Stop and frisk isn't about disproportionality but unreasonableness

In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the New York Police Department's use of stop and frisk tactics disproportionately targeted black and Hispanic people, saying police had violated the U.S. Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches.

Why do they keep focusing on disproportionality? If they stopped and frisked in perfect proportions, it still wouldn't be constitutional.

Donald Trump thinks that being Black in certain parts of Chicago makes one suspect enough to simply stop out of the blue to be frisked. He's a blithering idiot when it comes to understanding the Bill of Rights and protecting them. His highest job responsibility is to protect the US Constitution (thereby protecting the country and the people). How can he do that when he hasn't the foggiest as to what the document says and means?

The only way he could stop and frisk would be to declare martial law in a given area and then do a complete inspection of everything and everyone regardless of color and for a time limited to just enough to reestablish reasonable law and order. Even doing that would be constitutionally tricky. It would have to be done extremely professionally and with the utmost care concerning the innocent.

For it to be justified, it would have to be a last-resort option. Has everything else been done and tried to pull Chicago out of its cycle of violence? I sure don't think so. Let's start with the least-invasive, tried-and-true (in other places) methods first.

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.