Police Stop and Search Discussion

[Sukerkin]

Here's an interesting article on the BBC about Police Powers.

What is particularly of note are the views given by various people on Police Powers of Stop & Search
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7221989.stm

For me, the ability of the Police to stop and search has always been a given. If a copper stops me on the street in the early hours of the morning and wants me to turn out my bags or conduct a serach for drugs, weapons et al then I'm more than happy to co-operate.

It's only when these powers are abused that they become a problem.

 

[Makalakumu]

In the US, we may have a little different mentality about these things. I would expect the police to provide me with some sort of probable cause and possibly a warrent in order to search my property. The danger of not viewing search/seizure with skepticism is that it WILL lead to abuse. LEOs are human like everyone else and the rules are in place for a reason.

 

[tshadowchaser]

here in the states and speaking from personal experience I feel that if a stop is warranted ( speeding, erratic driving, running a light, a car that is all over the road) a search of the car and person is ok.
However if a person is simply stopped for a tail light that is out and that person is not acting as if they have been drinking or showing the indicators of being on some substance that might be against the law, I have a problem with the police searching my vehicle or myself.
I do not like someone thinking they can search me just because they way I am dressed ( shorts and a torn tee shirt VS a suite and tie)

 

[Ninjamom]

That's one of the big differences in views on the two sides of the pond. Here in the US, it is considered one of our fundamental rights to be secure in our person and property from unreasonable search and/or seizure. This right was enshrined in the first ten ammendments to the US Constitution, called together the "Bill of Rights"; ammendments that were drafted at the same time as the Constitution itself, to guard against abuse of the Constitution by any would-be future tyrant.

From Wikipedia:

Fourth Ammendment: 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.

In practice, search requires probable cause, a warrant issued by a judge, or reason to believe there is iminent danger to life or property. "Acting suspicious" isn't probable cause.

 

[Archangel M]

here in the states and speaking from personal experience I feel that if a stop is warranted ( speeding, erratic driving, running a light, a car that is all over the road) a search of the car and person is ok.

Except that its not. Even in those situations an officer would need your consent or probable cause [seeing contraband, a search incident to arrest]. To search you or your vehicle. The exception being a Terry search or "pat down frisk" if the officer can articulate that it needed to be done for his safety. Just stopping people and searching them would never hold up in court if fought.

 

[jks9199]

The Fourth Ammendment is the cornerstone of search and seizure law in the US. I'm going to requote it - and add some emphasis:

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.

The first key word is "unreasonable." The Supreme Court and other courts have continually recognized that some searches and seizure are reasonable, through a variety of justifications. Some of the factors that are assessed in considering the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure are the extent that the activity in question is regulated (firearms business are heavily regulated, cars are routinely inspected, etc.), the extent of the invasion (looking into an open area versus probing into hidden corners), and the duration of the search or seizure (a few moments to find out why you're in front of a closed business at 2 AM versus several hours for unspecified "questioning.")

The second key word is probable cause. Probable cause is not proof, it's simply facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the item searched for is more likely than not to be found in the place named, or that the person more likely than not committed an offense. PC for a warrant is assessed by a neutral party (judge or magistrate), and must be spelled out in a sworn affadavit or statement. Closely related to probable cause is "reasonable suspicion." This is a lesser level of proof, and can be based on facts or circumstances that would only mean something to a similarly trained law enforcement officer. I'll come back to this in a moment...

The last words I wanted to call attention is the phrase "particularly describing." Both the place to be searched and the item to be seized must be described sufficiently to exclude anything else. For example, an address must be specific, and generally describe the building and how to recognize it. The description generally will read something like "a single family residence at 123 Main Street, Big City, of red brick construction, with a the numbers 123 in brass to the left of the front door, which is painted red." Items or persons to be searched for are described in similar detail -- sometimes going on for pages. The idea is simple: what is searched and where it's to be found must be specifically described to (hopefully) avoid invading the wrong person's privacy, or seizing items without justification.

