|
[Quote=PaulS;1115820]Wasn't that [stop and frisk]ruled unconstitutional and racially discriminating?[QUOTE]
Actually, stop and frisk was interpreted as constitutional in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision. "This decision held that a limited search for weapons is permitted when an officer reasonably suspects that the stopped person could be armed. Generally, it established the constitutional practice of what we know as stop and frisk, or Terry stops, by police officers."
The unconstitutional ruling to which you refer, I believe, is that it was misusing the tactic because it was targeting mostly Blacks or Latinos. That is, it was unconstitutionally using the practice in a racially discriminating manner. But it did not rule that "stop and frisk" is unconstitutional.
Detroit can use the "broken windows" theory that Giuliani used (which incorporated stop and frisk) because the city is over 80% Black and a good portion of the rest of the population is Latino. It is difficult to prove racial bias against minorities when the population is massively "minority."
The crime rate has gone down under the present Police Chief, James Craig, who practices the "broken windows" policy. Don't know if it would have gone down if he didn't.
|