@desertcat4193]

I'm so glad I found this channel. Very important information.

[@petertimmins6657]

If you are ever arrested and brought before a judge and you say “I didn’t know that was against the law.” the judge will immediately reply that ignorance of the law is not a defense. So, that puts the monkey on the back of each and every one of us to get educated/informed on the law because none of us have an attorney right next to us advising us 24/7/365. That is why I have actually gone online and read some SCOTUS decision that are very important to understanding where our rights end. Terry and Miranda are the first two I read.

[@T1Oracle]

In this age of mass surveillance, there's no excuse for not having evidence of a crime.

[@jackkirkwood2966]

This case is actually void and null. it violates the 4th amendment. the 1st amendment the bill of rights and the equal protections. No emergency can supersede the 4th is a supreme law of the land. or the bill of rights. I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights , Any laws made in conflict of the supreme law of the land, then its void and null and not bound to any American citizens.

[@nbrown5907]

Stop and frisk and roadblocks for random checks are unconstitutional and should not be allowed.

[@RamBowMike]

People, the judicial system mandates cops remain corrupt like they are; otherwise the draconian prolific problem would have been solved years ago! Remember that.... (It's no accident!)

[@darleneclarke4001]

it's not for criminals or safety it's for profit fines and fees

[@Ball_drips]

Imagine if there was no immunity for any officials (police, legislator, judge) any law passed that was unconstitutional and you were damaged from that law, you could sue the legislator that wrote that law enabling the damage. We would have our freedom back.

[@gemgal711]

Btw qualified immunity also needs to be abolished.

[@funkydiscogod]

And let police be held accountable? That is madness.

[@RamBowMike]

@@funkydiscogod If a thug-cop is going to aggressively move forward onto a civilian, while always removing food from they're tables or incarcerating them, the cop had better be held accountable; otherwise its an utterly run away system of fraud perpetrated onto the people....

[@funkydiscogod]

@@RamBowMike People don't randomly get incarcerated. They have to be found guilty of a crime, first. Or plea guilty. Either way, it's not the cop's fault they were guilty.

[@cccalifornia7206]

@@funkydiscogod you miss the whole point of Constitutional Rights! You are a BUFFOON and ignorant!

[@RamBowMike]

@@funkydiscogod Thats how Devils sleep at night by passing the buck & blame onto others you Bafoon: Justification says Heck, I'm not the judge that sentenced the guy, I'm just the guy that ticketed him, taking food off his families table... (What a sick profession) Cops absolutely don't make heaven, and they don't care either....

[@keithgregory8982]

Things will not change, cops will continue to do business as usual, they did it before Terry v Ohio, and they will do it even if this case it struck down. We must get rid of qualified immunity, and force officers to carry their own liability insurance, which in itself, will determine whether an officer can continue to work in law enforcement after he has been found liable, in to many situations.

[@cccalifornia7206]

I totally agree! "Qualified immunity" is unbelievable and CORRUPT to the core!!

[@grannygear1001]

You are putting the cart before the horse. Limit Terry to it’s original narrow scope or get rid of it entirely, will prevent a lot of these suspicious behavior (whatever that is) cop stops.

[@keithgregory8982]

@@grannygear1001 the problem is, you give a cop an inch, then he thinks he has right to do whatever he wants. They are not smart enough to decipher between what is allowed, and what he wants to do. Make it as to where a cop should be able to state the crime you are guilty of, before he can use any action against you. Just like a traffic stop, they must have a cause of action, before they pull you over.

[@darrinwebber4077]

That was an arrest. Not a Terry stop. The appeals court was wrong and knows it. The mother should appeal all way to SCOTUS.

[@yoshisaidit7250]

The court could care less about common law. Common law says "no victim, no crime". We all know the "laws" have far surpassed that. Most everything the court charges ppl with is victimless crimes. Policing for profit.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

And when police victimise people it isn't a crime unless video is made of it and goes viral!

[@SuprousOxide]

But somehow a cop threatening innocent people with a deadly weapon is not a crime...

[@SuprousOxide]

@@edwardmiessner6502 your constitutional rights are dependent on the public have sympathy for you...

[@ianbattles7290]

Who, specifically, is the "victim" when Johnny lights up a joint on his living room couch?

[@johnr6143]

Policing for profit and prison for profit, human trafficking for profits, that's how immoral are system is, its sicks!

[@didyasaysomethin2me]

You say middle ground. I say slippery slope. The SCOTUS not only long predates stop and frisk but also the history of law enforcement's propensity to grant themselves liberties, to play so fast and loose with the rules as to skirt them entirely. How could SCOTUS realistically believe that the cops would never overplay their hand on this?

[@XJWill1]

I believe the dissenting opinion in Terry v. Ohio mentioned that very thing -- that it is a slippery slope and would be abused to violate people's rights.