Moving to the specific issue of stopping people on the street... That's covered here in the US by a number of rulings, especially Terry v Ohio. Essentially, police are permitted to stop a person, and even to conduct a limited search for the officer's protection, under specific circumstances. If, based on reasonable articulable suspicion, the officer believes that a person is possibly commiting or about to commit a crime, they can detain that person -- even forcibly detain them -- long enough to confirm or dispel that suspicion. If there is reasonable suspicion that they might be armed, the cop can conduct a brief search of their outer garments (or similarly, immediately accessible areas like backpacks and waist bands) for weapons. A Terry pat-down is not a search for contraband -- but contraband discovered is often admissable based on several exceptions (which I'm not going into...) to the search warrant requirement. The reasonableness of the length of a Terry stop is judged by the actions being taken to confirm or deny the specific suspicion; it may take some time for calls to be made, owners to be found, and the like in some cases while others may only take a minute or two, like confirming that a person isn't a wanted subject whom they resemble.

Additionally, a law enforcement officer, just like an ordinary person, can walk up and talk to anyone. We can even ask for voluntary consent to a search -- which can be as thorough as the person granting consent permits.

 

[jks9199]

here in the states and speaking from personal experience I feel that if a stop is warranted ( speeding, erratic driving, running a light, a car that is all over the road) a search of the car and person is ok.
However if a person is simply stopped for a tail light that is out and that person is not acting as if they have been drinking or showing the indicators of being on some substance that might be against the law, I have a problem with the police searching my vehicle or myself.
I do not like someone thinking they can search me just because they way I am dressed ( shorts and a torn tee shirt VS a suite and tie)

Except that its not. Even in those situations an officer would need your consent or probable cause [seeing contraband, a search incident to arrest]. To search you or your vehicle. The exception being a Terry search or "pat down frisk" if the officer can articulate that it needed to be done for his safety. Just stopping people and searching them would never hold up in court if fought.

Exactly; during a routine traffic stop, a police officer cannot involuntarily search the car UNLESS they develop probable cause that would support a warrant. (Because of the regulation of the operation of a vehicle, and the mobility of the car, vehicles are an exception to the general search warrant requirement; look up the Carroll Doctrine for more info.) However, if based on the officer's training and experience, they suspect something else -- they can then do several things to work towards a search.

 

[Archangel M]

Even "post 9/11" huh?

 

[MA-Caver]

Here's an interesting article on the BBC about Police Powers.

What is particularly of note are the views given by various people on Police Powers of Stop & Search
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7221989.stm

For me, the ability of the Police to stop and search has always been a given. If a copper stops me on the street in the early hours of the morning and wants me to turn out my bags or conduct a serach for drugs, weapons et al then I'm more than happy to co-operate.

It's only when these powers are abused that they become a problem.

So when would it be abused? When is it considered abuse?
I was traveling to Ohio with a friend and his wife. Just crossing over the Illinois state line we stopped at a small gas station to relieve ourselves and for drinks and what not. It was roughly 11:30 p.m. Pulling back out on the freeway (I was driving) we get pulled over before we even finish the off ramp.
Officer said the reason they pulled me over was because I failed to use my turn signal. Then he asked if I had any guns or weapons in the car? (Puzzling because if I were a criminal would I admit to that??) Then he had all of us get out of the car so that they could search... with our permission.
At this point I knew that we had legal right to deny them permission without a warrant.
But that would've given them probable cause to search. What was probably the reason (and it's stupid) was the fact that my friend's wife is black. So here you have two white guys with one black girl (riding in the back seat because she was 3 months pregnant (not quite showing) traveling late at night and just generally being very quiet at the store. We were tired and planning to stop at a motel after we passed Chicago so not to get caught in traffic early AM... also quiet because we are deaf... but they didn't know that did they?
I didn't mind getting pulled over because I failed to use my turn-signal when getting on the on ramp, but I was annoyed that they wanted to search our car even after my driving record and theirs and our "credentials" had checked out (no warrants or priors). Dunno if that's called abuse? We fully cooperated.
Mainly because we were nervous about being hauled off to jail or at least "downtown". We were "let go" eventually, but we did not enjoy our trip at the behest of the officer when he returned our I.D.'s

Abuse? Or just a couple of guys doing their job throughly? True, maybe they got an APB on folks fitting our description and we just happened in the area. Dunno, and probably will never know. But it was annoying.

