1ºWilliam Henry
The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. And although most of us probably don’t know what that means exactly, it’s hard to imagine a world without this important protection. We tend to relax when we’re at home, secure in the knowledge that the government cannot enter our premises without a warrant. And we know that if a warrant has been issued, that it has been issued by a judge and based on probable cause. Likewise, when most of us walk on the street or drive in our cars, we feel secure in the knowledge that the police cannot stop us without some specific suspicion that we have done something wrong, or to be more precise: something illegal.
2ºDave Messier so again you ignore my question, which is the subject of this topic.... define "reasonable" under judicial terms. Because the US Constitution is vague in its language, and because Congress has not stepped in to provide legislature to define such, Courts have had to weigh in. Federal courts have, and as a result, NYC has decided what they want, but that's not what other districts, states consider "Reasonable". NYC does not represent the country, nor did they apply a specific statue as written, without adding their own standards and limits to it.
And, as I also pointed out, as little as an extra minute to run for open warrants, which could catch a drug dealer, bank robber or Murderer.....is now not allowed in NYC. And, now, anyone caught that was can walk as a recult!!result!!!
3ºJamie Woods and has been shown in previous high court opinions the "reasonable" detaining of those stopped is determined by those charged with the oversight of public safety in that jurisdiction. So while NYC can exercise such authority, they don't have to. Let's look back a few decades in NYC and look at the lower crime rates...and the policies that were in place then. The greater good of the community at large is a huge factor when weighing such decisions, but, this cities council and DA office has shown that doesn't matter. The governor is in that same group for that matter.
4ºDave Messier what is "unreasonable"? So a well known drug dealer is seen on the street by police. Under this new rule, unless a specific crime is about to happen or just happened, and they are the suspects....this drug dealer, even if suspicious and even if stopped for another reason....cannot have a background check ran for open warrants!!!!
The ONLY people that benefit from this are criminals. Honestly, innocent people don't mind the process. In most states, if yiu get a traffic stop, while the officer is running yiur plates, they are searching for open warrants. In NYC....this is now not allowed.
5ºDave Messier i.and all my crew are enrolled in random drug testing programs....that's my company requirements as I wrote it.
But....that's not what this is about. This is detaining someone even a minute more while running a DL or tag to see if there are any open warrants. This will make any detention as a result of finding an open warrant while routinely running a DL, not able to be acted on. So, someone pulled over for running a red light. Gets a ticket....but police cannot run tag or DL to check for open warrants, which could show the driver is a murderer, bank robber, drug dealer, or other criminal with an open warrant for their arrest. Congradulations....criminals love your position.
6ºJames Clarck the US constitution is often vague when applying to modern times. Things common today may not have been heard of 250 years ago. Drugs as an example. Modern weopens. As such courts rule on the grey areas which are not clearly defined.
"Reasonable" and "Unreasonable" can mean different things to different people. As such, without legislative measures to address such, when confronted with a challange, Courts weigh in. Generally on such matters a Federal Court, and if that ruling is challanged, works its way up the ladder.
The abortion "law" in the US, Roe v Wade was not really a law, but a court ruling, which because of oversteps of judicial authority was challanged in the recent Bobbs case and overturned. This all came about because of a lack of legislative measures to afresh such. Sometimes politicians don't want to put their name on legislature and would rather the courts weigh in.
7ºJames Clarck and like i.stated....courts have already red on what "reasonable" and "unreasonable" means and how it can be applied...and what judicial authority makes such determination.
Let's not forget what this will impact. Criminals stopped on legitimate grounds cannot be kept even a minute longer while waiting for a check on outstanding warrants. A known criminal or drug dealer spotted by police cannot even be stopped for a minute to run any check for open warrants. In fact, it's a hand tying move that will allow criminals stopped time to ensure they can get away before any background check comes in.