Trump Is Right About ‘Stop and Frisk’

[Revmitchell]

One of the strategies that helped bring about an 85% reduction in crime in New York City between 1994 and 2013 was the careful and appropriate use of “stop and frisk.” This practice dramatically reduced the number of guns, knives and other dangerous weapons, as well as illicit drugs, in the city.

But according to candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt during Monday night’s presidential debate, stop and frisk is “unconstitutional.” They are wrong. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, it’s the usual misrepresenting she does when she does not know what she is talking about. As for Mr. Holt, if a moderator is going to interfere, he should do some homework and not pretend to know the law when he does not. Mr. Holt and NBC cannot overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.

Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio. That ruling hasn’t been overturned or even modified by the court since it was handed down in 1968. Stop and frisk is constitutional and the law of the land. The majority opinion, written by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren, approved the constitutionality of stopping a suspect if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, or was about to commit, a crime. If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion the person is armed, he can conduct a pat-down—that is, a frisk—of a person’s outer clothing.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-is-right-about-stop-and-frisk-1475018152

 

[Crabtownboy]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.

 

[Rippon]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.

You often state things that are the reverse of the truth.

 

[Salty]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.

How can it be - if the SCOTUS upheld it in 1968?

 

[Crabtownboy]

How can it be - if the SCOTUS upheld it in 1968?

Depends on how it is carried out. The NY stop and frisk was declared to be unconstitutional by a federal judge. There has to be a reasonable reason to stop and frisk a person. It is unconstitutional to set up a program that stops and frisks everyone walking down a street or driving along if there is no reasonable reason to do so.

TERRY v. OHIO

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/392/1.html

So I am right. Trump's idea is unconstitutional.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hillary made the false claim that "stop and frisk" is unconsitutional in a broad manner. She did not say in specific cases she just made a blanket statement implying it is never constitutional. She is wrong as is anyone else who says such ridiculous things.

 

[TCassidy]

Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin presiding, rendered its verdict on August 12, 2013, that "Stop and Frisk" was unconstitutional and violated the constitutional rights of those stopped without probable cause.

 

[TCassidy]

How can it be - if the SCOTUS upheld it in 1968?

It didn't. Terry v. Ohio is not on point. In Terry v. Ohio the arresting officer, McFadden had probable cause for the initial stop. The Court held that McFadden "had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought." (IE, the IVth amendment's "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")

 

[Zaac]

Hillary made the false claim that "stop and frisk" is unconsitutional in a broad manner. She did not say in specific cases she just made a blanket statement implying it is never constitutional. She is wrong as is anyone else who says such ridiculous things.

So you've interviewed her and asked her if she meant in the broad manner? Yall are just ridiculously sad in trying to find angles to complain about the GOPs mistake of choosing DT as it's candidate knowing how undisciplined and unprepared he would be to debate.

As practiced in NYC, stop and frisk is unconstitutional. End of story. Stop posting stupid stories.

 

[Salty]

I plead ingornance - I did NOT read the link in its entirety

 

[Aaron]

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.

As if the Constitution means anything to you. Puh-leeze!

 

[Lewis]

Police in some large cities such as L.A. have made it a misdemeanor for gang members to hang out together on street corners. Police have the ability to break them up and tell them to go take hike. This is very similar to stop and frisk, it works, and it's legal.

 

[TCassidy]

This is very similar to stop and frisk, it works, and it's legal.

Uh, no, it's not. I already posted the court decision declaring stop and frisk unconstitutional.

And the LA law is presently in court, and, as of now, the police must seek a civil injunction against the gang to prevent them from congregating on street corners. No injunction, no crime.

 

[Revmitchell]

Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio. That ruling hasn’t been overturned or even modified by the court since it was handed down in 1968. Stop and frisk is constitutional and the law of the land.

 

[Lewis]

No injunction, no crime.

Well, L.A. has injunctions against 72 street gangs.

LINK

 

[TCassidy]

Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio.

No, it is not. Terry v. Ohio is not on point. How many more times do I have to quote the SCOTUS ruling?

"In Terry v. Ohio the arresting officer, McFadden had probable cause for the initial stop. The Court held that McFadden "had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought." (IE, the IVth amendment's "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")"

 

[TCassidy]

Well, L.A. has injunctions against 72 street gangs.

Yes, I know. And all 72 of them are being adjudicated at the appellate level. (As I said above.)

You do understand the difference between civil and criminal law, don't you?

 

[Zaac]

No, it is not. Terry v. Ohio is not on point. How many more times do I have to quote the SCOTUS ruling?

"In Terry v. Ohio the arresting officer, McFadden had probable cause for the initial stop. The Court held that McFadden "had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought." (IE, the IVth amendment's "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")"

Now TC, you realize that he doesn't care. He wants it to be Constitutional so he's just gonna keep saying it is even though you've shown him why it's not[emoji3] . Sean Hannity does the same type thing.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[rsr]

Some folks would find it ironic that so-called "conservatives" would condone wholesale violation of constitutional rights involved in a classic "stop and frisk." In my work I read many, many police reports and know that police can do all manner of things if they catch someone in the commission of a crime, even a traffic violation (case in point: bicyclists riding in the wrong lane, honest), but "he's doing something that looks suspicious" doesn't pass muster.

 

[TCassidy]

but "he's doing something that looks suspicious" doesn't pass muster.

That would depend on what he was doing that looked suspicious. Walking down the street while black would not pass the "reasonable man" test. Nor would standing on a corner waiting for a bus.

But shaking doors and trying door knobs to see if doors are locked probably would pass muster, especially if there had been a series of burglaries or home invasion robberies in the neighborhood.

Remember that "reasonable suspicion" has a much lower bar to meet than "probable cause."

In Terry v. Ohio the stop was "reasonable" based on the conduct of the three men.

The "probable cause" was met by the bulge in the waistband where a pistol would often be kept.

So, in the case of Terry v. Ohio both "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" were met.

In "stop and frisk" neither is met. Therefore the court ruled it unconstitutional.