 

[Archangel M]

Refusal to a consent search is NOT probable cause to search. Not to a good cop.

 

[Andrew Green]

Just to clarify something here, the BBC articles does not say police have the right to stop and search for no reason. It says that they need some tangible evidence first. However some groups are calling for greater power to stop and search without that.

Seems similar to some of the recent issues in US law around anti-terrorism and security to be honest. I'm sure their are people in all countries that feel police should be able to stop and search anyone they suspect might be up to no good, without hard evidence to back up their suspicion.

I'd be against it. I agree that it might make cops more effective in dealing with problems, I agree that they probably have times where they are almost certain someone has something on them yet have no legal way to search them and charge them. But I don't think giving up the right not to be searched without cause is worth the added security.

The issues around this are that police work through intelligence. In London, for example, this might state that young black males are more likely to be carrying a weapon of some description in, say, the Brixton or Peckham areas.

Should the police not act on such intelligence just because it may upset someone?

Absolutely not.

Statistically that may be true, however when you start allowing racial profiling it will only make matters worse. People will become what they are expected to be. If they are treated differently and expected to "be bad" they will be.

Here is a very simple example at how fast and effective racial profiling can be at making itself real, even when it wasn't: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

 

[MA-Caver]

Here is a very simple example at how fast and effective racial profiling can be at making itself real, even when it wasn't: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

Another good example are the films, "Crash" and "Amos and Andrew."

 

[Sukerkin]

Valuable insights and points of view from my American friends there.

I do think that circumstances play a role on how 'valid' we perceive some course of official action to be.

For example, there are only two occasions I've been stopped by the police.

The first was in broad daylight whilst I was driving my car with two friends as passengers. This one did annoy me a bit because the officer accused us of curb crawling (a phrase meaning 'looking for prostitutes' ). Given that we were doing thirty miles an hour (the speed limit for the area) and it was just after dinner-time I thought that that was somewhat 'thin'. But, like a good little subject, I answered the officers questions and was duly sent on my way. I never did figure that one out :lol:. Perhaps it was a 'training excercise' for a new bobby?

The second occasion was much more understandable because I and my friend were walking through a high-crime part of the city in the early hours of the morning carrying obviously heavy bags. The coppers were quite genial about it tho', asking the usual question of who we were, where we'd come from and where we were going ... and asked to look in our bags. It never even occurred to me to say "No!" but this conversation does have me wondering what would've happened if we had?

For me, the matter of balance that determines what is 'reasonable use' of power and what is 'abuse' is not all that tricky. The key phrase often used in law is what "a reasonable person" would consider to be acceptable. When it comes to stop-and-search then I think that it would be very easy to see if an officer was stepping over the boundary of reasonable behaviour.

I do agree tho' that power without effective oversight is a dangerous thing and, sadly, you cannot always rely on the virtuous nature of a person to keep themselves from stepping over the line.

 

[Andrew Green]

Another good example are the films, "Crash" and "Amos and Andrew."

I agree, but I think making the point on real people rather then with actors is more "real"

 

[MA-Caver]

I agree, but I think making the point on real people rather then with actors is more "real"

True, very true. But if the story is well written enough... it can still make it's point. But yes, real life is more closer to home.

 

[CoryKS]

I agree, but I think making the point on real people rather then with actors is more "real"

Even better would be making the point with adults, as children don't exactly have an iron-fisted grip on civility or rationalism.

 

[Andrew Green]

Even better would be making the point with adults, as children don't exactly have an iron-fisted grip on civility or rationalism.

She's duplicated the same experiment with adults, many many times. Always to the same result. I thought there was a few pieces in there of her doing it with adults, but I could be wrong as it was quite a while back that I watched those.

The kids where the first time she did it, but the experiment became rather famous and has been used to train workers in all sorts of environments where there is racial tension and profiling (ex prison guards)

 

[Live True]

You can find the clips where she does this with adults here (#4 and 5)
and she discusses the adult trials, in interviews, noted here
In the last, she talks about how doing this in Berlin had some particularly interesting effects. This film was part of the diversity training where I work and also part of my psychology courses in college, and it led to some very interesting conversations about racial profiling and the results of hi/lo expectations (something particularly of interset to special ed teachers)

I'm sure many people have stories about being pulled over and searched when they didn't think it was completely justified (mine involves being a freshman in college driving home from the airport at 2am, with my two best freinds in the backseat...yup, we got pulled).

That said, I fully respect and cooperate with any LEOs that are respectful and reasonable. Do I think these rights should be increased based on the fears raised by 9/11....here's my answer:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin,

 

[Sukerkin]

Just to be clear so that my position is not misunderstood, I fully agree with the philosophy behind the Franklin quote. It's one of the great truisms of societies as they grow ever larger that the temptation to give up individual freedoms for a phantom of security becomes stronger and should not be allowed to happen.

Sadly (or, maybe, not), in England, as I say ad infinitum, we are subjects not citizens, no matter how disguised that fact may be. I have no rights other than those that the government (via the auspices of the monarch) says I have. You chaps in the States had your rights written into law ... and you're still letting them be taken from you ... but that's a whole other story (one that I can see ending in blood unless those at the top of the Decision Tree start to see sense).

I quite agree with Live True's sentiments above in that cooperating within the legal framework with LEO's is a duty of every law abiding citizen. Allowing undue methods to become common-place is not.

Therin rests the core question - is submitting to search on request, of a recognised officer of the law, a breach of your civil liberites or a proper extension of the authority of those who are in place (supposedly) to protect the law abiding?

 

[jks9199]

So when would it be abused? When is it considered abuse?
I was traveling to Ohio with a friend and his wife. Just crossing over the Illinois state line we stopped at a small gas station to relieve ourselves and for drinks and what not. It was roughly 11:30 p.m. Pulling back out on the freeway (I was driving) we get pulled over before we even finish the off ramp.
Officer said the reason they pulled me over was because I failed to use my turn signal. Then he asked if I had any guns or weapons in the car? (Puzzling because if I were a criminal would I admit to that??)

It's amazing... but yes, they sometimes do. Or you may have had guns or other weapons in the car, legally, and chosen to simply advise him of that when asked.

Then he had all of us get out of the car so that they could search... with our permission.
At this point I knew that we had legal right to deny them permission without a warrant.
But that would've given them probable cause to search.

Actually, it wouldn't have been enough, in and of itself, to equal probable cause and justify a search. It's frustrating, and yeah, the cop will probably assume the reason you refused is 'cause you're dirty... but it IS your right. If he knows what he's doing, and he's got grounds to search without consent -- he's not going to ask for consent.

What was probably the reason (and it's stupid) was the fact that my friend's wife is black. So here you have two white guys with one black girl (riding in the back seat because she was 3 months pregnant (not quite showing) traveling late at night and just generally being very quiet at the store. We were tired and planning to stop at a motel after we passed Chicago so not to get caught in traffic early AM... also quiet because we are deaf... but they didn't know that did they?
I didn't mind getting pulled over because I failed to use my turn-signal when getting on the on ramp, but I was annoyed that they wanted to search our car even after my driving record and theirs and our "credentials" had checked out (no warrants or priors). Dunno if that's called abuse? We fully cooperated.
Mainly because we were nervous about being hauled off to jail or at least "downtown". We were "let go" eventually, but we did not enjoy our trip at the behest of the officer when he returned our I.D.'s

Abuse? Or just a couple of guys doing their job throughly? True, maybe they got an APB on folks fitting our description and we just happened in the area. Dunno, and probably will never know. But it was annoying.

I can't say exactly; I wasn't involved. It does have some of the hallmarks of several forms of criminal activity, though... until investigated further. And that's his job to do...