There was the following sentence in New York Times (January 4th) article titled “The commish, the 2nd time around”:
"On the eve of leaving office, Bloomberg, defensive about the scar on his legacy, noted to Capital New York that in L.A. Bratton — considered the godfather of the sort of aggressive policing tools that have come under fire — was just as much a proponent of stop-and-frisk as Kelly was. “Bratton did more stop and frisks per capita than Kelly did,” Bloomberg said. “They’ll call it ‘frisk and stop’ instead of ‘stop-and-frisk.’”
I understand ‘stop and frisk’ as a flow of in investigating action, but can’t understand how you can physically ‘frisk someone, then stop him.’ Though I may be too literal, it sounds somewhat illogical to me.
What is the difference of meaning here between ‘stop-and-frisk‘and ‘frisk and stop’?