FBI’s Comey: OK to Violate 4th Amendment When Stop-and-Frisk Used Right

stop-and-friskBy Kurt Nimmo

From Reuters:

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey told a House of Representatives panel on Wednesday that the police tactic known as “stop and frisk” is an important tool when used right.

Comey told the panel that police who search citizens without stating the reason should explain after the encounter why they decided to do so.

The tactic has been struck down in some courts as a form of racial profiling, but Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for its return.

In other words, according to this top law enforcement official who allows felons to escape justice, massive violations of the Fourth Amendment are permissible so long as the cops tell the victim after they search him they were looking for a gun or drugs.

So much for that oath he took.

Let’s review the Amendment again:

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.

Donald’s with Comey.

“I think stop-and-frisk, in New York City, it was so incredible the way it worked. And, we had a very good mayor. But New York City was incredible the way that worked. So I think that would be one step you could do,” he told Fox News.

It’s obvious we no longer live in a constitutional republic.

Stop-and-frisk is the hallmark of a police state.

Kurt Nimmo is the editor of Another Day in the Empire, where this article first appeared. He is the former lead editor and writer of Infowars.com.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

7 Comments on "FBI’s Comey: OK to Violate 4th Amendment When Stop-and-Frisk Used Right"

  1. Introverted Studios | September 28, 2016 at 12:48 pm | Reply

    So let known criminals walk around with weapons freely? It is not unreasonable to stop and search known criminals or those whose fit known criminal profiles. Pattern recognition is what makes humans humans. It is the basic function that gives us consciousness. Our cities are war zones. I support calling in the Armed forces, or National Guard, or Militia to occupy and maintain order in these communities. To many innocent hard working people are being killed because of liberal interpretations of our constitution. The key word in your argument is Unreasonable. However that word as applied to stop and frisk in high crime areas is completely subjective.

    • “Known criminals”…so you got a parking ticket last year. We know who you are, put your hands on the car and spread em! “Known criminal profiles”…ok you 16-35 male, FREEZE, DIRTBAG! Who, exactly, do you work for again?

      • Introverted Studios | September 29, 2016 at 6:14 pm | Reply

        I work for a small manufacturing shop and I live in the ghetto with 3 abandoned houses on my block. In 3 years I have had to call 911 14 times. My favorite was when I made them pick up their garbage they threw in my yard, and they responded with a full clip from an ak out side my windows to send me a message 2 nights later. Ive also had to chase out human traffickers attempting to talk to / coerce two 13 and 14 year old black girls that live down my street. This is not Kansas.

      • Introverted Studios | September 29, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Reply

        Here is an example. Today on my way home from work, I saw two 16 – 17 year old black youths driving a brand new dodge. One ran out of the side door while still rolling and ran up to a house with his pants around his knees. In a known drug dealing neighborhood would this raise any suspicions with you? Does this fit any pattern? Do you think he was going to that abandoned house to tutor a homeless child? Fix it up? Mow the lawn? Or was he dealing drugs carrying a pistol? When would you like to find out? Before or after it is used? Sorry, but the term unreasonable search does not apply in this situation. It is completely reasonable and expected by hard working innocent people trying to raise their children in this madhouse.

  2. deplorableLittljo | September 29, 2016 at 6:05 am | Reply

    Known criminals, implying they have done their time. Stop and frisk or swab is b.s and does not belong in the real U.S., but in the Usurped Ztates…of course.
    Cops are overreaching and re-dick-ulus.
    I’ll take care of me and mine.
    BTW: background checks are unconstitutional.

  3. BTW folks: Tramp, sorry Trump, and Clinton are both in favor of this. Any bets that either of them will be stopped????

  4. Trump agrees with him.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.