Is stop-and-frisk unconstitutional as alleged during the Trump / Hillary debate?


#1

With regard to “stop and frisk” our Supreme Court has STATED in Terry v. Ohio

”We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken.”

Now, let us look at the pinko propaganda put out by the New York Daily News. See Donald Trump gets the facts about stop-and-frisk completely wrong in presidential debate

”Trump said Holt was “wrong” in saying stop-and-frisk searches are unconstitutional.
It’s Trump who was wrong.”

But, as stated by the Supreme Court, stop-and-frisk is not unconstitutional.

The New York Daily News also stated:

”Trump also insisted in the debate that crime and murders have gone up since stop-and-frisk stopped.
He told Clinton she was “wrong” in pointing out that crime has continued falling under Mayor de Blasio.
Once again: You’re wrong, Trump”

Is Trump wrong? Not according to the New York Daily Post. See NYPD Commissioner William Bratton to speak on crime trends; shootings up; stop and frisks down

”Bratton has insisted the shootings are unrelated to the large drop in stop and frisk activity by cops. But the latest police data showed the New York City police precincts with the largest increases in shootings last year – as well as, in a few cases, more homicides – also reported having the lowest numbers of stop and frisks in 2014.”

The bottom line is, Lester Holt was wrong when asserting stop-and-frisk is un-constitutional. And there has been an uptick in New York City’s murder rate since stop and frisk has been ended.

JWK


The Obama/Hillary Administration has given aid and comfort to our sworn enemies by releasing them from GITMO and paid hundreds of millions in ransom for the return of our military personnel. ***


#2

Just another so called moderator who sold out…


#3

My take on that is that it’s not unconstitutional if there is a reason for it. But without that “reason” it sounds like it is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional may not be the best word for it though.


#4

“Stop and frisk” is a misnomer. It has ALWAYS been, “Stop, frisk and QUESTION,” and as the OP stated, has been ruled entirely constitutional.


#5

That is what the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out in Terry vs Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) which discussed “stop-and-frisk” and found it to be constitutional.

JWK


#6

On August 12, 2013, federal Judge, Shira Scheindlin, found the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk “practices” were unconstitutional. The judge explained:

*** “[The City has] received both actual and constructive notice since at least 1999 of widespread Fourth Amendment violations occurring as a result of the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices. Despite this notice, they deliberately maintained and even escalated policies and practices that predictably resulted in even more widespread Fourth Amendment violations. . . . The NYPD has repeatedly turned a blind eye to clear evidence of unconstitutional stops and frisks.”***

The irrefutable fact is, the court did not rule “stop-and-frisk” was unconstitutional. What was ruled unconstitutional were the NYPD’s practices under “stop-and-frisk”

Why is this distinction so difficult for so many to comprehend?

Trump was absolutely correct and the New York Daily News and Holt were wrong!

JWK***

What did Hillary Clinton really say about the TPP [Trans Pacific Partnership] deal? *** CLICK HERE to hear the startling truth.


#7

Yet time after time the republicans allow the democrats to set the tone and select a moderator who also jumps on the republican candidate. and even spout lies.


#8

Rudy Giuliani referred to this case almost immediately after the debate to debunk the claim of Clinton and her other team member, Lester Holt, that it is unconstitutional.


#9

A lot of things have been “ruled” constitutional or not regardless of merit. I don’t believe this is constitutional; the 4th and 5th Amendments are pretty clear.


#10

I didn’t have time the other day to explain my comment so here goes.
.
The word unconstitutional to me has a specific & exact meaning. That means you can’t do it & be within the constitution. BUT if there are “loop holes” (for want of a better word) that allow you to do that unconstitutional act it weakens the word or the meaning of the word. Let’s say the police wanted to do something that was unconstitutional & to do it they had to get the approval of 3 different federal judges (by law). Because of the approval actions that the police have to go through I will still view that action as unconstitutional. But then we look at the example given in this case which is: **where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ** (I didn’t copy the whole thing). When that is the test that has to be passed (one policeman’s opinion) then I think that the word unconstitutional is really a meaningless word.
.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the police SHOULD have that right & even agree that it’s their duty to do so. I’m just saying that saying something is unconstitutional & then having a hole in the law that you could drive a truck through is kind of dumb.


#11

I’m a big fan of profiling. To me, Stop and Frisk is just profiling.


#12

The way the law is set up, something will always be ruled unconstitutional based on the exact set of facts and circumstances presented. So if you bring different facts, or circumstances, that new law may or may not be constitutional. The judge in this case, did rule that Stop and Frisk, as carried out, was a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments.

Now would that have been reversed on appeal? I don’t know. Even if it weren’t, it wouldn’t mean* any variation* of stop and frisk is automatically unconstitutional. It just means that particular structure is. It’s certainly true that it would set a precedence, and if the courts felt the new laws were too similar, then they could just chuck the law out of turn. But, all they need is substantially different facts or circumstances, and the issue can be reviewed and approved.


