"Unconstitutional" Stop & Frisk?

Former NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill
.
.

The other day, after former NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill defended the NYPD's Stop & Frisk policies (https://nypost.com/…/oneill-defends-stop-and-frisk-after-b…/), I heard someone argue that "Stop & Frisk" policies were clearly Unconstitutional.

Interestingly enough, there's actually NOTHING "Unconstitutional" about Stop & Frisk.

All ANY cop needs, ANYWHERE is "reasonable suspicion," to stop, detain and search a citizen. The term "reasonable suspicion" is deliberately nebulous...as it must be.

Same with interrogations. It's why Police can lie and mislead suspects, claiming someone else had blamed them for a crime, claiming to have evidence they don't have, etc.. These things put tremendous pressure on suspects to cooperate. It's how most convictions are garnered.

It's not a perfect criminal justice system, because nothing human is without flaws. It's just the best system around.

In much of the world, the accused must prove their innocence. Not here.

Those same people often counter that, "The 4th Amendment says, "We are to be secure in our place and person."

Yes, that's correct...and "reasonable suspicion" is the standard in use today.

The 1st Amendment appears to guarantee unfettered freedom of expression. It DOES NOT...because today, we've outlawed slander, incitement & threats.

The 2nd Amendment appears to guarantee the right of ALL to bear firearms. It DOES NOT, as today laws ban criminals and mental defectives (the mentally/emotionally ill) from owning guns. Courts have upheld the rights of government to limit/restrict the type of weapons civilians can own (automatic weapons and teflon tipped, body armor piercing ammunition are banned for civilian use).

Same in the case of the 4th Amendment, EVERY court has upheld the right of law enforcement to act on "reasonable suspicion"; "I thought I saw an unnatural bulge under suspect's jacket," etc.

During the 1970s the "Exclusionary Rule," kept Police for searching a suspect unless evidence of a crime was "in plain sight."

That was the Brennan Court's work.

That's since been amended and today, a cop can stop a person for speeding and if they begin to act "suspiciously," or get argumentative, the law allows him to search that vehicle based on that "suspicious behavior," during the stop.

All of this has been a balancing act for the courts.

In the abstract, we might support unfettered free speech, but reality says that too many of us will abuse that with threats, slander/libel, etc., and we just can't have that.

No, the Stop & Frisk policies worked very well.

You'd actually expect that cops, judges, Corrections Officers, etc. WOULD oppose such policies because they're "bad for business."

For a very long time we've had a "disaster-based economy," that is, an army of relatively well off, well connected people become attorneys, judges, Court and Corrections Officers, Police and other 1st Responders and they earn their livelihoods by the grinding up the criminal class, a group mostly comprised of those who come from among those who are not well off, or well connected.

Crime creates tens of thousands of high status, high paying jobs.

The fact that the victims tend to overwhelmingly come from among the poorest and most vulnerable populations, validates that work as noble, because the overwhelming number of crime victims come from that same population as so many of the predators.

Some opponents of such policies claim, "I base my views on the Constitution, as written," and they ARE entitled to their own views. That said, the Constitution "as written," has not been in effect since 1865, when the South fought and LOST a war defending that original Constitution that put the individual over all and the States above any Central/federal government.

We've outlawed types of speech, restricted gun use and limited privacy provisions.

What's more, the overwhelming bulk of the American people support banning gun ownership for those ONCE convicted of a violent crime for life. They support outlawing threats, slander, etc., most of us even eagerly support the current ubiquitous Surveillance State that's been in place since 9/11. In short, the bulk of the people support "what works."
.