Describe one argument that supports stop and frisk policies Terry v Ohio 1968 The court ruled that – Get help from top-rated tutors 2024

Describe one argument that supports “stop and frisk” policies.

Terry v. Ohio 1968

The court ruled that when a police officer had a reasonable basis to believe that an individual was involved in criminal activity, the officer had the right to stop and “pat down” a suspect believed to pose an “immediate safety threat” without first obtaining a warrant (Ivers, 2013, 8.2). According to Chief Justice Earl Warren made clear that the “stop and frisk” was based on the need to protect police officers from criminal suspects carrying weapons. However, in the  Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) the court ruled that evidence seized during a “stop and frisk” search unrelated to officer safety or suspected criminal wrong doing was inadmissible in court.

With “stop and frisk” polices the police can better protect themselves without crossing the line and being unconstitutional.

Describe one argument that opposes “stop and frisk” policies.

Floyd, et al. v. City of New York,et al.

The Floyd case stems from CCR’s landmark racial profiling case, Daniels, et al v. Ciry of New York, et al. This case led to disbanding of the infamous Street Crime Unit and a settlement with the city of New York in 2003. The Daniels settlement agreement required the NYPD to maintain a written racial profiling policy that complies with the United States and New York State constitutions and to provide stop-and-frisk data to CCR on a quarter basis from 2003-2007. However an analysis of the data revealed that the NYPD had continued to engage in suspicion-less and racially pre-textual stop and frisks, and so CCR filed Floyd (center for constitutional rights, 2018).

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the federal class action lawsuit against the city of New York to challenge the New York Police Department’s practice 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 – represented the thousands of primarily Black and Latino New Yorker’s 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 ( Center for constitutional rights, 2018).  Floyd focuses on the lack of any reasonable suspicion to make these stops is in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the obvious racial disparities in who is stopped and search by the NYPD. The data shows that approximately 85% of those stopped were Black and Latino.

On August 12, 2013, following a nine week trial, a federal judge found the New York City Police Department liable for a pattern and practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stops.

Explain which argument is the most constitutionally sound. Why?

I feel the Case of Floyd V. The city of New York’s argument is most constitutionally sound. When ever their is racial anything it creates a big problem and so many constitutional rights are being broken in the process. And racism has always been a big issue for the United States that we can’t seem to get through. And between these to cases; the Terry case only really effected him, were the Floyd case was representing thousands of Blacks and Latinos. Thousands of people were having their constitutional rights broken.

Center for Constitutional Rights. (2013, Aug. 12). Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. Retrieved from http://ccrjustice.org/floyd

(Links to an external site.)

Links to an external site.

Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional law: An introduction. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

(Links to an external site.)