New York City's Right to Know Act requires cops to record people's explicit consent to warrantless stop-and-frisks


Originally published at:


I thought that most stop and frisks were based on Terry v. Ohio rather than consent…


The key is that it’s been rightly determined that most stop and frisks don’t meet the “reasonable suspicion” standard of Terry, and therefore police have taken to trying to skirt the issue by claiming that the person waived their 4th Amendment rights by consenting to search.


And of course the justification for the frisk in a Terry stop is a search for WEAPONS, not contraband.


So the charge will be resisting arrest consent?


'I don’t understand why my camera keeps not working"
Says every NYPD officer


Why isn’t it called “Right to ‘No’?”


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.