Describe one argument that supports “stop and frisk” policies. Describe one argument that opposes “stop and frisk” policies. Explain which argument is the most constitutionally sound. Why?

Constitutional scholars

Read https://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/floyd-et-al

As you learned in this week’s readings, many constitutional scholars consider the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures as one of the most basic freedoms that the Bill of Rights clearly protects. This central freedom supports and protects other essential freedoms, like free speech, press, assembly, and religion. Recently, this core freedom has become a very controversial debate topic as large American cities, like New York City, have instituted police procedures described as “stop and frisk.” In these cities, when a police officer has reason to believe that a person is armed there are set protocols for police officers that they must accomplish in order to determine if the suspected individual is a threat to public safety. For example, officers can make stops based on suspicious activities and frisk individuals for weapons. Courts have found this to be within the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment until just recently.
Write: In your initial post of at least 300 words, utilize the Constitution, established case law, and scholarly sources to complete the following assignments:

Describe one argument that supports “stop and frisk” policies.
Describe one argument that opposes “stop and frisk” policies.
Explain which argument is the most constitutionally sound. Why?
Provide real-world examples to support your answers. Support your claims with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.