Stop And Frisk

[Pioneer1]

@ProfD

As we talk about laws, judges, branches of government and what is legal and what is not....we both can agree that the U.S. Constitution is suppose to supersede ALL federal and local laws, right?

The Constitutions makes it crystal clear in the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Unless you catch them in the actual commission of a crime, for law enforcement to search ANYBODY or seize ANY property they need warrant first....regardless of any local or state laws that may say otherwise.

You don't need to be a lawyer to figure this one out.
Nor do you need judges around the country to "interpret" it or declare it legal or illegal....it's crystal clear.

Yet in New York the practice of "stop and frisk" by the NYPD was allowed for decades and probably still is allowed despite the many  "rulings" by different judges.
They're clearly playing games with these laws and using "judge rulings" as excuses for doing and allowing what they want.
 

[ProfD]

Correct. We agree the US Constitution is the law of the land. Federal and state laws are written based on it.

 

Stop and Frisk is an example of a state law. If someone believes their 4th amendment right has been violated, they can try to get their case heard by higher courts.

 

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms.

 

Yet, some states require folks to have a squeaky clean record and pass the SAT testt with a perfect score before they can purchase a firearm. 

 

Federal and state laws do bend our constitutional rights.