Ed Kilgore: What Lester Holt Got Wrong About Stop-and-Frisk in the Presidential Debate

New York Magazine – One of the livelier, yet more obscure, disputes in Monday’s first presidential debate involved the police practice known as “stop-and-frisk” — warrantless stops of people suspected of criminal activity to search them for weapons. By way of background, Donald Trump had called for Chicago (and possibly other cities) to begin using “stop-and-frisk” tactics to curtail what he has been calling a “crime wave” — more accurately, after decades of steady declines, a spike in murders in a small number of cities. Also by way of background, the most aggressive and controversial use of stop-and-frisk had been in New York City during the administration of former mayor Michael Bloomberg — a practice the city began winding down before it was condemned as unconstitutional by a federal district judge in a decision criticized by a federal Court of Appeals panel. But Trump uses New York’s decline in murders since the early ’90s as his primary argument for expanding stop-and-frisk…

FULL ARTICLE