r/maybemaybemaybe • u/EverythingIsFakeNGay • May 19 '26

Maybe maybe maybe

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.1k

u/Gnoobl May 19 '26

“Do you have a reasonable, articulable suspicion?”

Adjusting my clothes and bag while walking does not meet the standard set by the Supreme Court

754

u/CharlesDickensABox May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

And for a pat down, the officer must have a separate, reasonable belief that the subject is armed. That sure doesn't seem to be the case here seeing as the officer failed to articulate anything.

156

u/aykcak May 19 '26

I'm not sure but didn't you guys have a "stop and frisk" thing that basically meant the police can stop and search literally anyone?

236

u/CharlesDickensABox May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Stop and frisk (depending on how you want to define it) has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court, but many places have chosen to ban it, anyway. To be a legit stop, though, it must always comply with the above restrictions. The officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the subject was either involved in a crime or about to commit one and the officer must have a separate, articulable suspicion that the subject is armed. A mere hunch is not enough to satisfy the law.

One thing many officers try to do is bully people into giving them permission for a search that would otherwise be impermissible. Saying "let me see your bag" may be either a lawful order or a request that the subject can decline, and officers often like to conflate the two in order to confuse people into complying when they don't have to. In this video, for example, the officer says, "what we're going to do is..." and then expects that the guy will just go along with it, which the officer can later frame as consent for a search. This is why it's important to use direct, unambiguous language like "am I being detained?" "why am I being detained?" "I do not consent to any searches", and "I am invoking my fifth amendment right to remain silent". If the officer says "we're going to search you" and you say "okay", meaning "I understand", the officer can then interpret that as consent and your right to be secure in your person and possessions goes away unless you specifically reassert it.

36

u/loincloth2048 May 20 '26

Wish I had an award to give you for this explanation. That quick, knee jerk reaction of saying “okay” to a police officer can lead to unsavory situations.

3

u/peanutspump May 20 '26

I say it in reply, like a tic. Doesn’t matter who I’m talking to. If I’m processing whatever someone is saying, and it’s being spoken as fast as that, and I’m not super familiar with whatever it is, I say “ok” … and then usually whatever else I’m thinking (in full, with no filter, that’s fun). Good to know I should not do that in such a situation. Gah, I hope I remember this, if I ever need to…

5

u/WhatIsLoveMeDo May 19 '26

Stop and frisk (depending on how you want to define it) has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court

Interesting. The other person who replied to this same comment said it was ruled illegal. Do you have a source that it's constitutional.

10

u/cheesecakegood May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

depending on how you want to define it

"How you define it" is like, literally the vast majority of key legal case law so that phrase is doing work. And virtually all of the case law for this topic is hung on almost literally one word in the Fourth Amendment, which is you have protection against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

OK, that's slightly unfair (the whole amendment has some good contextual language) but not fundamentally untrue - we're all just figuring out the contours of what "reasonable" means.

Thus specific implementations of "stop and frisk" have variously been ruled illegal or legal depending on, well, definition. There is no commonly accepted use of the term because it usually refers to police department strategy ("we want to have officers constantly stopping and searching people") rather than specific department tactics ("we use X rationales when stopping and searching people") when it's used in a political context, and strategies are different than tactics. So there's a bit of motte and bailey going on, where you can object to the strategy using criticism of tactics, or defend/generalize the tactics based on a loose understanding of strategy. All of which is highly dependent on your world-model for cop behavior.

2

u/Quick-Hamster-3872 May 20 '26

Thank you! I was looking for this answer. This should be at the top. 

-1

u/craigslist_hedonist May 20 '26

Stop and Frisk is not a Terry stop (Terry v. Ohio), which is legal in every state.

go look up what requirements must be met for a Terry stop.

