Donald Trump calls for a national ‘stop and frisk’ policy
Donald Trump has said several things during this campaign which makes me question his constitutional knowledge as well as his intent to abide by the founding document. The one comment he made, up until this point, that had me the most upset was when he threatened to use libel laws to sue the media if they wrote “horrible and negative and false articles” about him.
We all know the media has a bias, in fact I have written several posts in the last two weeks showing examples of media bias, and while if the media does knowingly print blatant and purposefully incorrect articles they should be open to libel laws I cannot support a person who threatens to sue the media if it writes something he simply feels is “horrible and negative.” This would be a clear violation of the freedom of the press and this type of threat is something I would expect from the left.
But today Donald Trump has touted a policy I find equally at odds with the Constitution when he called for a national “stop and frisk” policy. Here is more:
Donald Trump on Wednesday called for the controversial “stop-and-frisk” policing practice to be instituted nationwide as a means of combating violent crime in America’s inner cities.
In a pre-taped interview on Fox News scheduled to air Wednesday night, Trump was asked by an audience member what he would do to address “violence in the black community” and “black-on-black crime.” Trump responded by proposing that “stop-and-frisk” policing, in which an officer is empowered to stop an individual and frisk them for weapons or any other illegal contraband, be adopted nationwide.
“I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically,” Trump told the questioner. “You understand, you have to have, in my opinion, I see what’s going on here, I see what’s going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City it was so incredible, the way it worked. Now, we had a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do.”
I understand that conservatives love to point to Rudy Giuliani’s New York and the fact he brought crime down using this policy but that does not make it Constitutional, in fact I believe is is blatantly unconstitutional and I cannot believe it was never challenged and now Donald Trump wants to make this the new norm all across the nation. Donald Trump says we have to be proactive and in many cases he is right but in this case the Constitution prohibits pro-activism in my opinion.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is pretty clear about persons being secure in their belongings and possessions, you cannot simply search a person because you do not like the way they look. You must have probable cause and then get a warrant which states what you are looking for and who and where you are going to search. It simply amazes me how many people are apparently okay with the stop and frisk policy and I think it shows us how many people are actually, despite their supposed love for the Constitution, really only selective-Constitutionalists.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
I beg to differ with you Steve. Take a trip to the Big Apple which has made the transition to a third world cesspool under card carrying communist Mayor Bill de Blasio; he didn’t start it but he finished it. A man who won the office by showcasing his son’s afro haircut de Blasio on day one did away with stop and frisk. The constitution was in a hell of a better place when many potential criminals were stopped in their tracks by good police work and enforcing the stop and frisk law. One man’s opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peter are you saying the ‘stop and frisk law’ worked then? along w/ ‘good police work’. Did it work for the politicians too … or just those on the street? 😊
LikeLiked by 2 people
It worked on the street. I don’t know who would want to frisk a politician. 🐘🐴
LikeLiked by 2 people
haha. Yep, don’t know what one would catch doing that!
LikeLike
Honesty is the best policy … depending on the social ladder one’s climbing!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Crime statistics went down in NYC and are still lower than many other major cities in the US, but the city also increased the number of police officers. Also Commissioner Bratton introduced CompStat – a computer based crime statistics police program. That is also credited with helping keep crime down. It helps identify problem areas so additional resources can be applied.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…and keep in mind the crime statistics in NYC are as rigged as the national unemployment figures.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I understand the policy worked but I just have a problem with people being stopped on the street and searched for no reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory. August 12, 2013, New York – In a landmark decision today, a federal court found the New York City Police Department’s highly controversial stop-and-frisk practices unconstitutional.Aug 21,
I don’t know if this was appealed
LikeLiked by 1 person
So it has been challenged, I must have missed that. Thanks for the info.
LikeLike
The Law can be used at times more to keep the money elite criminals safe from prosecution, but the opposite for the average Joe. Not much of a choice to select from.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Steve I left Peter 2 comments about ‘honesty is the best policy’ and another about not wanting to catch anything from frisking the wrong party. Maybe the comments are on hold, but that’s not happened before.
LikeLike
That is the problem it was used against the average Joe or Jose without probable cause. Stop and frisk has been coupled with ‘broken window’ policing – enforcing all infractions of the law and is still used by the NYCPD. The death of Eric Garner involved failure to pay cigarette tax – “broken window” enforcement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The cops on the street knew garner was selling looses and left him alone. Finally the de Blasio administration sent the SS after him. After all the cigarette tax the city was losing could have balanced the city budget.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ha, ‘Jose’. Brings to mind the more recent cop, FBI and NSA propaganda tv shows/movies depicting the importance of ‘broken window’ actions needed to fight criminal. None of which include doing that to those in high places, only those working for them.
I didn’t realize this:
In New York City, Ramsey Orta, who filmed the police killing of Eric Garner, is slated to go to jail for four years—making him the only person at the scene of Eric Garner’s killing who will serve jail time. On Wednesday, Orta took a plea deal on weapons and drug charges. He says he has been repeatedly arrested and harassed by cops since he filmed the fatal police chokehold nearly two years ago. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/8/headlines/ramsey_orta_who_filmed_eric_garner_s_death_to_serve_4_years_in_jail
‘Cop earns $120K on desk duty since chokehold death of Eric Garner’ http://thegrio.com/2016/09/13/nypd-officer-pay-raise-eric-garner/
Wonder how that’s going to go for him in prison? probably not well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hadn’t heard that the guy who filmed the cops is going to jail but after Benghazi I am not surprised.
LikeLike
That’s right Zip, I don’t like this policy at all!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t forget the Supreme Court in a 9-0 vote created the doctrine of “qualified immunity”. The court not only found the officers acted reasonably, but they were also immune from the result of their actions. Thus the Court established law enforcement officers as a special class under the law if they acted with “reasonableness” in a given situation. Stop and frisk may be unconstitutional, but law enforcement officer have been granted a tremendous power which in theory should also be unconstitutional.
LikeLiked by 2 people
They know they won’t be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is very troubling to me as is the post you wrote about about the person who filmed the police going to jail. Much like politicians the police are supposed to serve the people. I know they need some protections but not at the cost of our rights.
LikeLike
OT~ Who’s Obama’s boss and why it matters https://www.sott.net/article/328761-Whos-Obamas-boss-and-why-it-matters
Readers Comment: We haven’t had an honest election in this country since Washington was appointed President. Heck, that one has its suspicious aspects, as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tossing this in for good measure:
https://www.sott.net/pic-of-day/344983
LikeLike
LOL Zip, thanks for sharing that pic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always thought Jimmy-I have lust in my heart -Carter was under orders to give back the Panama Canal. And to think the Chicoms got it without firing a shot.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just checking on that and see an article: The Panama Canal Sellout.
‘MR. ROCKEFELLER GOES TO WASHINGTON ..
Within a few years of the CFR’s initial deliberations on Panama, the corporate and financial elite was moving its lobbying effort to Washington.’
http://www.czimages.com/CZMemories/Articles/sellout/sellout.htm
Hilly is a big supporter of CFR – Hillary Clinton Brags About Getting Her Marching Orders From The CFR http://www.activistpost.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-brags-about-getting-her-marching-orders-from-the-cfr.html
It is what it is.
“…For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:12
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a great Bible quote Zip and it is so true. Peter, I was young during the Carter regime so I don’t really remember it (I guess that makes me one of the lucky ones) but I don’t doubt the orders came from above to give away the Panama Canal.
LikeLike
There was even behind the scenes maneuvering to make sure Washington was elected unanimously and then as VP Thomas Jefferson undermined John Adams reelection bid, I guess this is a time honored tradition in American politics…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Terry v Ohio the Supremes ruled it was legal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
There are police traffic stops for seat belts, drunk driving. In truth many cities have become jungles. I use to stand on my horse and agree with you until I lived among them. Funny how I changed my mind. There are super predators and I don’t know what the answer is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was the Warren Court which two years earlier decided Miranda vs Arizona.
Terry vs Ohio involved a unique case and circumstance 50 years ago. I do not think the court expected NYPD to use it in 685,000 cases in one year!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Try living in the jungle and tell me what the answer is. It is easy sitting in fly over country to tell people stay locked inside their house at night. 60 percent of those the NYPD stopped and frisked turned out to be positive according to the stats I read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Amen Bunker. In Northern Hudson County, NJ the South american gangs rule the streets. The good news is the cops know enough not to stop and frisk these lawless and fearless bastards even if they were allowed to; for their and their families own safety. 🔫
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bunkerville and Peter, you guys are probably right; maybe I would have a different opinion if I lived in the big city.
LikeLike