Talk:Search of persons

Rename?

This article needs to be renamed. "Search" is a legal term of art that applies when government actors invade a reasonable expectation of privacy under Katz. The scope of this article, which concerns government actions under Terry, concerns frisks, not searches under the 4th Amendment. I would like to begin expanding this article; but the title needs to be changed. Max conformist (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Frisk redirect speaks to a "cursory search" by police officer by running hands over the outer clothing. So does this article. But it does it in context of it not being a search... no pocket checking/removal is allowed, as that then moves the operation to a search. So I'm not sure exactly what new article name you think should be used here. Could you clarify? This does seem to be about searching, which is invasive. A redirect from your proposed new name to here may be a good idea in any case. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, thank you for responding. I would prefer to rename the article Frisks of persons or Terry Frisks, due to its current content. The only United States content in the article describes a very limited search, to use the generic sense of the word. However, in legal terms it is not a full legal search, as it never requires probable cause or a warrant to conduct, and it falls outside the terms of Katz: it is not conducted for evidence but for officer safety. Yet, in legal terms, it is not a full non-search, either - it still requires a quantum of cause for government actors to proceed with it. The term that has been given by the Supreme Court for what is currently described in this article is a frisk. In legal terms, there are many ways you can conduct a full legal search of a person, however none of these is currently mentioned in the U.S. portion of the article. Because only frisks are currently mentioned in the article, I assumed that this was how the article was to be themed, and thus it could be named more appropriately. But if this is in fact the case, then the title is quite overbroad (imprecise - though it would be accurate); it is akin to titling an article “United States Constitution” and then covering only the right to non-excessive bail therein. The non-united States material in this article is covered in depth elsewhere and could be removed. Or the, the U.S. material could be removed to an article that specifically deals with it, and includes “Frisk” somewhere in the title. Currently, I have not found an article on Wikipedia that deals solely with Terry frisks.

Alternatively, if you were to permit me to add material about actual searches of persons, then the current title may be appropriate, and a portion on frisks could be subheaded as "limited searches" (and the current content about Terry frisks described therein). This would probably be the best solution for leaving the non-U.S. material in the article as well (as I am not sure whether those non-U.S. jurisdictions mentioned use “frisk”.)

So, either the content should be restricted to Terry frisks, and the article renamed accordingly, or information about full legal searches should be added to the article and the name retained. As it stands right now, however, the title matches the U.S. content in a way that is laughably imprecise.

As a side note, the little content of this article which does exist (which you cited as “no pocket checking/removal is allowed”) is just blatantly incorrect. However, I will refrain from editing the article until you delineate the scope of material that appears proper for inclusion. Please let me know what you think. Max conformist (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you know quite a bit about this topic. Legal is not my area of expertise... I've asked another editor to take a look and comment. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[-unindent-] Hi Maxc. So I'm looking at this article, and you're right, it doesn't say much, and what it does say is wrong. Very amateurish. But I am concerned, after reading what you wrote above, that what you are proposing it to say might be wrong as well.

While Katz is a notable case on searches, Terry also applies to searches of persons. Although people put together the taxonomy of Constitutional criminal procedure in many different ways, but the bottom line is this: The 4th Amendment applies to all searches and seizures. The 4th Amendment does not always require a warrant for searches and seizures - especially searches and seizures of people and cars found in public and acting suspiciously. The fact that Terry procedures do not require warrants or probable cause does not mean that Terry procedures aren't searches or seizures. They are.

A "Terry stop" is a seizure, because it is an involuntary detention, even though it is "brief." It therefore is covered by the 4th amendment, and exempted from the warrant requirement upon a mere showing of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity presently in progress. A "Terry frisk" is a search because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your personal integrity that is sufficient to be violated when you are involuntarily frisked. But, again, it is exempted from warrant requirements, provided a slightly more particularized showing of reasonable suspicion -- reasonable suspicion that the suspect frisked is presently involved in criminal activity and armed and dangerous.

In the case of this page, the content should be accurate, and it certainly can cover searches of persons and discuss Terry - it most certainly should, but it should be in the proper context. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Non Curat Lex (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. As you can see from above, I believe the best solution is to add information about true searches, and subhead Terry information under a "limited searches" subheading. Maybe you can express an opinion on this so we can get a vote from Lar. Max conformist (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with expanding the article along the lines proposed, as long as we don't suggest that Terry frisks aren't "searches." I'll reserve the right to offer my 0.02 as the process advances. Thanks for taking the initiative to improve this article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MC: You don't need my approval per se. if you want my opinion, as a legal layman, the approach outlined to delineate this sounds reasonable enough to me. I find the distinctions here somewhat confusing and would welcome this article to more clearly delineate the differences, and discuss them, especially if written in clear, concise and neutral terms. However please do remember not to be US centric (or even US and UK centric), if at all possible, we should talk about as many different legal systems as is practical. Unless the topic itself is entirely US only? Somehow I suspect that Bobbys in the UK search people too, as do the Gendarmes in France, and the Polizei in Germany (I probably mangled at least one of those spellings!!!!). Note, I put a classification box in. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect instead?

On further review, I think that this article should not be edited. I think it should be purged, and search of persons should redirect to search and seizure. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep it chopped up into smaller categories, such as: "search of persons"; "search of vehicles", etc. - and put summaries with links on the search and seizure page so that the search and seizure page does not get too long? Max conformist (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max: Search and Seizure is, can, and should remain, a reasonably long article, as long as well it's well-organized. Ever seen Wayne LaFave'sSearch treatise? Six volumes. Not small. If that article does, and can, cover the sub-topics of searches of persons, vehicles, premises, in sufficient detail (and I believe it can) doesn't that make separate articles on each unnecessary? For example, once upon a time, there was a separate article each notable model of the Glock pistol. However, a group of concerned editors, familiar with the topic, decided that they could all be consolidated in one article; now if someone navigates to the article on "Glock 17" or "Glock 21", or any other Glock, it redirects to one article covering each. And it is long, but it still takes up fewer bytes of data than 20 separate articles.

Why don't we turn our attention to the search and seizure article? I want to to recommend deletion of this article. Non Curat Lex (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but to do that would make things tilt toward the "lawbook" and not the practical, as you pointed out on the talk:search warrant page. In the side box of criminal procedure articles there is a "criminal investigation" subheading, with links to articles that I think people in general would find of interest. What would you do, remove all of those and make a single six-volume, treatise-size page? Seems a bit impractical for wikipedia. Max conformist (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I said on talk:search warrant is distinguishable. What you were proposing to do there would have more than tilted the balance; it would have effectively eliminated the topic. Expanding the legal discussion of search and seizure on that page would not obliterate the practical discussion, it would merely expand things that are already there. It's okay to tilt within reason.

In any case, Encyclopedia readers do not need to be treated (and I do mean treated) to the full contents of a treatise. All I am saying is that legally, it's a big topic.

In any case, rather than engaging in a verbal dance of disagreement with me, why don't you take a look at search and seizure and see how much expanding it really needs. Have you looked?

Either way, we don't have to be the sole arbiter of this. I'm going to AfD this. Then the community can vote. Non Curat Lex (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't waste any more arguing about formatting. You can edit the article. I'm moving on to something else. Max conformist (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't want anyone to waste time editing this article, but, ultimately, it's not up to me... Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]