So quite interesting. And we have covered this case a great deal. And our position is,

and if you don't want to believe an old crotchety sergeant like myself that did a lot of

street time, six and a half years in plainclothes anti-crime as a cop and as a sergeant,

RIPP sergeant, robbery investigation program sergeant,

Detective Bureau Sergeant.

I have a lot of experience at this stuff and being on the street.

And when I hear the suggestions made by a lot of these legal talking heads, it's almost

laughable to me. And then you hear the media like parrots,

ah, yeah, that's right, that's right, you know, it's ridiculous, you know. If that the law of arrest

and Mike and I have enumerated stop question and frisk, that is what we based the legality of this stop upon and then

these all these talking head attorneys jump to search without a warrant this has nothing to do with

warrants on the street when some when you have reasonable suspicion you don't need a search warrant

but there all these talking heads on TV,

as Mike said, maybe they're trying to inflate their own legal practice, but it's not accurate,

Mike. No, it's not. And the thing is, so many of the commentators, the legal commentators,

do not have any law enforcement background

whatsoever. So they're, you know, and that's sad because the, the average police officer

in America, in any city, town, village, whatever, can talk to you ad nauseum about the Fourth

Amendment, the search and seizure, you know, stop question fresh, search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment, you know, Miranda, because that's what you're trained

in and you do it every single day. So it's not a big deal to understand. And the problem is

they put a lot of, you know, unfortunately, they put a lot of information that is not correct out there.

And it gets the public wondering, oh, my God, are the police just going around questioning people without, without, you know, first advising them or Miranda rights or searching them without a warrant?

...