Stop and Frisk is constitutional...

and as a lawyer, Hillary should have known that but it's politics. What's a little lie between idiots?


In 1968 the US Supreme Court heard a case about stop and frisk called Terry v Ohio. By a vote of 8 to 1 the Supremes found it to be legal and constitutional. It has not been heard by the court since then. ANY decision by any lower court would not change the constitutionality of that decision.

In New York a judge named Scheindlin said that Stop and Frisk was being applied in an unconsitutional manner and not that it was unconstitutional. Her actions on this and other cases was so egregious that a higher court removed her from the case due ot her apparent bias against the police. In other words, the police were using S/F in high crime areas like Bed Sty and Harlem. This Clinton nominated judge has since retired.

As a lawyer, Hillary Clinton should have known this but it took a businessman to get the facts straight.

Some will say that the judge called in unconstitutional but a judge can say what they want, it doesn't change on that only a Supreme Court decision can make it a reality.

and as a lawyer, Hillary should have known that but it's politics. What's a little lie between idiots?


In 1968 the US Supreme Court heard a case about stop and frisk called Terry v Ohio. By a vote of 8 to 1 the Supremes found it to be legal and constitutional. It has not been heard by the court since then. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Just because Hillary had a law license (or does) does not mean she understands the Terry vs. Ohio decision, and in fact many lawyers (and judges) don't. The "Stop and Frisk" phrase as applied to Terry is a misnomer the way it is interpreted.

Terry vs. Ohio DOES NOT say that an officer can STOP a person and FRISK them. It simply does not say that, and the Court didn't "mean it" to say that. What it DOES SAY is the OFFICER can STOP and talk to a person in public if the OFFICER has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is committing a crime or about to commit a crime (nonspecified crime)... and if during the "conversation" the officer begins to feel threatened or unsafe (or believes the person may have contraband on him) then the OFFICER CAN PAT THE PERSON DOWN to FEEL for a weapon or contraband. That's what Terry vs. Ohio held.

Contrary to what you also said .... recently the Supreme Court ala Clarence Thomas reiterated what I just wrote .... and also contrary to what you said ....

.. in the same volume of the U.S. reporters (301?) just after Terry vs. Ohio, which is the first case in the volume, there is published the case of New York vs. Sibron, which is actually two cases on appeal combined into one opinion (the SCOTUS does that occasionally) and Sibron explains what the Court meant in Terry by taking two cases with different fact situations to emphasis when the Officer can STOP and when the Officer can PAT DOWN!

(fyi: The court has on occasion applied TERRY to cases and the concept ... for instance there was a Minnesota case in which the "Terry" principles were applied to traffic stops..... officer safety is an important issue in the SCOTUS.....AND so long as the officer can articulate reasonable facts based on the incident to justify "patting down" for weapons the Court will allow it.)

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) ... I was wrong about "301"

.. but not about it being the first case in the volume!

Unless it is conducted like this.

https://www.thenation.com/article/st...ng-mutt-video/

Yeah, constitutional in China and Russia, where Doofus Trump's buttbuddy presides!

Yeah, constitutional in China and Russia, where Doofus Trump's buttbuddy presides! Originally Posted by Solemate62

Exactly!!!

Just because Hillary had a law license (or does) does not mean she understands the Terry vs. Ohio decision, and in fact many lawyers (and judges) don't. The "Stop and Frisk" phrase as applied to Terry is a misnomer the way it is interpreted.

Terry vs. Ohio DOES NOT say that an officer can STOP a person and FRISK them. It simply does not say that, and the Court didn't "mean it" to say that. What it DOES SAY is the OFFICER can STOP and talk to a person in public if the OFFICER has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is committing a crime or about to commit a crime (nonspecified crime)... and if during the "conversation" the officer begins to feel threatened or unsafe (or believes the person may have contraband on him) then the OFFICER CAN PAT THE PERSON DOWN to FEEL for a weapon or contraband. That's what Terry vs. Ohio held.

Contrary to what you also said .... recently the Supreme Court ala Clarence Thomas reiterated what I just wrote .... and also contrary to what you said ....

.. in the same volume of the U.S. reporters (301?) just after Terry vs. Ohio, which is the first case in the volume, there is published the case of New York vs. Sibron, which is actually two cases on appeal combined into one opinion (the SCOTUS does that occasionally) and Sibron explains what the Court meant in Terry by taking two cases with different fact situations to emphasis when the Officer can STOP and when the Officer can PAT DOWN!

(fyi: The court has on occasion applied TERRY to cases and the concept ... for instance there was a Minnesota case in which the "Terry" principles were applied to traffic stops..... officer safety is an important issue in the SCOTUS.....AND so long as the officer can articulate reasonable facts based on the incident to justify "patting down" for weapons the Court will allow it.)

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) ... I was wrong about "301"

.. but not about it being the first case in the volume! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Excellent explanation.

Now, if an officer is in an ambiguous situation and asks a pedestrian if he can pat them down for his own safety, and they refuse, what should the officer do?

Unless it is conducted like this.

https://www.thenation.com/article/st...ng-mutt-video/ Originally Posted by i'va biggen

So Retarded Lenny, have you come to the conclusion that Stop and Frisk is constitutional? And that Libtard, activist judge in NYC couldn't overturn the SCOTUS? So you admit you were being a retard until now?

Fact-Checking Lester Holt

Here’s the legal back story on that stop-and-frisk ruling.

