re: Judge orders Trump administration to halt indiscriminate immigration stops

Nobody cares what you think. Shut up.

The latter pages of this thread are the most “everybody arguing in good faith” thread I’ve seen on this board on the topic, so here’s the reply I was referencing.

quote:

---

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.

---

But JimEverett’s response on reasonable suspicion considering the “totality of the circumstance” provides an actual legal argument that would get around SCOTUS having to write another silly justification like in Stitz. I hadn’t considered that.

I still respect Grumpy’s commitment to ensuring we don’t set an “ends justify the means” precedent, because SCOTUS decisions do have consequences beyond the the cases that establish precedent.

I also agree with him that it’s stupid and dangerous if people become averse to or disinterested in entertaining questions like this.

quote:

---

targeting brown-skinned people

---

And like clockwork the dims can see nothing but skin pigmentation. Despite the FACT that there are MILLIONS of people in the USA that are citizens AND have a lot of pigment in their skin yet they aren't being deported.

Here is the holding in Terry

quote:

---

Reasonable Suspicion: The officer's observations and experience provided a reasonable basis for suspecting that Terry and Chilton were armed and involved in criminal activity. The Court established that police officers could stop and briefly detain a person for questioning if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity.

---

That is not what you wrote - observation and experience apply - and that was for a frisk not even just a stop

quote:

---

Indianapolis v Edmund was the Supreme Court case that banned general police checkpoints.

---

Or sure why ChatGPT gave me the open container - wow

However, the holding is important

quote:

---

(a) The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444.

---

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is usually a duck.

quote:

---

So you don't support DWI checkpoints, right?

---

Correct. The logic used to justify them is complete pretzel silliness and could be used for an entire host of other stupidity that would illustrate just how dumb they are

quote:

---

Nope. That’s not how at works. Especially not on the road. You people are sounding more and more like the “sovereign citizen” types every day.

---

No. Sovereign citizens are fricking idiots who don't even think the Constitution applies to them or really any law from the government. But sometimes I wonder if people like you even know why we founded the fricking country in the first place. LOL. All of you seem to want to treat the government like it's your parents. And you're its children just waiting to be taken care of and told what to do.

You wouldn't let just some random dude stop you and demand to know what you're doing. Why do you let that same dude do it just because he says he works for the government? That's fricking retarded

delete