Quote:Stop and frisk is the same thing as search and seizure. All a cop needs to do is say someone looked suspicious to search them which is a violation of the 4th amendment and the need for probable cause. I can only assume Trump would implement such practices in a disproportionate subset of the population. You wouldn't see such practices regularly employed anywhere there ISN'T an above average crime rate. That is not outreach to struggling communities. That is enacting a police state through totalitarianism. It is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court already ruled on this (8-1 - Terry v. Ohio). This would violate average citizens rights and promote a sense of distrust among citizens and police officers where there are already obvious fractions.

 

 

Quote:<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;"><i><b>Terry v. Ohio</b></i>, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."^[1]

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;">For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for <a class="" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons' title="Weapons">weapons</a> if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "<i>Terry</i> frisk". The <i>Terry</i> standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-familyans-serif;"> "Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime."