Pence Supports Unconstitutional Stop and Frisk

Written by:

Published on: September 27, 2016

There is nothing more infuriating than reading, watching, or hearing about individuals supporting the eradication of freedom based on the concepts of “safety,” “proactive policing,” “police safety,”  and “Supreme Court decisions or appellate court decisions are law.”  Governor Mike Pence, Republican nominee for Vice President, appeared on Fox News Sunday where he fully supported the “stop and frisk” policies implemented in New York, saying a Trump-Pence win would see this policy encouraged across the nation.  There is just one problem with this stance by the Republican nominees – “stop and frisk” is unconstitutional as it is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Speaking to Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Pence stated, “Stop-and-frisk literally saved lives in New York City when it was implemented, and it’s been implemented in cities around the country.”

Continuing, Pence said, “It’s on sound constitutional footing.  This gives law enforcement officers the opportunity, with probable cause, to be able to stop and question individuals that they think may be involved or about to be involved in criminal activity.”

This comes close to resembling the movie, The Minority Report.  If an officer has any probable cause against an individual, a warrant is required to perform any search and seizure as declared in the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Daily Caller reported:

He also acknowledged that a federal district court in New York had previously determined such stops were unconstitutional. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later issued a blunt critique of the judge who issued the ruling in the case, claiming her biases and whims were on full display in the 195-page decision. Though she was removed from the case, the 2nd Circuit panel later hedged its chastisement.

The comments echo remarks made by Pence’s running mate, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, at a forum with black voters and former wrestling promoter turned MAGA maestro Don King. Trump said that robust, nation-wide use of stop-and-frisk would effectively rebut crime and urban decay.

“One of the things I’d do is, I would do stop-and-frisk,” he said. “I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive.”

What is it about the Constitution, individual God-given rights, and the Fourth Amendment do politicians and political hacks do not understand?  Judges have a difficult time as well, which is almost unconscionable.  The first judge who issued the ruling in New York City that was subsequently overturned, Shira Scheindlin, had mentioned the “reasonable suspicion” required by the Constitution.  Where in the world is “reasonable suspicion” in the Fourth Amendment?  Nowhere.  There can only be search and seizure when upon probable cause a warrant is issued when supported by an oath or affirmation and details what is to be searched and what is to be seized.  Anything else is unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

What really takes the cake is the number of individuals commenting on the article at The Daily Caller who actually support this “stop and frisk,” sometimes known as a “Terry Stop.”

Commenter JMac, after a long paragraph explaining the “stop and frisk” policy appears to support the “reasonable suspicion” element the Supreme Court indicated could be used to perpetrate this unconstitutional activity.  In summary, he wrote, “Properly done Terry stops are an extremely effective tool for LEOs to be proactive instead of just responding after a person is victimized.”  He, then, listed four “reasons” for warrantless searches.  

Regardless of “reasons” some may support for warrantless searches, the Constitution declares a warrant is to be issued for any search and seizure when there is probable cause and the warrant is to be specific.  There are no exceptions.  Any exception taken by law enforcement or the government is unconstitutional and considered a usurpation.

An individual with the name “Freedomist” claimed, “Terry stops and frisks are for the protection of the police and not for obtaining evidence.”  In a later comment, he described the “Terry stop and frisk” as “legal.”  These individuals, along with others, began talking about “reasonable” detention as long as the time was short.  Freedomist even described “unlawful detention” as detention lasting longer than 30 minutes.

Excuse me, but any detention without warrant or probable cause is unlawful – see the Fifth and Ninth Amendments – since it deprives one of liberty without due process.

Our republic is in deep manure.  When a free people cannot be bothered to learn and understand the founding documents of their own republic, they cannot effectively ward off tyranny and despotism attempted by government.  Usurpations occur because of willful ignorance, laziness or just plain apathy.  The Constitution declares the only branch of the federal government allowed to make law is the legislative branch.  The Supreme Court does not make law, but renders decisions only.  In all court cases, the court decision applies only to the litigants in the case.  Moreover, the Constitution limits the types of cases the Supreme Court is to exercise jurisdiction.  However, the Court has repeatedly usurped its authority to hear cases outside its jurisdiction in order to impart their personal views as law upon the republic.

As the discussion continued, commenter “JMac” declared that all he was stating was fact and settled law after discussing Supreme Court cases regarding Terry stops and frisk as well as the “reasonable suspicion” requirement.  He admitted the Fourth Amendment protected from unreasonable search and seizure then turned around and declared the court sets the standard on what is “reasonable.”  However, once again, the Fourth Amendment declares what is a reasonable search in its requirements – probable cause resulting in a warrant affirming by oath or affirmation and describing in detail what is to be searched and seized.  Anything else is “unreasonable.”  This cannot be stated enough as some just are not getting it.

While Hillary Clinton has claimed to be against “stop and frisk” or what some term as “Terry stops and frisks,” her track record of violations against the Constitution would suggest she is giving lip service to upholding individual God-given rights recognized and protected from infringement by government.  After all, she declared the government has always had the “right” to legislate limitations on individual God-given rights.  And, this is the woman who wants to take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms making the population defenseless against government abuses and tyranny.  One can almost bet she would turn on a dime to eradicate any individual God-given right from the citizens.

According to Mike Pence and Donald Trump, “stop and frisk” should be nationwide since the policy “literally saved lives in New York.”  Neither has addressed the violation of the Fourth Amendment by law enforcement in that policy and neither seems concerned with what the Constitution has to say about “unreasonable search and seizure.”  Despite what some judges, law enforcement, uninformed individuals and the Supreme Court rule and/or declare, there is no provision for “reasonable suspicion” in the Constitution when it comes to search and seizure or “stop and frisk.”  The language is clear.  And, no court ruling can be considered law, unless the ruling is passed by the legislative branch of government.  Moreover, in order to change the Fourth Amendment, the Constitution would require “amending,” meaning it would go to the States for a three-fourths vote to make a change.  It matters not whether the policy of “stop and frisk” has saved lives or not.  It’s implementation is unconstitutional, period.

Unfortunately, the citizens of this republic are not learning what is in the Constitution and how the three branches function.  If the Supreme Court or any other court could make law, then there would be no need for Congress or a legislative branch.  Anyone who claims a Supreme Court decision is law is terribly mistaken.  The founding fathers certainly would not place this republic, the appropriate name for the type of government established, under the “rule” of a black robed oligarchy of nine after suffering through the tyranny of a king.  It’s time to stop listening to political hacks and government tools spouting inaccurate information and begin to educate oneself.  If one listens to government tools and political hacks long enough, without knowing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, one will be under the brainwashed assumption that the federal government has the final say in everything, determines rights and who can have them, the Supreme Court makes law, and one is required to relinquish liberty in order to be secure.  Moreover, continuation of policies like “stop and frisk” expand the police state already in place in the united States while doing nothing to ensure security.

No wonder this republic is in such sad shape.  It’s past time to wake up America.  In fact, the alarm clock went off a while back.  Unfortunately, too many turned over and went back to sleep.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus

Send this to friend