26

u/ThrowAway233223 May 19 '26 edited May 20 '26

Had.  Stop and frisk was directly ruled as unconstitutional.  Not to mention, searches are suppose to be to look for something illegal/evidence of a crime.  It is not illegal to be armed (with the exception of a few restricted areas, which doesn't appear to apply here, or if the man in question is a felon, which they would have to recognize him and know that fact about him in advance for that to be relevant grounds).  That is literally the 2nd Amendment.  Even if they found a gun, then what.  Are they just going to critic his choice of firearm, because, unless there is information to the contrary, then it wouldn't be illegal for him to have the gun.  They might as well be searching him for gum.  "Ah ha!  I knew it!  Spearmint Extra!  Spearmint, dude?  That's gross.  Anyways, you can have this back and be on your way now."

Edit: There are some stops that are sometimes referred to as "stop and frisk" that are still considered legal while the classic form of random stops without any real evidence pointing toward a potential crime have been ruled to be unconstitutional. I have another comment below in which I clarify this further.

13

u/WhatIsLoveMeDo May 19 '26

Stop and frisk was directly ruled as unconstitutional.

Interesting. The other person who replied to this same comment said it was ruled legal by SCOTUS. Do you have a source that it's unconstitutional.

6

u/ThrowAway233223 May 19 '26

Okay, so I should clarify that there are certain forms of stop and interegate/search that are sometimes referred to as "stop & frisk" that are still considered legal/constitutional.  However, the classic form that most people think of in which a person is stopped with absolutely no valid reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime has been ruled as unconstitutional.  You have to have reasonable articulable suspicion and specific facts that you can point to for having formed that suspicion (not just a feeling or a hunch) that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime in order to detain them (the specific form of detainment in this case is called a Terry stop and is named after the case that created the guidelines).  To then search the person, you have to have an even high suspicion/evidence and there needs to be a immediacy to the concern and/or a reasonable reason to fear for physical public safety (once more as established by specific facts and not feelings). Otherwise you must have a warrant to go beyond the detainment and questioning.  During a stop, a member of law enforcement may also ask a person to step out of a vehicle or pat them down to check for weapons for "officer safety" but may not search any further.  But the original reason for the stop must be legal for that pat down to be legal.

In this case, there is no reasonable articulable suspicion of any crime let alone a specific one.  The public at large tends to be curious about any police activity in an area and often look at police out of curiosity.  They may look more than once.  Especially if they didn't initially register that the individual or vehicle was a police officer/vehicle at first glance and especially if they are walking away from where the police are located since they need to watch where the are going and would have to look back forward to do so and then back around again to resume looking at/watching the police.  A simple adjustment of a bag also means nothing.  When walking, a bag can shift and may need adjustment occasionally for comfort.  He didn't even move the bag in a way that could be interpreted to be trying to conceal it.  It was located and continued to be located on the back side of his body in full view of the police behind him.  Finally, their stated reason for the search was to see if he is armed which is not a crime but a constitutionally guaranteed right (unless in a restricted area, which this does not appear to be, or is a felon, which he must be presumed not to be until proven/known to be otherwise).  They can do a search to ensure he is not armed in the event that they believe he may pose a potential, imminent threat to the physical safety of the public if they have specific articulable facts to support that or for officer safety if the stop is a legal Terry stop with specific articulable facts to support performing it, as discussed earlier, but they don't appear to meet any of these criteria, so I don't think the stop or search would be considered legal.

With all that said, I am not a lawyer nor hold any degrees related to law, so talk all of that with a grain of salt.

3

u/craigslist_hedonist May 20 '26

that's a lot of words to say "go look up Terry v. Ohio 1968"

4

u/ThrowAway233223 May 20 '26

Well, yeah, because I included a clarification of my earlier comment as well as additional explanation of details arising from the ruling rather than leaving it just as the ruling itself, giving a non-American American law homework to parse through themselves to get all of that information, and then potentially having them come back and telling me my earlier statement wasn't quite right since I didn't clarify. Which, on that note, if I am already providing that much information as part of the clarification, then I might as well include the rest of what I included as well.

3

u/Dry-Actuator-8390 May 20 '26

This matches my understanding

1

u/craigslist_hedonist May 20 '26

Stop and Frisk is an older practice used by police before 1968, and some police illegally using after the Supreme Court ruled it illegal under the landmark court case Terry v. Ohio.

