- Continuing to defend stop and frisk after being told again and again it's unconstitutional. Not just for racial bias, but because it is anti-fourth amendment and gives police power to search you without warrant or cause. It is ironic that Trump, the seemingly pro-second amendment candidate, is suggesting illegal searches to take away guns.
Stop-and-frisk was never ruled unconstitutional, and in fact Trump showed us that he understands the court system well enough to point out why. The SCOTUS ruled that stop-and-frisk is constitutional in Terry v Ohio. What Lester Holt was referencing was a single circuit court judge trying to rule otherwise, which Trump is correct that an appeal would have easily overturned that judge's decision.
Neither of you are quite right. The
Terry decision held that a stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the suspect. The case they were talking about,
Floyd v. City of New York, was about equal protection, not the Fourth Amendment, and it was about stop-and-frisk as practiced by the NYPD specifically, not the practice as a general concept. Would the city have won their appeal if they had kept at it, who knows, but they would have had to rely on a lot more than just the
Terry decision. It is nice to see that you're acknowledging the ruling was made, though. It's more than I can say for Trump, who denied it and then delivered the irrelevant aside of "It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her," as if to imply that she was kicked off the case instead of ruling on it.
Also, it was a district court judge, not a circuit court judge. Circuit courts are the ones that hear appeals.