Trump Claims Stop And Frisk Suppressed Crime In New York, But Crime Rates Are Lower Without It

The policy has also been ruled unconstitutional.

WASHINGTON ― Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump claimed on Monday that the stop and frisk policy in New York “brought the crime rate way down,” despite the fact that crime went down after the policy ended.

A federal judge ruled against stop and frisk in 2013, calling it “a demeaning and humiliating experience” for communities of color and a “policy of indirect racial profiling.” During the first presidential debate Monday, Trump called that judge “very against police,” dismissing moderator Lester Holt’s factual assertion that the stop and frisk policy had been ruled unconstitutional.

Trump has floated stop and frisk as the solution to combatting crime in communities with high crime rates, although it’s not clear how he would attempt to influence the strategies of local law enforcement agencies if he were to be elected president.

But there’s been little indication of a relationship between stop and frisk and a drop in crime rates, as The Washington Post recently reported.

The New York Daily News editorial board, which had been supportive of stop and frisk, even admitted in an editorial last month that they had been wrong and that ending stop and frisk did not result in an increase in crime.

“Post stop-and-frisk, the facts are clear: New York is safer while friction between the NYPD and the city’s minority communities has eased,” the editorial said.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularlyincitespolitical violence and is a

Support HuffPost

Popular in the Community