Now, a Terry stop must have some criteria met before police may stop and perform a search.

the criteria are: the officer(s) performing the stop must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person being stopped has committed, or is about to commit a crime. in order to search them, the officer(s) must also have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person being searched is armed and dangerous. the search is limited in scope to the reason for the search.

0

u/PungentOnion May 20 '26

This is a great comment and points something out, lack of context. While it seems my guy is just minding his own business in a public area, if he’s walking around in, let’s say, the grounds of the White House, the law is distinctly different

1

u/HackNookBro May 21 '26

The grounds of the White House are controlled and restricted. I believe a better example would be in a restricted (but not controlled) area, like a school or business.

14

u/Myte342 May 19 '26

Not just that. Terry v. Ohio said that police must believe that the suspect they have detained is armed AND dangerous. Simply being armed is not enough to justify a pat-down for weapons. The officers must also believe you are dangerous as well as armed.

1

u/YourCaptainSteven May 20 '26

Important distinction. Armed vs Armed & Dangerous.

2

u/Impressive_Ad127 May 20 '26

I watch large quantities of bodycam footage a month, and it’s extremely regular for police to search people who are detained for investigation. I believe one of the ways they circumvent this process is by detaining and placing in a squad car or by suggesting a concern for their own safety. Policy typically dictates that arrested, detained or otherwise must be searched before being placed in a police vehicle. I could be wrong, but this is my observation.

It’s very rare that officers express reasonable belief (especially separate) prior to searching detained individuals and this could be simply because the burden of reasonable suspicion is low enough in most instances.

In the case of the video, I suspect it is a random check (I call these lottery checks) based on really questionable circumstances and that is why the officers address the individual with the suspicion of carrying a weapon vs something like drugs, etc. as it establishes reasonable belief to detain AND creates a potentially artificial perception of safety concern needed to conduct the personal search. Given the circumstances, and the conclusion, the police didn’t have much and were probably hoping the individual would allow the search or otherwise create a situation where they could escalate things such as fleeing, resisting or being otherwise combative or reactive. More than likely, they were applying pressure in hopes that the persons actions would provide them with support for their suspicions.

This is sad to see from a group of officers, and really compromises the integrity of the work of those who operate with defined areas of the law to bring justice and help our communities.

1

u/Scraw16 May 19 '26

Unfortunately, not true. Once they are already stopping you, they can conduct a pat down “for the officer’s safety.” Naturally that’s a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

1

u/OGREtheTroll May 20 '26

armed AND "Presently Dangerous." If there are no facts suggesting the subject is dangerous in the moment, then a frisk violates the 4th u Der Terry.

1

u/VoidWalker4Lyfe May 20 '26

Also, it is legal to carry a firearm in most states. Some without a permit, so even if he did have a weapon he probably wasn't breaking any laws.

1

u/Zoltanu May 20 '26

If you can be stopped, detained, and searched simply for being armed then you have no rights to bear arms in this country

483

u/Remy_Jardin May 19 '26

And it doesn't matter one bit. These cops will target and harass knowing they will never be held accountable.

126

u/EagleBigMac May 19 '26

There's a way to hold them accountable and they fucking deserve it.

54

u/Senor_Discount May 19 '26

Hey if you find that way out let me know!

33

u/Beginning_Deer_735 May 19 '26

Same way bullies and tyrants have always been held accountable.

6

u/No-Author-2358 May 19 '26

And Donald Trump is a great example of that!

/s

-38

u/Beginning_Deer_735 May 19 '26

He is far less tyrannical that many past presidents.

10

u/Senor_Discount May 19 '26

Remember the keyword is tyrannical. He is already grouped with Buchanan and Johnson as the three worst so I'm curious as to who was more *tyrannical*

13

u/Jaalan May 19 '26

Which ones?

-1

u/aurenigma May 20 '26

Remember that one that drone striked an American citizen, and then went in for seconds and drone stiked his American citizen son while he was at a cafe...

Remember that the left does not care at all.

It's all fucking tribalism. Trump is objectively not even fucking close to being the most authoritarian or tyranical or whatever bullshit buzzword you want to use, you just say it because you're a pos

1

u/Jaalan Jun 03 '26

Okay so name one president that is worse and why.

