General Discussion

unblock

(56,198 posts)

18. hadn't heard "removed", but have heard high iq as a job disqualifier

Sun Dec 28, 2014, 01:58 PM

Dec 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html

METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

Published: September 9, 1999

A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test.

In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination.

Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate 4th Amendment..... [View all] snappyturtle Dec 2014 OP

Know your rights. dawg Dec 2014 #1

or .. an aristocrat! unblock Dec 2014 #3

There's an actual term for that. Heywood J Dec 2014 #110

Heh tkmorris Dec 2014 #11

There are precious few remaining dickthegrouch Dec 2014 #87

Rutherford Institute is conservative bluestateguy Dec 2014 #2

I know that but my hesitation didn't last long! nt snappyturtle Dec 2014 #5

The driver GAVE permission for his car to be searched Lurks Often Dec 2014 #4

Helen shouldn't have been stopped period. The ignorance of the law on the snappyturtle Dec 2014 #8

If the driver had refused to consent to a search Lurks Often Dec 2014 #16

True ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #19

I have consented to a search as well Lurks Often Dec 2014 #23

Now ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #33

I was much younger then Lurks Often Dec 2014 #37

I'm sorry but drinking and driving is wrong. Quackers Dec 2014 #82

I'm sorry for your loss, though I do not wish to imply ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #83

Thank you Quackers Dec 2014 #84

They would have searched anyway and then lied later Nevernose Dec 2014 #29

Moot point, once the driver consented Lurks Often Dec 2014 #40

Look at this below. Interesting. Doesn't sound as if a warrant is needed for snappyturtle Dec 2014 #66

I wonder if that means deregulating vehocles reasserts their 4A protections. Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #71

My cynic agrees. nt snappyturtle Dec 2014 #81

I knew that a warrant wasn't needed for a search of a vehicle and have for years. Lurks Often Dec 2014 #78

You do not have any idea what might have happened if the driver refused to give consent. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #34

Neither do you Lurks Often Dec 2014 #39

Thank you ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #44

You made a claim that if the driver did not consent, they would just have gotten a ticket. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #47

The actions of a few police officers Lurks Often Dec 2014 #52

Sorry, I don't understand the attitude. Was it something I said? nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #58

Take a class in Criminal Procedure treestar Dec 2014 #56

Thats horrible enough We should not be in the state of "I don't know" when it comes to the cops uponit7771 Dec 2014 #72

You have every right to say no and to refuse to answer their questions treestar Dec 2014 #55

I am not "advocating" any such thing. It's very easy for someone to say what rhett o rick Dec 2014 #60

They should know! treestar Dec 2014 #63

Legal and lawful Boreal Dec 2014 #85

Situations come up that are unclear treestar Dec 2014 #88

I guess we all need to carry the excepetions Boreal Dec 2014 #91

Is that so much to ask? treestar Dec 2014 #93

You're missing what I'm saying Boreal Dec 2014 #98

Yes you can treestar Dec 2014 #111

I wasn't thinking white cop or male Boreal Dec 2014 #115

The one time I refused to consent... reACTIONary Dec 2014 #80

Don't consent! treestar Dec 2014 #51

Better yet, speak to them through a locked screen door or a door chain Live and Learn Dec 2014 #73

True. If you smell like marijuana in a state where it is illegal treestar Dec 2014 #90

I agree with you, I don't think it's reasonable for the cop not to know the area of the law he is Dustlawyer Dec 2014 #70

One of my mentors said especially if you are innocent treestar Dec 2014 #112

yeah i'm curious to know the story there unblock Dec 2014 #14

I don't know what the driver was thinking either Lurks Often Dec 2014 #42

Along with not voting treestar Dec 2014 #57

imho, it comes back to the gun issue. people instinctively do what the guy with the gun asks. unblock Dec 2014 #76

and then the cops are armed and on edge because they know there are so many guns in society treestar Dec 2014 #89

ROFLMAO.. Do you have any idea what would have happened had the driver refused SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #41

Then you should have found a lawyer and sued Lurks Often Dec 2014 #45

Right... like I asserted my rights, I should get a lawyer and trust the system.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #62

If you're that cynical, you will be a victim always treestar Dec 2014 #64

And you filed a complaint ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #46

