Actually they have not. A frisk is for officer safety, they have the right to be safe in their interactions with citizens. If, after a legal contact with a citizen, they need to frisk the citizens for weapons from an articulable suspicion that their safety may be in jeopardy, they can frisk a citizen for weapons only. If pursuant to the frisk, contraband is found...
A search does not have those constraints but must have a legal precedent, such as an arrest, airport etc.
I doubt the supremes have ruled on this yet. It does not help conflating searches and frisks. I don’t think I’ve missed a ruling on frisks, yet. I doubt the supremes would rule against officer safety with a reasonable officer standard and that is why the NYC decision to not pursue it was surprising as the officers got hamstrung doing a legal act probably, and why Lester Holt was tremendously wrong on the constitutionality.
Personally I believe the problem does not pend on the frisk, but the initiation of contact, not on some balance of who is frisked and not actual interaction between officers and citizens which would give officers directions on how to interact appropriately with citizens.
Bottom line, Lester Holt was wrong, both in butting in with incorrect information and as a moderator helping one side, as opposed to being a neutral moderator.
DK
Sure, officers might have a right to frisk someone for their safety, if they are forced to interact with them, for example, in the course of a traffic stop. It’s an entirely different matter if the police are initiating contact with someone randomly on the street for no discernable purpose. They have no right to frisk anyone at that point, since they have no actual need to interact with them and put their “safety at risk”. The simple fact is, if the police do not have a legal right to detain you, then they cannot have a legal right to frisk you either.
“If pursuant to the frisk, contraband is found...”
Then it’s inadmissable in court, since the search was not proper, having no probable cause, and no warrant.
“It does not help conflating searches and frisks.”
They are the same thing legally, so conflating them is only proper.
“I don’t think I’ve missed a ruling on frisks, yet.”
Well, try Terry V. Ohio. In that case, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that a “frisk” is the same as a “search” as regards the 4th Amendment, and they ruled that a policeman stopping anyone from leaving is the same as a “seizure” under the 4th Amendment, and all the normal 4th Amendment restrictions to searches on a domicile still apply to searches of persons. The ruling essentially says that a “stop & frisk” is only legal if the police have probable cause, or there is some exigent circumstance, like believing your life is in danger and needing to search for weapons.