U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin recently ruled that New York police were in violation of the Fourth and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. According to ABA Journal, “Scheindlin reviewed statistics on 4.4 million police stops made between January 2004 and June 2012, and said a forms database indicated at least 200,000 were made without reasonable suspicion.” In her 195-page decision, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote, "A police department may not target a racially defined group for stops in general—that is, for stops based on suspicions of general criminal wrongdoing—simply because members of that group appear frequently in the police department’s suspect data."
New York Police Found in Violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution
According to several sources, Judge Scheindlin found that New York police violated the following:
- Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches
- 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause
Did the New York Police Participate in Racial Profiling?
New York Police apparently had an unspoken policy to target “the right people" for their stops. In her decision, Judge Scheindlin referred to this policy as "a form of racial profiling." She further stated, "While a person’s race may be important if it fits the description of a particular crime suspect, it is impermissible to subject all members of a racially defined group to heightened police enforcement because some members of that group are criminals."
So, what happens next? Judge Scheindlin appointed lawyer Peter Zimroth to monitor New York City's controversial stop-and-search policy.
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 that the defendant is engaging in criminal activity. Furthermore, if the officer reasonably believes that the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a protective frisk.
What are your thoughts?
You May Also Like...
Bankruptcy – Business
Bankruptcy – Personal
Criminal Law – Appellate
Criminal Law – Federal
Criminal Law – State Felony & Misdemeanor
Drunk Driving Defense
Dumb or Weird Laws
GM Ignition Switch
Stryker Hip Replacement
Intellectual Property Law
Labor & Employment Law
Landlord Tenant Law
Personal Injury – Defendant
Personal Injury – Plaintiff
Social Security Disability
Weird Law Friday
Trending Searches#TBT #ThrowbackThursday constitutional law Criminal Law - State Felony & Misdemeanor dangerous or defective products divorce DUI dumb laws estate planning Events that Changed History Family Law FAQ first-amendment product-recall products liability random laws recall safety recall strange laws weird laws