[@didyasaysomethin2me]

@@XJWill1 Too bad that dissenting opinion was only a tiny flash in the pan.

[@AlexeiTetenov]

Thank you for sharing!

[@AlexeiTetenov]

Keep Pressing!!!

[@AlexeiTetenov]

Best answer to the question of where are your press credentials, that I have ever heard. Good guy Audits asked the cop where their credentials are to practice their religion. Where are your credentials to practice your speech?! Video named "Cops don’t know law or the first amendment!!!" by Good guy Audits on Jun 19, 2022. I would put a direct link but then my comment would be automatically flagged as spam by KZbin, as the non-uploader of this video. It's at the 20:33 mark in the original video. Pure Gold!

[@bornfree3124]

Compensation for false arrest, etc. Trezevant vs.City of Tampa.

[@lightningsrt4707]

Stop and frisk is a dictatorship no victim no crime.

[@chrlmmartin7776]

Another hard hitting presentation.

[@randallsmerna384]

I always thought that Terry stop had to be initiated by either a crime or a traffic misdemeanor / infraction. I didn't think they could just stop someone on a whim and then start giving them a prostate exam fishing for evidence of a crime under the color of law. But as it turns out the police are quite adept at manufacturing an RAS especially during or even after the stop was initiated. I hate that Terry has blurred the lines of being free to travel unmolested!

[@jocarmo]

Great work, unfortunately the Supreme Court will never take a case that limits the courts authority, we are in an age of autocracy.

[@cjinpa5713]

That’s disappointing to know the boys lost their case. It’s seems so obviously reasonable that interaction was too much. Terry has to go.

[@Navschannel3908]

ya, don't think they've actually lost, as it's going before SCOTUS for clarification... but ya, sux that some judge can hand out qualified immunity like candy.

[@9753flyer]

Terry is not the problem, qualified immunity is, and it is unfortunately handed out like candy as the poster above me points out

[@cjinpa5713]

@@9753flyer Terry is for sure a problem. Come on. They just clearly explained it. Qualified immunity is a problem too.

[@9753flyer]

@@cjinpa5713 Terry, when implemented and applied correctly is not a problem, the problem stems from lack of training and the knowledge that cops have that they can invoke qualified immunity in almost any situation, or have it invoked for them by the courts. I am a former LEO, granted 20 years ago, but we were basically told at the academy that we could do _anything_ in the name of officer safety and going home alive at night and we were covered. It was not that blatant, but it was there in all the different ways we were told to handle bad situations gone wrong. The overwhelming tone was that of take control by any means, including violating rights, for your safety and the department/courts will back you up. i.e. we were told through training, department attitudes and actions that we could basically be Judge Dredd in the name of officer safety. That training started long before I was an LEO (90's).. Qualified Immunity just made it legal. A properly conducted Terry Stop must have RAS which means it's not the problem and does not violate rights... Qualified Immunity effectively removed the need for RAS, everyone having a video camera in their pocket and the resultant public outcry are slowly restoring that need.

[@suedenim9208]

@@cjinpa5713 You apparently didn't understand what was said.

[@ricksturdevant2901]

Ok - - - i totally understand your idea as explained of what an arrest is, based on what you said, it's easy to conclude that a detainment is also an arrest. Cops put people in handcuffs and tell them they are not free to go. Sooo, detainment is just another word for arrest. In both situations, handcuffs are deployed and in both situations, your freedom has been taken away and you are not free to go. More often than not these days the cops will say "You are being detained and you are not free to go " and the rationale cops use is officer safety 🙄

[@AlexeiTetenov]

Are you aware of any case law that prohibts a cop from trespassing a person from a public building, such as a town hall, that would be applicable to NY State? During Covid, I had a police captain verbally trespass me from town hall because I did not want to give up my ID to attend a town committee meeting where they wanted my ID for potential contact tracing purposes.

[@cycleboy8028]

Gun trained on a prone/arms out person is reckless. Have it out, fine, not pointed AT them though. No. Too much chance for error.

[@nerdlingeeksly5192]

There wouldn't even be a lawsuit if the police officer had just talked to the mother.

[@MrBarstow]

I think the test should be what would be allowed by an ordinary citizen. Period.

[@markheckman3987]

COOK COUNTY Illinois ( Chicago) States attorney refuses to Prosecute drug and gun charges involving minor traffic stops 😢

[@brambledemon1232]

If the finest legal minds in the country aren’t sure where the line is in regards to the fourth amendment, I pity the local beat cop who has to somehow figure out where the line is drawn in every interaction with the public. If I were them, I would wait until the crime is committed, and not risk engaging in preventive law enforcement.

[@lorddorker3703]

What about addressing this in the house of representatives?

