Police procedure question (4 Viewers)

[dennis63]

Just finished Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Talking to Strangers” (thanks for the rental @CraigT78 ). His conclusion is the resulting crime prevention may well be worth the intrusion to liberty..."

This is the balance the courts have studied in search and seizure cases. The court recognizes that extending the stop to ask questions or to search is an inconvenience to the person stopped, but the benefit (stopping the flow of illegal drugs and finding guns, stolen property and fugitives) creates a greater benefit to society and even to the person stopped.

Police officers who focus on this type of interdiction skate on a thin line between vigilence and harassing the public. When they find a ton of heroin, a fugitive terrorist (Tim McVey) or a kidnapping victim (Elizabth Smart) they are heroes. When they delay an innocent person who is acting strangely (to them) we're ready to say they are bad cops violating people's rights.

 

[ekricket]

This is the balance the courts have studied in search and seizure cases. The court recognizes that extending the stop to ask questions or to search is an inconvenience to the person stopped, but the benefit (stopping the flow of illegal drugs and finding guns, stolen property and fugitives) creates a greater benefit to society and even to the person stopped.

Police officers who focus on this type of interdiction skate on a thin line between vigilence and harassing the public. When they find a ton of heroin, a fugitive terrorist (Tim McVey) or a kidnapping victim (Elizabth Smart) they are heroes. When they delay an innocent person who is acting strangely (to them) we're ready to say they are bad cops violating people's rights.

Indeed, the benefits may be so great that we should allow them to enter our houses if they just look suspicious. Or how many crimes would we find if we went to anyones house who is driving like we don’t like and searched it? We may be into something big here.
Looks like a drug house? Just go knock, ask a few questions about the lawn, then just walk on in. Easy Peasy

 

[dennis63]

Indeed, the benefits may be so great that we should allow them to enter our houses if they just look suspicious. Or how many crimes would we find if we went to anyones house who is driving like we don’t like and searched it? We may be into something big here.
Looks like a drug house? Just go knock, ask a few questions about the lawn, then just walk on in. Easy Peasy

Your statement is, of course, an example of reductio ad absurdum. And you've missed my point completely.

Using the same flawed logic, I could say, "Okay. Don't stop anyone for anything. Don't search anyone. Just let people drive drunk, as fast as they want with no insurance. Just let the drugs be transported and sold in your neighborhood. Let your kid get addicted and piss away his or her life. Let the robbers rob the old ladies, the pedophiles travel to meet the kids, the serial killers roam the population waiting for you to leave your door unlocked."

There is a reasonable compromise between your personal freedom and your safety. That trade-off, (convenience and privacy vs. safety) is defined by the courts and is actually constantly changing, being widened or reigned in by court decisions every day.

People have brought up some good points here. but I think this thread belongs in the politics section. I'm not that political, so I'll step aside.

 

[Lars]

Dennis63 and I have been communicating by message and he has been kind enough to give me insight about dealing with this situation and this scenario should it happen again.
Thanks to Dennis and everyone else for the help with this.