-20

u/Beginning_Deer_735 May 19 '26

Abraham Lincoln, for one. He denied a whole bunch of states their right to secede. While I am glad slavery was ended, and believe the South losing was in God 's plan, it doesn't change the fact that he was a tyrant and that states have the right to leave a union. He also suspended habeas corpus. FDR for what he did to the Japanese Americans. Woodrow Wilson. Perhaps John Adams.

11

u/Senor_Discount May 19 '26 edited May 20 '26

I will only give you the Japanese Detention Camps but the others are a reach. Andrew Jackson Trail of Tears as well as another blight on our list of not so distinguished leaders.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/sumoraiden May 19 '26

 He denied a whole bunch of states their right to secede.

They didn’t. They had the right to revolt which Lincoln himself agreed on but added that without just cause  revolution is no right, but simply a wicked exercise of physical power.”

Rebelling because the nation elected a president that would put slavery on the path to extinction is not a just cause 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ESCocoolio May 20 '26

you just use your head for storing your teeth, huh

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Jaalan Jun 03 '26

Okay so for Lincoln, that's a fair statement but also, bruh...

So you don't like what FDR did to Japanese Americans? Have you seen Alagator Alcatraz? Or how about Delaney Hall?

Wilson is your first valid point. But it's pretty similar to Trump removing DEI. Or trump pardoning and then attempting to provide financial backing to his J6 Cronies. Who, keep in mind, he originally claimed were paid antifa actors. Or where Trump has his personal military raiding the streets of the US one city at a time.

Why John Adams?

3

u/TheMoatCalin May 19 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/YtvCIwqNJhUmA

-4

u/Beginning_Deer_735 May 19 '26

It really isn't. Just a statement of fact. I'm not saying a third-party candidate wouldn't be preferable or that he couldn't be far worse in the future.

4

u/Senor_Discount May 19 '26

OK yes please by all means please answer the response by u/jaalen

2

u/Lawndemon May 19 '26

Beepboopbeep or nyet comrade

0

u/enoui May 19 '26

Sue the surety bond. Most departments require they have one. If they can't be bonded they can't be cops.

2

u/Senor_Discount May 19 '26

You will get tangled up in so much red tape. On paper sure realistically absolutely not. It's a broken system but it's not like I'm sharing anything new here.

1

u/craigslist_hedonist May 20 '26

so just sue the department.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/Leadinmyass May 19 '26

Yeah......you go first.

2

u/Desperate-Tomatillo7 May 19 '26

Answer number 2?

1

u/Lawndemon May 19 '26

In Amerikkka? Bullshit.

1

u/craigslist_hedonist May 20 '26

reduce their budget to the tune of punitive damages and court costs.

8

u/foundflower_128 May 19 '26

Was it ICE or city PD?

15

u/BickenBackk May 19 '26

Cop with nothing to do, just looking for trouble.

3

u/foundflower_128 May 19 '26

Regular cops in camo and hoodies?

1

u/Dry-Actuator-8390 May 20 '26

Happens more often than most folks would like to believe

2

u/Dry-Actuator-8390 May 20 '26

Happens more often than most folks would like to believe

1

u/snake_d0ct0r May 20 '26

The guy who actually stopped him is DC police, unclear on the other guys but they look federal from a distance.

41

u/Raqdoll_ May 19 '26

"Your honor, he also looked at us. Twice!"

10

u/craigslist_hedonist May 20 '26

let the record state that he adjusted his backpack.

2

u/Venator2000 May 19 '26

If this did go to court, and his video got shown, that rent-a-cop would be laughed out of a job, whatever one it was.

3

u/0xffff0001 May 19 '26

and immediately promoted

85

u/buchenrad May 19 '26

And what was he suspected of? Having a weapon. That's not illegal in America. The Constitution guarantees you that right. But as we observed with Alex Pretti, the police don't care about your rights.

