Rudy Giuliani Sets Record Straight On If ‘Stop And Frisk’ Is Constitutional

This week, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani wrote a column in The Wall Street Journal addressing “Stop and Frisk”.  The controversial topic was the subject of much discussion in the recent presidential debate by both Trump and Clinton.


Donald Trump said as part of his plan to restore law and order, he thinks bringing back “Stop and Frisk” would help to deter crime.  Hillary Clinton said it does not help and is unconstitutional, a claim backed up by Lester Holt, the debate moderator.  Rudy Giuliani immediately took action in writing a piece for The Wall Street Journal, setting the record straight for everyone. 

“Stop and frisk is based on an 8-1 decision of the Supreme Court, Terry v. Ohio. That ruling hasn’t been overturned or even modified by the court since it was handed down in 1968. Stop and frisk is constitutional and the law of the land. The majority opinion, written by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren, approved the constitutionality of stopping a suspect if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, or was about to commit, a crime. If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion the person is armed, he can conduct a pat-down—that is, a frisk—of a person’s outer clothing,” wrote Giuliani.

Giuliani goes on to say “Donald Trump was right. Hillary Clinton was wrong. Lester Holt should apologize for interfering and trying so hard to help Mrs. Clinton support her incorrect statement that stop and frisk is unconstitutional.”

Read the full piece here.