#13

What else would you expect from Lester Holt? He’s Black and he works for NBC News, the most biased of all the networks. I know my “Black” comment would make Hillary very happy given her “We are all racists” comment, but you may as well come down to the point without any window dressing.

An African American Republican could not get a job as primary reporter at NBC News. Liberals don’t have any use for Negros who wander off of their plantation. If they do stray from liberal orthodoxy, the liberals send dogs after them if they seek an important news or political position.


#14

I’m all for profiling for specific crimes. Not for fishing trips in lieu of an actual crime.


#15

My brother, who is a Major in the police department , would be the first to tell you that stopping and frisking a lot of kids with possible guns is important, but just the THREAT that our police MIGHT and CAN stop you and frisk you,with serious consequences if you are “rodded up” is sure to be a cause for a quick lowering of the national average of illegal carriers.
Would the Jihadist in Orlando have been stopped by a frisk? Sure
Any gangsta in Chicago who wants to be the “Black Capone”? Oh, sure.
You name your felon, they got a good chance of getting the friskeroo, and they won’t carry.

The Senator


#16

I still see both sides of the profiling issue (we’ve discussed it before). Sure it can be an invasion of a person’s rights. But also it can be a valuable tool for law enforcement. I think what really brought this into an issue is the PC times we live in. Some people take the fear of profiling to an extreme. For instance if 3 black men rob a bank is it profiling to stop a car with 3 black men in it? Well sure it is, no doubt about it. On the other hand the police are wasting their time if they also stop cars with 3 white, Chinese or whatever in it. What was it a year or so back when CA wanted to stop “profiling” to the extent that they didn’t want to put a description of who they were looking for out to the police when a crime was committed because it would be profiling? Insanity!
.
My honest feeling is that a lot of this PC carp (I cleaned it up for the mods) was dreamed up by nut jobs. And just to make it clear I think that they are just as crazy as the mass shooters out there, just in a different way. Our society has progressed to the point that it’s not just the strong that survive anymore. The weak mentally defectives are now also surviving & the real bad news is that they are also reproducing. Not much we can do about it except start petting zoos for tigers & invite everyone to go in a cage & “pet” the tigers. Not legal I know but it would thin out the herd of stupid out there.


#17

Sorry Senator, but evidence shows it doesn’t work.

Even the NY daily, who skewered the judge responsible for shutting down the law, have now admitted that they were wrong. This is simply TSA-grade BS spread out among the streets, and it fails to work for the same reason it does in Airports.

The policy lacks efficacy, it’s too observable for the people the policy wants to catch, and promotes a distrust between the community and the agencies administering it.

As the NY daily article will attest; the crime rate fell in New York before the policy came into effect, and it continued to drop after it was repealed. So it was a post-ad hoc fallacy all along, only, there was no true post.


#18

You don’t even know what stop-and-frisk is.

Stop-and-frisk is not designed to decide guilt or innocence of a crime, or if a crime has been committed. It is a tool to be used by a law enforcement officer during the course of his duties “to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety”.

Let me suggest you read Terry v. Ohio

”We merely hold today that, where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where, in the course of investigating this behavior, he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken.”

JWK


80% of green energy money taxed away from hard working American Citizens WENT TO the Hillary Clinton / Obama Administration’s donors!



#19

As a former test engineer I find the conclusion suspect. What is being said is that ending ‘stop and frisk’ is the direct result of ending homicides in NYC. If you worked for me and turned in that graph along with that conclusion I assure you I would find a position for you that more aligns with your thinking…such as pushing a broom and the floor is cleaner where you pushed it.

None of us work nor have any idea of NYC police policies and SOP’s and I think there is a lot more to the reduced homicide rate than just ending stop and frisk. If S&F lowers the homicide rate then are we to assume that having S&F increased the homicide rate?


#20

You must be a pot-smoking libertarian or libral…

I would hope you read more carefully what one of your hypothetical employees said or join them with the broom.

> What is being said is that ending ‘stop and frisk’ is the direct result of ending homicides in NYC.

You wrote this, which makes no sense. You’re saying that “ending homicides” resulted in “ending stop and frisk”? If so, I have no idea how to evaluate this sentence. If what you’er thinking is that AS and the graph’s conclusion is that ending stop and frisk reduced the homicide rate, you’re still not reading AS or the graph’s point clearly at all. Neither are the point AS or the graph makes. The point is that the rate of homicide was already falling prior to stop and frisk. The rate tended to decline during and after. That’s the real story about crime in the United States since 1990. Stop and frisk was one thing along the way, but almost everywhere else, crime rates fell without a policy similar to New York City. It probably had little impact. We didn’t have it in my town, but all of our crime rates are significantly lower than they were 25 years ago, just like most if not all of the United States.