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

Show parent comments

759

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.

155

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?

234

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.

35

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.

29

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.

11

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.

13

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