'Stop and Frisk' is constitutional

Donald is bad at debating policy.

Yesterday's debate moderator Lester Holt repeatedly attempted to correct Trump by suggesting that 'Stop and Frisk' was ruled unconstitutional.

Donald defended himself, asserting that the case was allowed an appeal which was never filed due to political reasons, so it is still constitutional. He is very correct on this. In addition, the Second Circuit court stayed the original judge's decision and removed her from the case for violating US Judges Code of Conduct.

Donald's failure to capitalize on opportunities like this, shows how weak he is at debating politics. In public, he prefers playing to crowds as a showman. He may still be a good fit for US President, but that's up to the voters and yesterday he didn't make the case.

From a 'small r republican' standpoint, he proposes good policy, but is very weak at defending them (see 'Understanding Trump' by Redq on his policy).

Trump is correct. Stop and Frisk is constitutional. Here's what he should have said:

In Floyd V. New York,  U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin did not say the law itself was unconstitutional, she said the way NYPD practiced the policy was wrong. Not only that, NYPD fixed the way it practiced the policy, and still does Stop & Frisk today, and the publish how often they do it!

In the published Opinion and Order the judge claimed that NYPD was being racist and illegally applying the law. She stated that a majority of stops either did not have reasonable suspicion thus violating the 4th amendment (p15), or 14th amendment because NYPD targeted minorities(p11). 

She required the NYPD to appoint a 'watchdog' ("Monitor") to provide oversight and make sure there was no racial bias in the stop and frisks. She required body cameras to record the stops. She required revision to policy documents and training materials, to stress that race is not a reason for stops. She required NYPD work with a minority advocacy group to implement further reforms.

But she did not say that stopping citizens and frisking them for weapons and contraband, is illegal. Ie. 'Terry Stops' are still constitutional, defended by Terry v Ohio, 1968 Supreme Court ruling. That is why such policies are still on the books in New York. That's why the practice is continued today, quite officially. So officially, NYPD gives out 'stop and frisk receipts' as a record for those stopped, and improve accountability.