Talk:Frisking

message: I'm not just going ahead and merging the articles is because there's no global perspective in either of them. There is also already an article on the underlying US Supreme Court decsion Terry v. Ohio and merging Terry stop to there might be the better choice. Otto4711 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Can you expand this to cover the scope of Terry?  There seems to be a big body of case law regarding the officer's right to stop a suspected criminal (e.g., if the criminal is traveling in a vehicle) without probable cause to seek a "consent" search. (see Alabama v. White; SCOTUS).  Also, the SCT has held that you can Terry "frisk" an automobile (Michigan v. Long).  It would be great to see a little about these topics included in this article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.74.52 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Terry case

message: I've added citations to support the two main premises of this article; more can be added if felt necessary. I cited Hiibel in the first case because I couldn't find anything sufficiently succinct in Terry. The article still needs a lot of work, especially in eliminating some obviously redundant statements. And there is the greater issue of the questionable redirect from the main topic to a subtopic. JeffConrad (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CItations of supporting jurisprudence. 

message: The discussion has run its seven-day course, and there seems to be universal consensus for splitting Terry stop into a separate article, so I've gone ahead and made that change. That article was merged with Frisking in November 2006, but as it is now written, I see no reasonable way that the two can be merged again.
As I had mentioned, I think this article should be moved to Frisk to comply with WP:NOUN (and the first sentence would make more sense as well), but something would need to be done to avoid disambiguation. Accordingly, I've not made the change. JeffConrad (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: With the separation of this article from Terry stop, frisking is not necessarily restricted to peace officers and objects sought to be discovered are not necessarily limited to weapons. Objects sought aren't necessarily limited to weapons and drugs, either. I've made simple changes to the lead section to reflect this.
I think the material relating to a Terry stop should be thinned, because it's only one element of what's properly covered here, and because it's adequately covered in Terry stop.
I don't anticipate being a major contributor to this, but offer a few thoughts on searches the article might be expanded to cover:
# By a peace officer, incident to a Terry stop.
# By a peace officer, incident to arrest. Here the search is not limited to weapons. And it's not necessarily limited to frisk.
# By private security as a condition of entrance to a venue. In the last several years, suits have been filed against NFL teams who require ticket holders to submit to such a search prior to entering stadiums.
# By private security, for whatever reason, legally authorized or otherwise. Any evidence so discovered is not subject to the exclusionary rule.
# By others, probably including drug dealers, prostitutes' escorts, and assorted thugs, any of whom might be looking for a wire as much as for weapons.
JeffConrad (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frisking outside the context of a ''Terry'' stop 

message: I removed the following material from Terry v. Ohio because it has nothing to do with that case or subsequent jurisprudence:
:For instance New York City has come under scrutiny for their use of the Terry Stop.  Supporters say that it reduces crime, but civil rights advocates say it is racial profiling.  John A. Eterno, a former city police captain describes: “My take is that this has become more like a ‘throw a wide net and see what you can find’ kind of thing.  I don’t see it as targeted enforcement, especially when you see numbers that we are talking about.”
The cited article raises a similar issue to that in the second paragraph under Stop and frisk here: that some “Terry stops” may not be supported by articulable reasonable suspicion, and in some cases may represent racial profiling. Perhaps the material could be added to this article (a new heading for this and the current second paragraph would seem indicated). But I wonder if this isn’t getting away from the topic of this article; perhaps this material and the current second paragraph under Stop and frisk would be more appropriate in Terry stop, perhaps under a section to the effect of Questionable Terry stops. JeffConrad (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable ''Terry'' stops 

message: If the entire presentation seems too POV, perhaps we should balance it with a differing viewpoint, or condense what’s currently presented, keeping what’s thought to be most important. JeffConrad (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintaining NPOV

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Why no mention of the recent policy, of stop-and-frisk-zones, in Denmark? 155.4.221.27 (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of the recent policy in Denmark?