[@johnrdunbar]

The bad cops must be policed by the good. Independent psychological testing must be done annually.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

The ugly reality is that the good cops are policed by the bad because most cops will do nothing but look the other way. This is an American societal problem at least since the Kitty Gillespie murder by unbadged criminals 😡

[@darleneclarke4001]

i think quarterly they are killing innocent people for ???

[@solventtrapdotcom6676]

It is done. Only the demented scum pass...

[@TheIrishdriven]

they are all friends and were picked for this menality they are programmed its them and everyone else is a criminal period. nit deep thinkers

[@franciscampagna2711]

Wow! Just wow.

[@robertnewberg6231]

Real shame that cop's think they can do this to US citizens for no reason.

[@johnrdunbar]

Like the Boulder, CO man cleaning his own property ...harassed by cops for no reason (he was black).

[@jewel1608]

*****PLEASE 😢...OUR KIDS IN SCHOOLS NEED YOUR CLASSES*

[@jedidiahsojourner1917]

Daaam, barney fife in action in Springdale. Hey brave officers, thanks for stopping these dangerous miscreants.

[@Dnascientist42]

What is the Institute for Justice's stance on 1st Ammendment audits? Also the new law in Arizona about filming police?

[@justanotherperson584]

You should not be able to stop me and look through my petticoat!! Ever.

[@mdrew9234]

I cannot find this court case. How can I find it?

[@scorpio6587]

Hiatus? Ah, man, I really like this show. Best wishes to you heroes.

[@randallsmerna384]

You said that a Terry Stop is based on the RAS that a crime HAS BEEN committed. How does Terry line up with "GOING TO DO" a crime? Because these 1A audits cops are stopping people to see if a crime is going to be committed. They say "I don't know if you've committed a crime - that's what I'm investigating" all because they're filming BUT SUSPICION ISN'T A CRIME. I say that if you don't have a specific crime in mind you're SOL. But some might argue that Terry even covers the "investigating if there is (or will be) a crime" which I think is total BS!

[@GaiaMiranda]

I'm 66 and have never broken the law except back in 1993, going 12 miles an hour above the speed limit. This kind of stuff puts the fear of God in Me when it comes to police officer interaction that might happen in the future concerning myself. Years ago I never worried about things like that but these days I would probably be extremely nervous and shaking if I was pulled over for any reason at all, which they would say was suspicious because I was being nervous. Next thing you know I'd probably be on the ground with my cane and my face pushed into the pavement with their guns drawn at my back telling me they have to search my car and they don't have time for a woman officer to Frisk me so they'll have to do it themselves SMH

[@stevehigginssr.7888]

THAN YOU. GREAT INFO !! How can I contact you on a 2yr old INJUSTICE ? 76yr old & BEAT UP 5/12/2020 ? !! HELP !! PLEASE !!

[@Catlady77777]

No. The current Extreme Court even wants to eliminate Miranda advisory.

[@MaydayAggro]

How does the court determine that 4th amendment rights were not clearly violated when cops did not even have RAS to stop the boys? The description given, if it created RAS, would give cops permission to stop literally any two males. That's insane.

[@reflect.]

Terry v. Ohio needs to be overturned.

[@bretta3]

I find it offensive that we even have to talk about this. First, the Constitution is very clear that no seizure by the government shall take place without a warrant, or probable cause. Secondly, i find it unbelievable that SCOTUS did not stop this decades ago. Like I always says, the supreme court rarely protects the rights of the people, it protects the authority of the government.

[@jameszeris5418]

Disgraceful police contact disgraceful, they should be fired and charged with criminal assault

[@Brightstarlivesteam]

You need to look at Brown v Texas (which pre dates Terry) where the court ruled that mere suspicion cannot be a reason to detain!

[@cromanxx1]

S & F will significantly reduce crime in NYC.

[@bill-nv3ep]

Would it be better if the Supreme Court was an elected body for the People by the People? Maybe our rights would be upheld a lot better!

[@tropicalco2339]

Yes that would be much better

[@sing2me]

All POLICE should be bonded. If you cannot be bonded then you cannot come into contact with We The People. Obviously, if you abuse authority and lose your bond then you can no longer police We The People. What are the details about IJ's hiatus?

[@noanyobiseniss7462]

I would like to see a list of German citizen rights in comparison to current American ones and crossed out ones with date and reference as they have been lost. The constitution is being shredded before our eyes and very few have the guts to even point out that fact. The Gestapo is right outside your door.

[@scorpio6587]

I agree. The Constitution is a very important document, but, ultimately, it is just a document. It is an inanimate object, and it cannot take any action to protect our rights. That is the duty of The People.

[@oldcrone]

When will the Supreme Court repeal Civil Asset Forfeiture? And Qualified Immunity?

