Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That description seems awfully close to saying an officer can selectively interfere with someone's life just because the officer didn't like the look of him.

I think we all know how that one turns out.



Sure, it gets us the "Terry stop", a police tactic which the Supreme Court currently says is legal.

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), Terry was represented by Louis Stokes, who went on to become a luminary in local and national politics. Here's what Stokes said about the case, from http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/nypd-stop-and-frisk-2012... :

> Stokes, chairman of the legal-­redress committee of the Cleveland NAACP, believed the arrest was dubious.

> Representing Terry in court, Stokes pressed [arresting officer Martin] McFadden on the stand, where he got him to admit that the men weren’t doing anything other than peering into store windows, and that he’d never busted anyone before for seeming to case a business. “What attracted you to them?” Stokes asked.

> “Well, to tell the truth,” McFadden answered, “I didn’t like them.”



It just a way for them to justify searching anyone. He looked suspicious so the officer searched him. I'm certain they could say it about anyone.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: