Hillary Clinton (HRC) lied about “Stop and Frisk” (S&F) being unconstitutional and she was aided by Lester Holt, the moderator, who also stated the practice and its legal authority was unconstitutional. Holt’s interjecting himself into the debate “reminding” Trump that S&F was unconstitutional. This fed into the MSM calling for Holt to be a “Fact Checker” against Trump to make sure Trump did not lie!
Really! HRC is the Most Infamous Liar In the History of American Politics, Ever!
If Anyone Needed FACT CHECKING, it would be Hillary Clinton!
Stop and Frisk, The Law:
Terry V Ohio: In 1968, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures is NOT violated when a law enforcement STOPS a person exhibiting suspicious behavior in public and FRISKS him or her WITHOUT SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest the person. If the Law Enforcement person has “REASONABLE SUSPICION” that the person of interest has, is or is about to commit a crime and the law enforcement officer has a reasonable belief that the person “MAY BE ARMED AND PRESENTLY DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC”.
Before we go on, lets look at a couple of legal terms used in this definition by the court.
Reasonable Suspicion: Is a legal standard of proof in US law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch'”. It must be based on “specific and articulable facts”, “taken together with rational inferences from those facts”, and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.
Exclusionary Rule: Is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. Within the ruling of Terry V Ohio is that Stop and Frisk, since it DOES NOT violate the Fourth Amendment, does not trigger the “Exclusionary Rule” and it cannot be applied if the suspect is subsequently arrested as a result of the Stop and Frisk. This is a key part of the ruling.
The Court stated: “Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, will not be stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime.”
So, Stop and Frisk is constrained in its application and cannot be used in conjunction against prohibited practices such as racial profiling. Also, the application of Stop and Frisk is only to determine whether the suspect represents a threat, via a weapon, to the officer or the public. It is specifically targeted to removing guns from the hands of persons who may be, has, is or is about to commit a crime.
The left hates Stop and Frisk which is curious since they are anti-gun! I guess it is OK for criminals to have guns just not law-abiding citizens!
So, how did the constitutionality of Stop and Frisk get tagged in the Presidential Debates erroneously as unconstitutional?
In 2013, judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, now retired United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, ruled that the New York Police Department’s APPLICATION of Stop and frisk, violated the Fourth Amendment protections in that the department applied racial profiling in its application of the procedure. The judge found that; “that the Police Department not only had violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, but had also violated the 14th Amendment by resorting to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as the number of police stops soared in minority communities over the last decade.”
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stepped in and found and ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct and compromised the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” by compromising the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” The Court of Appeals also found and criticized Judge Scheindlin had manipulated the court proceedings in the underlying lawsuit to fit her desired outcome which was to curtail New York City’s application of Stop and Frisk.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling set aside Scheindlin’s ruling as well as replaced her with judge John Koeltl who was told to put off all proceedings and basically await for further action from the court. The court has yet to rule on the merits of the “Floyd” case that is the basis of Scheindlin’s actions.
SO, THE STOP AND FRISK PROCEDURE AS SET FORTH IN TERRY V OHIO, REMAINS CONSTITUTIONAL, PERIOD!
Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt were both wrong last night when they both stated that Stop and Frisk was Unconstitutional. Today, many of the MSM are continuing to parrot this inaccurate description of Stop and Frisk. Once again, the left is applying the Alinsky tactic of repeating a lie until it is accepted as the truth.