Donald Trump believes "Stop and Frisk" was a good idea. However, "Stop and Frisk" was ruled unconstitutional and New York City discontinued the practice. "Stop and Frisk" was wrong because it relied on biases about who to stop, examples: young men, young black men.
Even if Trump wants to re-establish this, he cannot because of the court ruling.
He's for it.
It is unconstitutional and against the law because it profiles people.
A stop and frisk is when a police officer stops you in the street and frisks you; much like they do in the Airport. It consists of physically checking your body for weapons or anything else that is illegal.
Avengers Assemble - 2010 Stop and Frisk 3-2 was released on: USA: 17 February 2014
Independent Sources - 2008 Stop and Frisk 4-24 was released on: USA: 20 June 2012
The Awful Truth - 1999 Stop and Frisk Night 2-8 was released on: USA: 12 July 2000
Don't Sleep Hosted by T- J- Holmes - 2012 Stop and Frisk 1-8 was released on: USA: 11 October 2012
your dumb how can you not know this question
The officer may perform a "Stop" when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect may have committed a crime. The officer may perform a "Frisk" when there is a lawful "Stop", along with reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.
The correct terminology is Stop and Frisk - and the Supreme Court has ruled that if the officer's 'reasonable suspicion' for the stop can be articulated, it is, in fact, legal and proper. See: Terry v. Ohio
edddf
Officers are required to have reasonable suspicion to detain someone, and must have further belief that the person may be carrying a weapon that can be used to harm the officer in order to frisk them. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief less than probable cause.
No. The terms are synonymous. The "stop and frisk" technique was challenged as a violation of Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure when Terry attempted to have the gun recovered during a pat down excluded from evidence in court.The term "Terry Stop" derives from the US Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, (1968) that upheld the investigative technique as constitutional under circumstances where a "reasonably prudent officer" has a legitimate concern for his or others' safety. The Court refused to apply the exclusionary rule to stop and frisk, allowing anything recovered during a "legitimate and restrained" pat down to be used against the defendant in court.For more information, see Related Questions, below.