Quote:It's kinda both. No probable cause to search in the first place, and certainly no probable cause to seize.
Actually, yes, it is. The concept of detaining someone and subjecting them to an unlawful examination of their person and property without them being granted the right to refuse (say no to a stop and frisk; see what happens) is a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment, and you could easily draw Two and Five in as well.
"Reasonable suspicion" is not a thing. It does not exist. Look at the Constitution and please tell me where it says "reasonable suspicion" in the Fourth Amendment. Here's a hint: it doesn't. The concepts of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are worlds apart, one requiring that the law enforcement official believe that a crime either will be or currently is being committed by the person in question, and the other being so broad that you could paint Moby [BAD WORD REMOVED] black in one stroke. The Fourth Amendment says "unreasonable" searches and seizures, not "reasonable". It places the onus on the government to prove that there was a clear and present need to conduct that search. Stop-and-frisk is based solely upon profiling and/or random pulls. There is no probable cause attached to it, and the whole practice is a violation of at least the Fourth Amendment, possibly more depending on the outcome of the unlawful, warrantless search.
The term Reasonable suspicion does mean something. It means based on articulable facts and reasonable inferences an officer can stop you for questioning, frisk the outer garments of your clothing solely to determine if you have a weapon for his protection and the protection of the public at large and then question you about the suspicious behavior.
The officer in question would still have to show cause for his "stop and frisk". It is explicit in the "Terry standard" that the state cannot rely solely on the "good faith, or hunch" of a police officer.
This is when an officer, based on his training and expertise as a law enforcement agent, makes a judgement that a set of behaviors may reasonably lend itself to the commission of a crime or a danger to himself or the public at large. The scope of the "Frisk" is limited to the detection of weapons by a patting of the outer clothing, not a general search for contraband or other evidentiary material.
If it is shown that a police department is using said procedure in the absence of reasonable suspicion and infringing on the rights of a population or specific ethnic group then the program can be shut down.
Moreover, Trump can encourage this practice, but he isn't in a position to mandate it's use in every police precinct accross the country.
I think that when you look at a place like Chicago its something that you have to consider. This is a situation where just waking up in the morning puts you in the same relative danger as the kid waking up in Afghanistan. If there is a method of aggressive policing that can save 80% of the lives being lost every year in places like that then you would have to make one heck of an argument against its implementation.
