New York Police Stop Individuals Without Suspicion of Criminal Activity Under “Operation Clean Halls”
The New York City Department started an “Operation Clean Halls” program “aimed at preventing illegal activity at buildings in high-crime areas.” However, instead of applying the constitutional restrictions of “stop and frisk” laws, the New York police apparently regularly stopped individuals outside the buildings without “reasonable suspicion” that they were involved in criminal activity.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin claims that plaintiffs against the New York City Department’s stop and frisk program “had shown a clear likelihood of proving the city had shown deliberate indifference toward a widespread practice of unconstitutional trespass stops by police outside the buildings.” According to the NYtimes, “officers were routinely stopping people outside the buildings without reasonable suspicion that they were trespassing.”
Remedial Proposals By U.S. District Judge
Judge Scheindlin ordered the following remedial proposals to “Operation Clean Halls”:
- The New York City Police Department shall "develop and adopt a written policy describing limited circumstances when a person on a suspicion of trespass can be stopped."
- The New York City Police Department shall "revise officers training materials."
- The New York City Police Department shall "alter some of the training literature and videos used to teach officers how to conduct lawful stops."
What are the Constitutional Limitations to Stop & Frisk?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is a Landmark Supreme Court case, which decided the constitutionality of a “Stop & Frisk.” Under the ruling, a police officer may stop a person without "probable cause" for arrest if the police officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the defendant is engaging in criminal activity. Furthermore, if the officer reasonably believes that the defendant is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a protective frisk.
What do you think? Should police officers be able to stop an individual who merely enters or exits a building without acting suspiciously?
You May Also Like...
Chicago Woman Wins $14 million For Injuries Suffered After Taking Yasmin
16 hours ago
by Ani Barsamian, JD
Landlord’s Controversial Provision In Tenant’s Lease: “Premises Shall Not Be Operated As A Gay Or Lesbian Bar”
17 hours ago
by Ani Barsamian, JD
Airbag Maker for GM Was Aware of Dangerous Defects
18 hours ago
by Chris Blankinship, Esq.
- Chicago Woman Wins $14 million For Injuries Suffered After Taking Yasmin
Bankruptcy – Business
Bankruptcy – Personal
Criminal Law – Appellate
Criminal Law – Federal
Criminal Law – State Felony & Misdemeanor
Drunk Driving Defense
Dumb or Weird Laws
2012 Meningitis Outbreak
Biomet Hip Replacement
Smith & Nephew Hip Replacement
Stryker Hip Replacement
Wright Hip Replacement
Intellectual Property Law
Labor & Employment Law
Landlord Tenant Law
Personal Injury – Defendant
Personal Injury – Plaintiff
Social Security Disability
Trending Searches#TBT #ThrowbackThursday constitutional law dangerous-products dangerous or defective products dumb laws estate planning Events that Changed History Family Law FAQ first-amendment Personal Injury - Plaintiff product-recall products liability random laws recall safety recall salmonella strange laws weird laws