Stop & frisk is always going to be used more in high crime neighborhoods, and police are always going to use their discretion as to who to question and stop. They should be using it in Chicago.
Key word is modified.It cant be 90% of black and brown people stopped and cops need more probable cause to make the stops. When more non black and brown people keep getting stopped and searched for no reason they will throw a fit and Adams will stop it.I haven't even heard him mention it since he was elected.
It's still stop & frisk, which is what I originally suggested. Chicago and other cities wouldn't need to be worried at all constitutionally. Of course, there should always be probable cause or its a waste of time.
Wrong, even in NY the appeals court reversed on other grounds and remained silent on the issue. Those cases are not in Chicago's circuit and would not be binding.
Stop & frisk as it was applied is unconstitutional.If you recall I agreed with you when I said stop & frisk all races equally.I know it wont be exactly equal but other races of people will have to be stopped and searched more and that wont work when they start complaining.
And it should be noted that the NYC police department only changed their policies due to public pressure. There are still many other police departments across the U.S. still using stop & frisk. Which should properly be called -- Stop, question & frisk.
But the appellate court did not overturn her ruling that the way the city was carrying out stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional, since it violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
Here is a good summary of stop, question, and frisk as it applies to NYC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City