Stop And Frisk Essay

In New York there is a law called the Stop and Frisk this law promotes racial profiling because police are to confront a person they believe to be suspicious in order to stop or prevent a crime ("Stop And Frisk"). This type of search is limited and does not require a warrant. ("Stop And Frisk"). The police will stop and pat you down to check for any weapons or drugs that may be on the person in question to help deter criminal activity ("Stop And Frisk"). This law has received a lot of backlash since being instated because it is believed that this law has violated the rights of minority groups. Between January 2004 and June 2012 4.4 million stops took place 83% of the stopped population were minorities while 80% of those stops required no further action (Makarechi).

v. City of New York was on the Stop and Frisk law. The trail judge was Judge Scheindlin who stated from the start of this trial, she understood that this trial was about rights that had been violated by police with minority groups which caused people to have more of distrust with cops (Weiser). This case was about the practices of the New York City police department and how they were practicing racial profiling with unconstitutional stop and frisks ("Floyd, Et Al. V. City Of New York, Et Al."). The plaintiffs in this case were David Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson, and Deon Dennis (representatives of the Black and Latino New Yorkers who had been stopped without any cause) ("Floyd, Et Al. V. City Of New York, Et Al."). Judge Scheindlin was in charge of this case deemed the law stop and frisk unconstitutional in New York ("Floyd, Et Al. V. City Of New York, Et Al."). Judge Scheindlin stated in her opinion paper on the trail that the cops had resorted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” in minority communities (Weiser). Will making stop and frisk unconstitutional help decrease racial profiling by police