> What exactly is it? What constitutes it? I want it written down on paper
Sorry. Phrases like "suspicious activity", "probable cause," and "obstruction of justice" have no official definition, as far as I know. Those phrases are written into the law without definition and the courts have shown that they will 100% accept whatever randomness a police officer says it is.
If the officer says that the suspect scratched his nose suspiciously, that's legal. If the cop says that he simply had a hunch something was wrong, that's legal. And, in recent events, if a cop is shown to have been completely mistaken about a law or suspect, the court will rule that as legally being suspicious activity.
> It's a joke to me. Most of the time it is nothing more than profiling, or the cop is bored and needs something to do.
Of course. There are articles where the police admit that they screen out the applicants with high IQs because the job is so boring that smart people couldn't handle it. So, they very much do hassle random people when they get bored.
> All I know is that if cops waited to pull someone over when they were actually doing something wrong, more of the right people would get locked up.
If cops only targeted guilty people, they'd be a lot more bored than they already are. Plus, don't forget, cops are evaluated by the arrest, not the number of convictions. So, they arrest innocent people for their own financial gain.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
reply
share