[yaddayadda]

> I think the only way to get rid of police harassment like this and in many other cases is to remove reasonable suspicion as a cause for stopping and searching people.

As a driver, if you see someone erratically accelerating and decelerating, do you not wonder about the state of their mind as it relates to their ability to drive, and in particular how their erratic behavior may cause an accident? While I go out of my way to avoid being near such drivers, I do still hope they get pulled over. I don't care if the reason for their erratic driving is due to being on the phone (illegal in several states), a bee flying around the vehicle (distracted driving; although I certainly hope the officer wouldn't give a ticket), or the poor person was having a heart attack (hopefully the officer can call for medical assistance and in the meantime provide CPR). In other words, there are good reasons to enable stopping someone when officers do have a reasonable suspicion.

The counter-point is that there is frequently conscious discrimination or implicit bias, as illustrated in the article. One way to deal with this, that was being used over 20 years ago on a military base where I was stationed, was a no-go parameter around the bars on base. Except when explicitly dispatched, the military police were not allowed to be within the no-go perimeter (about 1/2 mile if memory serves) around the bar around closing time (like 30 minutes before and after). There's no reason a similar policy couldn't be put into place around methadone clinics.

From the sounds of the article, in addition to dealing with discriminatory reasonable suspicion, there's also a desperate need to more fully educate police officers and judicial officials. For example, just having methadone shouldn't qualify as a DUI and the case discussed in the article indicates there was a systemic failure.

[joesmo]

Granted there does need to be some balance. Perhaps reasonable suspicion can lead to a reasonable stop: no more than five minutes. And never a search, regardless. In the article, stops of over an hour were mentioned. That's not reasonable in the court's opinion even as it stands now. Honestly though, I do not see the situation improving until the courts essentially reverse themselves and realize what horrific mistakes they've made in regards to the fourth amendment in the past. And while I'm being honest, I don't see that ever happening. I like the idea of a no-go zone, but while that might solve specific instances of abuse, it will not address the systematic abuse that the police have created in this country. Perhaps if we had a separate police to police the police instead of foolishly allowing them to police themselves we could reach some justice. This is also something that I do not see happening in this country as most people do not realize how horrific the police really are because they're white and will never experience it first hand. It's sad living in a society devoid of justice.