It's really not possible to dispute that the Supreme Court just tells police what magic words they need to include in their reports to make unconstitutional sea

It's really not possible to dispute that the Supreme Court just tells police what magic words they need to include in their reports to make unconstitutional searches constitutional. In Terry v Ohio [0], a plainclothes policeman saw three guys casing a store, saw the outlines of concealed items that he believed to be guns, he stopped and searched them on that basis, and two of the three guys had weapons. The Court ruled that the evidence was admissible and the officer's "reasonable suspicion" made the search lawful, as the officer's safety may be endangered if they're questioning individuals with weapons. Without a reasonable suspicion that an individual has a concealed weapon, though, the frisk is an unconstitutional 4A violation. In this NY Civil Liberties Union study of stop and frisk data [1], going through NYPD stop and frisk data, from 2003 to 2013, 2585945 frisks were performed but weapons were only found in ~2% (!!!) of frisks. If your suspicions are wrong 98% of the time, it's pretty hard to describe the suspicion as "reasonable", but the SC declared that asserting reasonable suspicion is all it takes to make those unconstitutional searches constitutional. I'm not anti police, I'm a homicide researcher in Chicago and I have immense respect for a number of the officers and detectives I've worked with. But I can't look at these facts and then pretend they don't exist. [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 [1] https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopandfrisk_briefer_2002-2013_final.pdf#page=9 https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/publications/stopa...