Clinton Wrong: Supreme Court Says ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Is Constitutional

stop-and-frisk AP
Although Hillary Clinton condemned New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy during Monday’s debate (aided by Lester Holt, the debate moderator), the truth is that stop-and-frisk is perfectly constitutional under the Bill of Rights’ Fourth Amendment. Mayor Rudy Giuliani implemented stop-and-frisk during his mayorship of the Big Apple—a tenure lauded as one of the most effective and successful big-city turnarounds in American history. During the Hofstra debate, Holt asked Clinton about how she would improve race relations in America. Clinton responded in part by pivoting to stop-and-frisk to vilify it, making part of her answer, “Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective.” Donald Trump responded by pointing out that crime dropped under Giuliani and continued at that reduced level when his successor Michael Bloomberg continued the same policies initiated by America’s Mayor. Crime in Gotham dropped by 85 percent from 1994 (when the policy began) through 2013, then Mayor Bill de Blasio ended the practice. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported