President Trump, Stop and Frisk Is Both Unconstitutional and Ineffective

On Monday, President Trump gave a speech to the nation’s police chiefs. Like so many of his “law and order” speeches, it was fueled by bravado and falsehoods.  

In the speech, Trump defended stop-and-frisk policies that have been ruled unconstitutional and rejected by communities in numerous cities. He also urged the city of Chicago to “try to change the terrible deal the city of Chicago entered into with ACLU” on tracking the use of stop and frisk. Trump railed against “efforts from politicians to shackle local police departments” by limiting their cooperation with ICE, and he touted his record of providing surplus military equipment to local police departments.

Trump’s distortions must be called out one by one. Here is a breakdown of the most dangerous falsehoods in his speech:

Trump claim: “Before I took office less than two years ago, our nation was experiencing a historic surge in violent crime.”

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the U.S. violent crime rate peaked in 1991 and has remained stable at about half that rate for the past several years. In 2016 and 2017, the violent crime rate remained essentially stable at near the bottom of this three-decade downward trend, and preliminary indications are that these low crime rates are continuing to remain stable and low.

In other words, there was no historic surge in violent crime because crime was stable at historically low levels when Trump first took office.

Trump claim: Indiscriminate stop-and-frisk “works, and it was meant for problems like Chicago,” which is why he is asking Attorney General Sessions to “work with local authorities to try to change the terrible deal the city of Chicago entered into with ACLU, which ties law enforcement’s hands.”

Indiscriminate stop-and-frisk does not stop violent crime. Indeed, after New York City ended its stop-and-frisk policies under court supervision, the number of street stops by police fell dramatically — the number of stops in 2015 was less than 5 percent of the number of stops in 2011 — and as those stops fell, the homicide rate also continued to fall to record lows.

Aside from being ineffective in limiting crime, indiscriminate stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional, results in enormous racial disparities, erodes community trust in the police, and makes people of color less likely to report crimes. A 2013 study by the Vera Institute of Justice found that each time a young person is stopped and frisked by police, it makes them 8 percent less likely to report a future violent crime against them to police. Nearly 60 percent of the young people surveyed by the Vera Institute stated that they would not feel comfortable asking a police officer for help if they were in trouble.

That’s why the ACLU has repeatedly sued to end indiscriminate stop-and-frisk policies. We’ve reached settlements that require police to abide by constitutional limits in their stop-and-frisk activities in Milwaukee, New York City, and Philadelphia. Meanwhile, our 2015 settlement in Chicago required data collection and oversight of stop and frisk, and we are pushing for adoption of a broader consent decree there.

Notably, none of these lawsuits seek to prohibit all police stops and frisks. They simply require that these actions be supported by the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment and prohibit racially biased patterns of enforcement that are patently unconstitutional.

Trump claim: “[S]anctuary city policies force the release of criminal aliens and gang members right back onto our streets, putting innocent civilians at grave risk — many people being killed.”

So-called “sanctuary city” policies are not targeted at people who have committed crimes, quite the contrary. They are intended to safeguard immigrant victims of crime — particularly survivors of sexual assault, trafficking survivors, and domestic violence survivors — by ensuring that they trust police enough to report these crimes to local authorities without being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This claim is not a one-off, but, in fact, part of Trump’s long-running campaign to bully local communities to become extensions of the federal deportation system. While the Trump administration claims that its continued harassment of these jurisdictions is driven by public safety concerns, we know that’s just an excuse. In fact, pro-immigrant jurisdictions have lower rates of crime than jurisdictions that actively assist federal immigration agents.

Trump claim: His administration’s new policies providing surplus military equipment to local police departments is just “making sure you have the equipment you need to do the job.”

Trump is referring here to the 1033 program, which came under heavy criticism from the ACLU and others for providing weapons of war — including bayonets, grenade launchers, and armored vehicles — to local police departments. After the nation expressed horror at these weapons of war being turned on protesters at Ferguson, President Obama imposed much-needed controls on the 1033 program, including prohibiting certain military-grade weapons altogether and requiring police departments to account for how armored vehicles and other war gear were being used.

