Last night CNN’s Lester Holt injected himself into the presidential race, telling Donald Trump that “Stop and Frisk” was ruled unconstitutional. Boy was he wrong! Presidential debates are too important to have ill-informed people moderate them. This is the second ill-informed CNN moderator to think of themselves as fact checkers: Candy Cowley commited the same sin of inserted ignorance during the Romney / Obama debate.
Lester, you don’t know what you are talking about. Again a moderator of the mass media thinks they know better, all in an effort to discredit one whom the media feel needs discrediting.
Trump was and is right. The United States Supreme Court found in 1968 in Terry V. Ohio that stopping with reasonable suspicion is NOT a violation of the fourth amendment. It was an 8 to 1 decision, with the venerable Chief Justice Earl Warren providing the majority opinion.
This morning the main stream media is falling all over themselves stating that Trump was wrong. What no research? It took ten minutes for me.
This is politics folks as the media does not want to tell you that he was as right as one can be for fear of making Donald Trump appear intelligent and knowledgable. Facts are facts and Donald Trump correctly knew that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled stop and frisk constitutional in 1968 as long as it is not racially driven.
“Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”
Cited above is the Wikipedia version providing a short synopsis, but I never rely on Wikipedia for my facts. Instead I offer the following: FindLaw for Legal Professionals where you can find the entire opinion background and decision including the sole dissenting decision.
The shortsighted misinformed media is referring to a lowly district court opinion by one federal judge involving New York City’s stop and frisk practices, wherein the New York City Mayor at that time, Michael Bloomberg, appealed the decision and subsequently the far left socialist mayor who had replaced Bloomberg withdrew the appeal, because it was a campaign promise. The disctrict court judge found that New York City was not doing the CONSTITUTIONAL Stop and Frisk in the proper way. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ALL “STOP AND FRISK” UNCONSTITUTIONAL.