We told you Tuesday that Donald Trump was right when he pushed back on debate moderator Lester Holt over “stop and frisk” policing. But the story deserves a more complete explanation, not least because the media are distorting the record.

Mr. Trump invoked stop and frisk as a way to “take the gun away from criminals” in high-crime areas and protect the innocent. That provoked Mr. Holt, who said that “stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York.” Mr. Trump then noted that the ruling in the case came from a “very against police judge” who later had the case taken away from her. Mrs. Clinton then echoed Mr. Holt.

Here’s what really happened. The federal judge in the stop-and-frisk case was Shira Scheindlin, a notorious police critic whose behavior got her taken off the case by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court put it this way:

“Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges . . . and that the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was compromised by the District Judge’s improper application of the Court’s ‘related case rule’ . . . and by a series of media interviews and public statements purporting to respond publicly to criticism of the District Court.”

The court then remanded the case to another judge who would not present an appearance of bias against the police. In a follow-up opinion, the appellate judges cited a New Yorker interview with Judge Scheindlin that included a quote from a former law clerk saying “what you have to remember about the judge is that she thinks cops lie.”

This is an extraordinary rebuke by a higher court and raises doubts that the merits of her ruling would have held up on appeal. As Rudolph Giuliani makes clear nearby, the judge’s ruling of unconstitutionality applied only to stop and frisk as it was practiced in New York at the time. Such police search tactics have long been upheld by higher courts.

In the end, the clock ran out on Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and new Mayor Bill de Blasio chose not to appeal. We rate Mr. Trump’s claim true and unfairly second-guessed by a moderator who didn’t give the viewing public all the facts.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fact-che...olt-1475016937

Yeah, constitutional in China and Russia, where Doofus Trump's buttbuddy presides! Originally Posted by Solemate62

Exactly!!! Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Wow - you two fucktards are as clueless as they come! Why would anyone waste time trying to explain anything to either of you Beavis and Butthead faggots?

You're both incapable of offering any intelligent rebuttals. You only know how to post comments that are snarky and irrelevant.

It's our education system that we have today. Time has to be taken to explain things to the least academic among us. You know, no child left behind or in this case no turd left behind.

So Retarded Lenny, have you come to the conclusion that Stop and Frisk is constitutional? And that Libtard, activist judge in NYC couldn't overturn the SCOTUS? So you admit you were being a retard until now? Originally Posted by bambino

You poor brain dead fuck it is if conducted correctly. Not like it was in New York. It was what all my threads were about, have someone read it to you. go stalk someone else moron.

TOUGH SHIT, JDRUNK.

You Rong!

Excellent explanation.

Now, if an officer is in an ambiguous situation and asks a pedestrian if he can pat them down for his own safety, and they refuse, what should the officer do? Originally Posted by DSK

I'm not sure what you mean by "an ambiguous situation" ...

.. a problem with principles as expressed in Terry et seq is they are HIGHLY FACT oriented ... the officer must be able to articulate factually why the officer was "in fear" of his or her safety AND those facts must be "reasonable" under the circumstances.... meaning such factors as location and time of the day ... how many officers were present .... how many citizens were present .... bystanders and "co-suspects" .. etc.

That's why the Court has recently limited vehicle searches on traffic stops ..... in which the driver/passengers have been taken into custody and are "secure" in the back of a patrol unit. The officer(s) are no longer threatened by any weapon in the vehicle for which they might be wanting to conduct a warrantless search! The officer's safety is no longer an issue and neither is the destruction of evidence by the driver/passengers. The "exigent circumstances" justifying a warrantless search are no longer a factor.

BTW: That evaluation by the Court is based on a stricter construction of the 4th amendment (conservative justices) ... liberal justices tend to ALLOW a more relaxed interpretation of the 4th amendment (and others).... for those of you who are voting for POTUS based on potential appointments to the SCOTUS.

Fact-Checking Lester Holt

Here’s the legal back story on that stop-and-frisk ruling.

Mr. Trump invoked stop and frisk as a way to “take the gun away from criminals” in high-crime areas and protect the innocent. Originally Posted by lustylad

Let's move the discussion away from Trump's backyard (and the Clintons' too BTW) ... and transport that "policy" to Chicago ...

.. in those areas where most of the murders occur of young Black men and women. It would be expected that both city PD's would assign officers to certain areas of the city depending on their experience and ability ... which would mean that over a reasonable period of time they learn about the folks "hanging out" and have a pretty good idea of who is "carrying" and who can do so legally. That kind of information/knowledge provides the officer(s) who approach to talk to them factual justification to pat them down during their "little chat" for "officer safety" ... and they also have a pretty good idea of who "slings" the unmentionable products in the area ... and the likelihood of them having possession of some contraband.

If the "pat down" reveals a weapon or contraband ... the "carrier" is off the street and so are the things he/she is carrying! "Prevention is worth a pound of cure."

You think the goal in Chicago is to stop crime. Remember that movie "The Village". A bunch of people who want to live in the early 1800s and they want their children to stay with them. They create a fiction of a terrible race of people who prey on them if they go too far from the village. Those are the republicans. To keep this myth working, one of them will occassionally put on a monster suit, walk into town and scare the shit out of the young. That is the gang bangers. The children question but toe the line.
The goal of Chicago is to keep black people mostly in their place and use them as voting block chattel. The violence is a pretext for more control and so people like Hillary can go out and talk about gun violence (though you never hear the stats about knife violence, fist violence, or club violence). It is nothing more than Kubuki theater for the underclass. The democrats have never moved very far from their racist, Klan roots.