I'm all in favor of stopppig and frisking anyone if the police suspect that a person might be a potential threat to public security. My federal state has just adopted a new Police Act in response to that increasing danger. Some days ago, a nation-wide network of right-wing extremists was picked up who had been aiming at causing public unrest and creating civil war-like conditions. That wouldn't have been possible if the police hadn't been empowered to take such action as early as in the preliminary stages of the preparation of such crimes. BTW, in contrast to Nazi-Germany those suspects who are stopped and searched are not detained nor sent to torture camps. That's a fundamental difference. The two situations cannot be compared at all. Today's Germany is a nation of law and not the prerogative state of Nazi-Germany exposing the opponents of the Nazi-regime to legal sanctions and brutal violence as it was identified by Ernst Fraenkel in his book The Dual State.
I disagree with some here, in that I believe it is wrong to stop and frisk someone based on their skin color or nationality. In fact, I am opposed to randomly stopping and frisking people overall. This is not Nazi Germany and we shouldn't go down that road. If I am not guilty of having committed a crime, I should be able to walk on the sidewalk without being subjected to police searches, whatever my skin color might be, or what country my grandparents or great-grandparents may have come from. There are individual police officers who would probably not abuse a law that allowed them to search whoever they felt like searching, although I'd argue that this is unconstitutional and should not be permitted, largely because there are also police officers who are racists, and who would be more likely to view a young black man as a threat than a white man of the same age, or vice versa, given that racism is not restricted to white people. On the other hand, when the police are looking for someone who has committed a crime, and that person was described as being of a particular nationality, it doesn't make sense for them to be looking at people of other nationalities, for reasons of political correctness. Rather than stopping and frisking, laws against loitering in certain places might give the police an accepted means of looking into those who might pose a threat. But someone walking down a sidewalk should not have to show their papers or be subject to a search without probable cause.
@Lois Winters I know that full-well. Please keep in mind it was one of my reasons for leaving my birthplace! Frank
No! The 4th Amendment was made applicable to the States in 1949, and Terry v. Ohio was decided in 1968. Although a frisk IS a search, it is permitted where probable cause to search need not exist. Should we nullify SC Incorporation cases and only make the Bill of Rights applicable to the federal government again! Bad idea. A Terry stop should not be a ticket for the Police to free for all.
Yes, we should make the Bill of Rights applicable only to the federal government again. Court rulings may temporarily make it legal to supersede the Constitution but that does not mean that they are right decisions or that they are irreversible.
There is no national uniformity on police conduct. That is mostly a matter of department policies and it varies from one department to another, and from state to state. Matters not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights should be left to the states, which is where we should look if we want uniformity.
There is still no national uniformity. Some states allow Terry stops, and others don't. Within those states that do, some departments prohibit them by policy. There shouldn't be national uniformity between states. What may or may not work in one state isn't necessarily the same in another. National uniformity would place all of the policy-making power in the hands of only a few large states.
I've been out of school for a while now, so I don't do homework anymore. You seem to believe that something is mandated when the Supreme Court allows it. It's ruling in Terry v. Ohio allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. It does not mandate it. There is also the fact that Supreme Court rulings are valid only until they are negated by a future Court. Supreme Court rulings are not settled law.
No, I don't believe a conduct is mandated if the SC permits it. For example, they have ruled it does not offend the 4th AM by police effecting a custodial arrest punishable by a money fine only, but in Ohio it is not permitted under our Constitution. While ours is Co - extensive with the 4th AM, in that we differ.
No need my friend, talking on a board is not like talking in person where it is clearer. If you are interested here is the OSC case, based on Atwater. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2003/2003-Ohio-3931.pdf