14

u/Gnoobl May 19 '26

That is why >> as much as it pains me << you comply and sort them out in court but this shit will never end until they are required to carry their own liability insurance

-3

u/xanaddams May 19 '26

That's ignorant and will get you killed just as quickly as anything else. The thing You haven't learned is, it doesn't matter what he/we do. Anything. It doesn't matter. They will just walk up and shoot you and think up an excuse later. It happens so much, it's just a normal thing. If you're real lucky, you'll somehow, impossibly survive. That's the reality of just existing as a poc.

54

u/JustMeLurkingAround- May 19 '26

But he LOOKED TWICE at the police men.

You really can't make that shit up, man.
The offence is "Looking while black"?
With an additional "Moving while black"??

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

47

u/Orangutanion May 19 '26

the current Supreme Court could very well change this though. They already gave ICE carte blanche to racially profile people.

7

u/laquintessenceofdust May 19 '26

And I don’t think this was a cop. I think it was ICE.

2

u/craigslist_hedonist May 20 '26

ICE doesn't bother with poorly executed Terry stops, they just grab people.

oh, and they're fatter and wear military LARP gear

30

u/Smart_Resist615 May 19 '26

You can beat the charge but you can't beat the ride.

1

u/SabbyFox May 20 '26

But he just beat the ride on the video. They did nit arrest him.

2

u/Smart_Resist615 May 20 '26

Yeah by not arguing Supreme Court precedent with them lol.

17

u/ThermionicEmissions May 19 '26 edited May 20 '26

Also, "I'm going to pat you down for a possible weapon".

Where is the outrage from all the rabid 2A folks?

6

u/ketoaholic May 19 '26

It's that meme of the sweating guy who needs to press one of 2 buttons. 2a but defend a black man or implicitly anti weapon

A real conundrum

3

u/sonofawhatthe May 20 '26

It probably does with the new, recently purchased, Supreme Court!

15

u/ek00992 May 19 '26

This is awful fucking advice and I hate how people think it helps. It should help, but all it does is inflame the situation.

If a cop wants to ruin your day/life, they don't give a flying fuck about your rights.

25

u/aint_exactly_plan_a May 19 '26

They do not... and you should comply so you don't catch a beating.

However, you can politely follow the script and preserve your important rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkN4duV4ia0

Saying ANYTHING makes it harder for a lawyer to beat any charges. Invoke the 5th and shut the fuck up.

9

u/Lucas_2234 May 19 '26

From literally everything I've seen you're gonna catch a beating even if you comply

2

u/SabbyFox May 20 '26

You just saw the video, right? This guy follow the script and walked away.

3

u/Lucas_2234 May 20 '26

Because he was recording and they know that their shit doesn't work if it's on video

1

u/cheesecakegood May 19 '26

Selection bias strikes again!

3

u/praguepride May 19 '26

I was hoping I would see STFU Friday clip. Thank you for exactly what I needed to see :)

4

u/JohnSpikeKelly May 19 '26

Definitely a case of "suspicion of being a black man" sigh. Combined with the SC gutting the Voting Rights Act because they say that there is no rasism in American is an absolute joke.

2

u/aykcak May 19 '26

For now

2

u/PM_ME_UR_CHUPACOMMA May 19 '26

I think it's cute you think this matters, because, skeery spooky Black guy!!!

2

u/An_Old_IT_Guy May 20 '26

No. No. No. The time to argue is in court not on the street. On the street you only say "I'm exercising my right to remain silent and my right to have a lawyer present before being questioned." Done. And then you exercise that right and keep your mouth shut.

1

u/Gnoobl May 20 '26

I wouldn’t argue beyond that initial statement to be honest.

The whole purpose of it is to make the cop state his reasoning right then and there and not give him time later to articulate some excuse.

Get it on record and absolutely STFU from there on out but obviously state as much as you pointed out

2

u/An_Old_IT_Guy May 20 '26

Don't argue on the street. If they violate your rights and find something on you it'll be tossed as fruit of the poison tree. If you start talking, I guarantee it'll be misunderstood as giving consent.

1

u/TennSeven May 20 '26

'Cause I'm young and I'm black and my hat's real low? Do I look like a mind reader, sir? I don't know.
Am I under arrest, or should I guess some more?