- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge orders Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration stops
Posted on 7/12/25 at 11:53 am to Willie Stroker
Posted on 7/12/25 at 11:53 am to Willie Stroker
quote:
What evidence have you seen that brown skin is the basis for getting pulled over?
Homan has publicly stated that appearance is a criteria for reasonable suspicion, but carry on lol.
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 12:02 pm
0
Posted on 7/12/25 at 11:53 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Which specific cases are you referring to where this didn’t happen?
In the discussion over the recent judge decision, I asked what criteria people were being pulled over for.
MANY in the thread basically took a "we don't give a frick why" position on it.
Hence, this thread.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 11:53 am to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
Reasonable ARTICULABLE suspicion.
What is the difference and where in the law do you find the word articulable?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 11:53 am to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:Carrying a hidden load of illegals?
within 100 miles of the border.
Should you expect to be pulled over routinely?
Yep I would.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 11:56 am to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
The courts have NEVER ruled that cops can pull you over for no reason. NEVER.
You must not read a lot of court opinions. I will grant you this: I have not seen a court address a routine stop. The reason for that is because it has never been addressed.
The reason it has never been addressed is because it is the very next action that has been addressed. Was the search performed based on reason...was the evidence obtained based on reason.
You do realize that there is no legal basis to even talk to a police officer. You can merely state that I will answer questions in the presence of my lawyer and see what they do.
The simple answer to your question is...if the stop itself is not based on reasonable suspicion (taillight, etc) and nothing is provided to the officer during the stop, then the search and seizure does not comply.. but the stop itself has no constitutional limitation.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:00 pm to dafif
quote:
You must not read a lot of court opinions
Indianapolis vs Edmund?
Even Sitz, a ruling that was probably for the best if looked at as a single issue in a vacuum, is widely and justifiably criticized as the court working backwards from perceived consequences rather than an accurate interpretation of law.
I’ve always thought it was a somewhat disconcerting precedent to say “it’s okay if this is unconstitutional by the letter, if the high court thinks it’s for the best.”
Despite agreeing with the court’s conclusion that it was in fact for the best.
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:07 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
Where on fricking Earth that I advocate for total lawlessness? You think our fourth amendment supports total lawlessness? You think please having to have an actual specified reason for pulling you over is total lawlessness? Good God
This judge ruled that they must have probable cause. The law is clearly reasonable suspicion. It’s ok to criticize the judge.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:11 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The law is clearly reasonable suspicion.
The law says reasonable suspicion warrants questioning.
Probable cause is required for arrest, detainment, search etc.
Not much room for interpretation.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:11 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
So, in your view, if you are an actual American of hispanic descent, you should just expect that you'll have to be stopped for no reason whatsoever so they can check you?
You are arguing against no one.
Reasonable suspicion considers the totality of the circumstances. No law enforcement is going to argue that there is reasonable suspicion due to a person of hispanic descent driving a car.
You start adding information law enforcement has then there may be reasonable suspicion to pull over the hispanic to further investigate.
This Judge's ruling strikes me as a lot of talk with no teeth. Was there an actual example of a stop that lacked reasonable suspicion? No one should be concerned with this ruling as it will not change it a thing.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:14 pm to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
The law says reasonable suspicion warrants questioning. Probable cause is required for arrest, detainment, search etc. Not much room for interpretation.
Correct. And this judge said you cannot stop unless you have probable cause. It’s absurd.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:25 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Correct. And this judge said you cannot stop unless you have probable cause. It’s absurd
Reasonable Suspicion does not equal a hunch. The police officer needs to be able to articulate a specific set of facts that leads him to the suspicion. Hence the word articulable which by the way can be found in multiple places which is the entire point of the acronym RAS
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:31 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
You do realize there's a difference between being out in the general public not attempting to get on a plane and just going about your daily business versus trying to board aircraft right? Do I really have to explain it
Choke on a dick you liberal bitch.
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:41 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
Reasonable Suspicion does not equal a hunch. The police officer needs to be able to articulate a specific set of facts that leads him to the suspicion. Hence the word articulable which by the way can be found in multiple places which is the entire point of the acronym RAS
K. We can debate what reasonable suspicion means all day. I welcome it. It is irrelevant to the fact this judge changed the standard to probable cause. You ignore that.
And where in the law do you find the word “articulable?”
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
K. We can debate what reasonable suspicion means all day. I welcome it. It is irrelevant to the fact this judge changed the standard to probable cause.
Ngl seems like a sound argument here. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on my reply to dafif referencing the two SCOTUS cases. I do think there is actually precedent for the articulable verbiage regarding reasonable suspicion.
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
And where in the law do you find the word “articulable?
Terry v Ohio
Here's the suspicion must be based on an articulable set of facts
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:50 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Is this an academic exercise or do you have actual examples of ICE, as a matter of policy, is detaining people without reasonable suspicion?
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:53 pm to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
Ngl seems to be a sound argument here. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on my reply to dafif referencing the two SCOTUS cases, and I do think there is actually precedent for the articulable verbiage regarding reasonable suspicion.
I’ll go back and see which cases you cited. And I don’t necessarily disagree that articulable may be appropriate, but I fail to understand the distinction. And it is a term not used in law enforcement. (Though I haven’t been a prosecutor for over a decade…so it may have changed).
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:55 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
Terry v Ohio
Man…I never thought a 4th Amendment purist such as yourself would cite the Terry stop.
ETA: that court specifically stated probable cause was not necessary. The opposite of what this judge ruled.
This post was edited on 7/12/25 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:56 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Man…I never thought a 4th Amendment purist such as yourself would cite the Terry stop.
Terry is a fricking awful decision but that's where Ras comes from
Posted on 7/12/25 at 12:58 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
The Supreme Court ruled specifically in Terry that probable cause was not necessary. Since we’re having an academic discussion, as you have provided zero examples of Terry being violated….why aren’t you criticizing this judge for changing the standard the Supreme Court set?
Page 6 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News