03-31-2017, 09:08 PM
(03-31-2017, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps being a former felon increases the rule of Reasonable Suspicion and therefore a stop that may be deemed to not fulfill the reasonable suspicion rule by a non-known felon may be reasonable if the person is known to have participated in the activity in the past.
A convicted felon may not lose his or her protection from unreasonable search; however, their likelihood of committing such a crime may lower the reasonable suspension rule.
Stop and frisk and unreasonable search are not the same and SCOTUS has ruled as such.
Terry v. Ohio (I'm assuming that is the case you are referring to) did maintain that reasonable suspicion a crime has taken place, is taking place, or is about to take place is required for stop-and-frisk. I never claimed that stop-and-frisk is unreasonable. I am arguing that the suggested qualification by Sunset for initiating a stop, the person being a felon, would not qualify in itself for reasonable suspicion.
I can understand if we disagree on that point,. I'm unaware of any case law to support either side on that.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
