Why Donald Trump is Unconstitutional and Wrong About Stop and Frisk

Why This Trump Supporter Adamantly Disagrees with the Donald on the Egregious and  Unconstitutional Detention of American Citizens

by Lee Enochs

I never thought I would ever say the following words. Hillary Clinton is right about something and it pertains to the unconstitutional nature of Donald Trump’s advocacy of “Stop and Frisk.”

Trump was dead wrong to advocate it last night in the debate and Clinton, despite my vehement opposition to her candidacy, was right on this point at least.

As a life-long Republican that believes Hillary Clinton must be defeated at all costs lest she appoint liberal jurists to the U.S. Supreme Court, I have pragmatically compromised many of my core Libertarian convictions in order to get behind Donald Trump’s presidency.

Many of my Libertarian friends have questioned why I would support a candidate that clearly espouses policies that violate our civil liberties and they may be right.

Supporting Donald Trump in many ways has been a “deal with the devil” because I have adopted a “lesser of two evils” policy and have had to turn a blind eye to many of the clearly non-Libertarian and unconstitutional policy views Trump maintains.

For example, I believe Trump’s plan to place a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the U.S. is unconstitutional since it violates the First Amendment and places a religious litmus test on why can lawfully enter the United States.

Another thing I greatly disagree with Donald Trump about pertains to his support of “stop and frisk.”

The Stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City, is a practice of the New York City Police Department and other police agencies in which police officers stop and question a pedestrian, then frisk them for weapons and other contraband; this is what is known in other places in the United States as the Terry stop

The idea was that, through arbitrary stops and detentions, you would take guns and offenders off the street. The reality, according to data collected by the New York Civil Liberties Union, is that there’s almost no evidence to tie stop-and-frisk to the decline of violent crime in New York, which began before Giuliani’s administration and has continued to the present, even after a federal judge declared the practice unconstitutional in 2013.

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the federal class action lawsuit Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. against the City of New York to challenge the New York Police Department’s practices of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop and frisks of New York City residents.


The named plaintiffs in the case – David Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson, and Deon Dennis – represent the thousands of primarily Black and Latino New Yorkers who have been stopped without any cause on the way to work or home from school, in front of their house, or just walking down the street.

Floyd focuses not only on the lack of any reasonable suspicion to make these stops, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but also on the obvious racial disparities in who is stopped and searched by the NYPD – approximately 85 percent of those stopped are Black and Latino, even though these two groups make up only 52 percent of the city’s population – which constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A landmark case, Floyd continues CCR’s founding tradition of working with grassroots groups and directly affected communities to fight for racial justice.

“Stop and Frisk” violates the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. 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 by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.

I am sorry, I cannot remain silent any longer. Donald Trump is wrong and clearly advocating a “stop and frisk” policy that violates our Constitutional rights.

I am asking all Americans to make it known to Mr. Trump that we will not tolerate unlawful searches and seizures and the suspension of due process in this country.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s