IMDb RATING
8.1/10
1.7K
YOUR RATING
A live look inside the everyday calls of police officers across the nation.A live look inside the everyday calls of police officers across the nation.A live look inside the everyday calls of police officers across the nation.
- Awards
- 3 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
Just like COPS. This show is a perfect reason why people have to understand their rights. i dont hate good police officers, we need them! the crooked ones need to go.
I was amazed at the raw reality of what our officers face every day which this television series presents. Time and again I find myself relaxing with Live PD after a hard day's work.
I love the show but one small thing that drives me crazy that officers do on the show, the same as in reality but it seems the panel is unaware of accurately understanding a simple court ruling. TERRY v. OHIO. I see the officers, as most officers do, performing the "Terry Search" of virtually everyone they encounter and hear the panel commenting that police can "frisk" everyone they encounter, a "pat down" to ensure they are not armed. This simply is not true. "A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity". This must be based ""specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch". They use the "consensual contact" reasoning which is true in some but not all of the situations on the show. In a "consensual contact" situation, the person must be able to, without interference from law enforcement, be free to leave by saying they are not interested in talking or saying nothing at all and walking away. To do a "Terry stop" "frisk" the police must have "reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous", a fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her. This does not include going through pockets or asking the person to empty their pockets (which is the same as if the officer did it himself). They act as if they cry out TERRY STOP that they are free to do as they please. Not true.
Please explain why so many commercials! I get there has to be some, but it's crazy how many & then to end a show before it's over is very disturbing.And its every week. I like the show but those two things are about to make me quit watching.
I enjoy the program, particularly the going from one agency to another. To me, it keeps the show moving and interesting. It illustrates the different styles of policing by individual and department. I also agree with Donald Dozier regarding Terry vs Ohio. Every episode I wonder why no one challenges the overreaching aspects of the searches. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
Did you know
- TriviaLivePD runs on a 30 minute delay so any potential violence won't be seen live.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Lights Out with David Spade: Episode #1.60 (2019)
- How many seasons does Live PD have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime2 hours 15 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content