President Trump rescinded all of these rules last year, leaving no controls or limits in place. Trump’s policies are not providing necessary equipment. Instead, they are ensuring that local law enforcement agencies will have a free hand to treat their communities like war zones, with zero oversight or accountability.

Once again President Trump has the facts wrong. And along with his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump is attempting to roll back recent reforms and promote the kind of race-based, unconstitutional police abuse that recently gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement. Indiscriminate stop and frisk is just one of those practices, and it needs to end across the country, not get an endorsement from the White House.

Every day across the nation, the ACLU is called on to defend all the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There's never been a more important time to support the ACLU and our effective work to protect civil liberties. If you like what just you read, help us continue to speak freely by donating today.

View comments (9)
Read the Terms of Use

Dr. Timothy Leary

When is comes to dealing with Fergusonites they need to pull out all the stops and leave no holds barred.

Ann Sullivan, C...

Racist chicken sh!t.

Dr. Timothy Leary

Are you the same Ann Sullivan who was a teacher to Kelen Heller?


So you would prefer our cities are over run with drug gangs so bad that they are unsafe for habitation? Typical liberal.


Are you the same Dr Timothy Leary who is dead?


Its really hard to understand why / how such large numbers of people fall hook, line and sinker for this sideshow con artist's tired old stories. He must pack these arenas with paid actors. As a New Yorker resident how can he not be aware of how dramatically crime has gone down at the same time as stop as frisk has been ended?


I cannot believe these people’s juvenile and short sided comments below. In a day where political commentary is valued more than facts, no wonder we are here. Again. Thank you ACLU for providing the facts and for fighting these injustices. Ferguson was a situation CREATED by militarized and “killology” trained law enforcement...not by the residents.


Great article thanks!


The problem is mismanagement.
It's infuriating; I used to work with kids as a Math tutor
and have complained about seeing police harassment &
having seen public strip-searching
and cops have told me over & over again:
"You don't belong here" and
"You deserve whatever 'happens' to you living here" (etc.).
"I've had HUNDREDS of run-ins with the cops here,
searched dozens of times, sometimes at gunpoint," but
the police chief said: "Yeah, I wonder why"
and turned her back and and walked away
and when I complained that I lived & worked
right there as a Math tutor for kids
in the neighborhood she was visiting
on Nat'l Night Out between Durham Tech & NCCU,
complaining about the about the harassment of kids
in and passing thru
the neighborhood [the Street between NCCU & Durham Tech,
commuters not allowed to complain about racial profiling by the mayor]
she said: "Well, it's a 'Target Area',"
and turned her back & walked away again,
to get her picture taken with little kids, telling them
they don't have to be afraid of the police [YES THEY DO]
and when, after complaining to city council,
the police chief
said she would meet with me
and I complained about her repeatedly
saying that, and then cutting me off and turning her back & walking away,
she said "I wouldn't do that"
but when I complained about public strip-searching
(the example I used that time
was a 'disappeared' complaint from Latino kid
and his mother; he was visiting his High-School girl-friend
and was beaten and publicly strip-searched & anally raped
(body-cavity 'searched')
and my efforts to stop it, she said
IN FRONT OF HER COMMAND STAFF: "I don't want to hear about it"
and she turned her back
and walked away again, right after she said she wouldn't do that.
The police chief is 2-faced &
willfully 'ignorant'
of the infuriating effects of her 'justifying'
UNDOCUMENTED police harassment and
UNDOCUMENTED use of force
against kids in her UNPOSTED "Target Areas".
Reports from a PR expert police chief are
The police chief not only
doesn't even want to hear about police misconduct,
not even egregious felony criminal misconduct,
the police chief has made that clear
to her subordinates,
so it's no surprise that complaints and
complainants are made to go away or disappear . . .

Stay Informed