[@rjdestiny-mx4ir]

Govt breaks a rule / law. We the people go to the govt to tell the govt that the govt did something wrong. That's like asking a bully to punishing himself for hitting another kid

[@foremanhaste5464]

Terry isn't investigating, it is fishing. The problem is that officers use it to find the crime they can arrest a person for once they decide they really want to arrest them for a crime.

[@craftsandstuff3349]

The irony is if the police didn't stop someone, they wouldn't have to worry about any weapons that could hurt them.

[@matthewcain7324]

When will you be back?

[@mehameha4453]

I met one guy that beat the charge and the seizure of his drug paraphernalia on a traffic stop. When they asked him if he wanted his stuff back he continued to claim it wasn’t his and refused to claim it. They had 3 cops waiting for him to accept that bag just to put him in jail if he did. He walked away.

[@timclark7507]

I am fortunate this did not occur to me. I do not believe I would be able to control myself if someone was pointing a firearm at my children, law enforcement or not. I would exonerate any defendant in such a case. The reason they don’t want a trial, is because a jury of peers would believe the same.

[@carlosdequesada4503]

Can the BAR be sued? Can we sue the supreme court?

[@johndsmith-gv8zh]

Great video

[@mule1995]

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” - Frédéric Bastiat

[@darleneclarke4001]

evil and should be abolished

[@Dirk_the_Daring]

Overturn and destroy Terry v Ohio. If the state wants to search anything, they can get a warrant.

[@majicsoap6436]

Cops work for and PROTECT Judges, Not We the People, the Court forces us to pay cops. Proof: put someone's name and address on a piece of paper, give to a cop and tell him go git him here NOW, have a Judge do the same, who is getting a free ride in a cop car? NEVER question or deny your BOSS if you want to keep your job.

[@RamBowMike]

The judicial system mandates police officers remain corrupt; other wise the nations most draconian prolific problem would have been solved years ago! REMEMBER THAT.... (Its no accident) - (Michael B. Saari for Michigan State Senate 2022)

[@richardanderson8627]

The Supreme Court has failed the people !

[@edwardmiessner6502]

Are you familiar with Brownback v King, which came out of your state before SCOTUS?

[@RamBowMike]

@@edwardmiessner6502 Yes, I am familiar with Brownback v King... Since 1949 Tort law has been the only avenue for justice against a police officer! Thats why Qualified Immunity must be abrogated in its entirety... Police need to be held accountable.

[@davidharrison2007]

You guys are awesome, you are doing the work that people thought the ACLU should do, no politics, no agenda just our Constitutional Rights!

[@MotorJoes]

Did the parents sue the cops for holding the kids at gun point?

[@solventtrapdotcom6676]

Why? Police have no limits. No matter what they do it's justified.

[@danielhurst8863]

Seriously, you seem to be unaware of what a Terry Stop is supposed to be, as opposed to how Law Enforcement abuses it. A Terry Stop DOES NOT give Law Enforcement the right to frisk you, unless one of two conditions are met. 1. The suspected crime for which you are stopped commonly involves the use of weapons, such as armed robbery. 2. Law Enforcement has a separate reasonable articulatable suspicion that the person is both armed and dangerous. If either of these two conditions are met, LE can pat your down for a weapon, butt cannot legally go into your pockets or search you in a more intrusive manner. You have to have some kind of Terry Stop, and I'll give you an example of why. My house was being broken into literally everyday. There were cameras, which they just stole, thieves burned a hole through the garage door to get inside. Finally, I had to turn on WIFI and get motion cameras that I could monitor from our new house. I got an alert, saw the person in the house, and by the time I could get to live view, he'd already taken the camera. I called the police right away, with a description of the suspect, and an officer was right across the street, who detained the suspect under a Terry Stop, as there was a crime, and he matched the description of the suspect, but they don't have probable cause until I get there and show them the actual video footage. That's how a Terry Stop is supposed to work. There's a crime, there's a reasonable articulatable suspicion that the person is engaged in that crime. How a Terry Stop often goes is, "I think you are suspicious and I'm going to detain you. That's not valid.

[@cccalifornia7206]

I Totally agree

[@deborahnooneleftbehind9651]

Omg!! Those poor boys! Hope those parents fry this inept and tyrannical police department! All these officers need to be fired! Never allowed to be any kind of officer or public servant again!!!

[@rockymntnliberty]

It seems that quite often when we see the court legislating from the bench, it's a rationalization process. While a straight forward application of constitutional law might not get the result that they think is good or reasonable on the case before them, they will rationalize and interpretation to get the result they want. I think that's what happened with Terry. The guys at criminal, they caught him acting in a criminal way, we can't just let him walk, so let's make up an excuse why this wasn't a violation of his fourth amendment rights.