Ask him if he has a warrant treestar Dec 2014 #59

People need to start standing up for their rights treestar Dec 2014 #50

People think that they are going to talk their way out of stuff with the police Trekologer Dec 2014 #99

Is 'reasonably mistaken' an oxymoron? CurtEastPoint Dec 2014 #6

I think so...I think the word reasonable in law should be outlawed. nt snappyturtle Dec 2014 #9

The law would collapse without that word! treestar Dec 2014 #61

no, but that would be a reasonable mistake. unblock Dec 2014 #77

Rights? randys1 Dec 2014 #7

I predict an epidemic of "reasonable mistakes". nt bemildred Dec 2014 #10

that's really ridiculous. a traffic cop should know the legal grounds for pulling someone over. unblock Dec 2014 #12

I agree. Cops should know the traffic laws. snappyturtle Dec 2014 #13

hadn't heard "removed", but have heard high iq as a job disqualifier unblock Dec 2014 #18

Thank you! I usd the word 'removed' for lack of thinking of anything snappyturtle Dec 2014 #24

jesus christ marym625 Dec 2014 #15

That's NOT what the SCOTUS ruled ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #17

not that part. the stop in the first place. unblock Dec 2014 #21

And that is fucking scary considering how much power a cop has over a civilian Rex Dec 2014 #27

This decision does not change that ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #31

Yes... yes it does, it opens the door further for "opinion" stops or excuses for them... uponit7771 Dec 2014 #74

No it doesn't ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #79

So there's LESS potential for opinion based stops? A cop can't just say they stopped me because uponit7771 Dec 2014 #86

Yes ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #92

Thx, so the police can stop you for any reason .. but to search you they need to state SOME unlawful uponit7771 Dec 2014 #95

I don't think they can stop you unless they at least have the Terry v Ohio standard treestar Dec 2014 #113

You need a probable, a terry stop, something JonLP24 Dec 2014 #100

True; but this wasn't a Terry stop ... it was a traffic stop ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #104

A traffic stop is a subset of a Terry stop JonLP24 Dec 2014 #106

Reasonable Suspicion is not Probably Cause ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #107

What do you need for a Terry Stop? JonLP24 Dec 2014 #108

What? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2014 #109

The court specifically stated it had a to cstanleytech Dec 2014 #32

... only if the numbers are kept and the "mistakes" reach a critical mass, people of color... uponit7771 Dec 2014 #75

Holy crap. Baitball Blogger Dec 2014 #20

Interesting opinions during that read... MrMickeysMom Dec 2014 #22

You know officer, I don't want you to search my car. safeinOhio Dec 2014 #25

I had a similar experience once. Curmudgeoness Dec 2014 #36

The SCOTUS does not care about the citizens of America. What do they care about? Rex Dec 2014 #26

Sorry but its hyperbole to claim that the court did away with the 4th amendment cstanleytech Dec 2014 #28

I would love to read the arguments in this case. Wouldn't you agree that there snappyturtle Dec 2014 #38

No, they would have only had a 4th amendment argument if the officer had pulled them over cstanleytech Dec 2014 #101

True, they didn't do away with it...just watered it down now. Rex Dec 2014 #43

Nope it still exists and if any police department tries to exploit it I would advise them not to cstanleytech Dec 2014 #102

This is the most dangerous, naive, agenda focused, activist SC in what was once a real world wide wally Dec 2014 #30

So much for 'Checks and Balances.' n/t PeoViejo Dec 2014 #35

Checks and balances are between branches of government. Igel Dec 2014 #54

I'm going to miss America when it's gone. nt TeamPooka Dec 2014 #48

Nonsensical headline treestar Dec 2014 #49

I agree. nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #105

It will save money on police training Turbineguy Dec 2014 #53

Posters have disputed me before... MrScorpio Dec 2014 #65

I agree with you over all. I think this case may have come down to having snappyturtle Dec 2014 #67

You are correct. old guy Dec 2014 #69

They commit a logical error. Igel Dec 2014 #68

Why is it that every amendment in the constitution can be tampered with except the 2nd? nt jillan Dec 2014 #94

It's just a goddamn piece of paper. Scuba Dec 2014 #96

Fascism. JEB Dec 2014 #97

Shocking! 1step Dec 2014 #103

Can't find decision online yet treestar Dec 2014 #114

I've read this and found it most interesting in light of the lower courts' snappyturtle Dec 2014 #116