by Josh Guckert

In 1968, the Supreme Court created the “stop and frisk” standard in the case of Terry v. Ohio. Since then, many cities have instituted such a policy allowing for officers to stop individuals if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they have committed or are about to commit a crime. Further, the officer may then frisk for a weapon if there is a belief that the suspect is “armed and dangerous.” The Court deemed this to all be acceptable under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The issue has become topical again as Donald Trump last night suggested a national extension of the policy. In a response to a question about how to solve black-on-black crime, Trump said:

Right, well one of the things I’d do, Ricardo, is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive and, you know, you really help people sort of change their mind automatically, you understand, you have to have, in my opinion, I see what’s going on here, I see what’s going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk. In New York, it was so incredible the way it worked. Now, we have a very good mayor, but New York City was incredible, the way that worked, so I think that could be one step you could do.

In spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary, the Terry policy is on its face unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment was created in the aftermath of British soldiers using “general warrants” (also known as “writs of assistance“) as reason to search citizens. After then finding some items of suspicion, they could continue forward in prosecuting citizens arbitrarily. The current stop and frisk policy seems eerily similar to the abuses which the Fourth Amendment was created to protect against.

In addition, as noted by GQ magazine:

[T]here isn’t that much evidence that it actually works. The link between stop-and-frisk and falling crime rates is tenuous at best. Meanwhile, the evidence did show that that pesky “reasonable suspicion” requirement, in practice, became “Hey, that guy’s black.” Even when controlling for neighborhood crime rate, the best clue about stop-and-frisk frequency turns out to be a given precinct’s racial makeup.

Most notably, the increase in frisks and arrests in New York (a major case study used to justify the policy) didn’t predate the drop in crime. Rather, it came after the drop in crime. Moreover, the stop and frisk policy alienates innocent citizens from their police forces, resulting in even more crime:

A recent study found that police practices such as New York’s stop-and-frisk policy inadvertently contribute to higher rates of delinquency by decreasing the legitimacy of police in the eyes of those targeted. For racial and ethnic minorities who experience disproportionate police contact, there is greater reported commitment to deviant peers, less anticipated guilt in future crimes, and higher delinquency frequency.

For all of these reasons, “stop and frisk” is ineffective, unconstitutional, and racist. Any candidate who suggests otherwise (including Trump) is either blinded by the guise of “law and order” or simply ignorant of the very serious facts of the matter.