[BenLurkin]

Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.

[scripter]

Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.

I heard this morning it was deemed unconstitutional and stopped (in NY). I'll see what I can find.

[Yo-Yo]

Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.

It didn't?

https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/landmark-decision-judge-rules-nypd-stop-and-frisk-practices

[scripter]

I found this from ABC http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/judge-rules-nycs-stop-frisk-unconstitutional/story?id=19936326

[Moonman62]

Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.

...

Probably because there are still a lot of restrictions on what the police can do during a temporary detention.

[jimjohn]

Ask the TSA.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

Read the Supreme Court ruling under Terry v Ohio. It details what constitutes sufficient probable cause to allow a police officer to execute a stop and frisk. It’s not as if police can randomly stop and frisk anyone they choose.

[Reno89519]

Yes, this is problematic. Without probably cause, it is wrong.

...which become acceptable? Looking Islamic or middle eastern, looking non-white, dressing like a gang member?

Bet Trump will be asked this.

[Garth Tater]

Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.

It didn't. Police can not stop and frisk anyone the choose at any time. They have to have a reason that they can clearly state and "he looked suspicious" or "I thought he might be up to something" don't count.They have to be able to state a reason for the stop. Look it up:

Terry Stop

"To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts" that would indicate to a reasonable police officer that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed"

Now, once they have legally stopped (detained) a person they do have the right to a frisk - not an anal cavity search, but a quick pat down (for the officer's safety) is allowed and I have no problem with this - but just stopping someone because they looked suspicious (which is what NYC and other locales were doing) did not survive Constitutional scrutiny.

Mr Trump is skating mighty close to the line here. Free men and women are free to travel the public byways without being subjected to unreasonable search. Where you are, the time of day, your apparel, ethnicity, age, attitude, etc. ARE NOT sufficient cause to stop someone and if you can't legally stop them then you can't frisk them. The Donald NEEDS to clarify his position on this quickly. I take my freedoms seriously and protect them with vigor. You want to stop and frisk me just to see what I'm up to? Okay, maybe I'll stop by and frisk your wife and daughter just to see what they are up to.

Clear this up quickly Mr Trump, you're flirting with tyranny here.

[DoodleDawg]

Still can’t figure out how stop and frisk survived Constitutional challenge.

It didn't, not as New York originally enacted it and as Trump visualizes it. The court struck it down in Terry v. Ohio.