Difference Between Stop And Frisk
Question #4
Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” As a society, we are repeatedly sacrificing our freedoms to increase our safety. One eye-catching example of this is relate to the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution gives U.S. citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures without proper documentation or probable cause. In the City of New York, the Fourth Amendment has lost its power with the institution of the stop-and-frisk program.
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court made an exception to probable cause doctrine by allowing police to engage …show more content…
Allowing the stop-and-frisk program to continue is essentially giving up our protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Federal Judge Scheindlin found the NYPD and the stop-and-frisk program guilty of extensive neglect for the Fourth Amendment and that the police did not take the proper steps before deeming people as showing “suspicions behavior” before searching them (Goldstein). She did not get rid of the program entirely, but instead, she set up a plan for reforming the program so it would be more effective and not violates rights. Stop-and-frisk as it is directly goes against the 4th Amendment by violating the rights explicitly laid out in it. If it is unconstitutional then there is no reason to continue these practices. Although the judge found the program unconstitutional, NY Mayor Bloomberg continued the program by making appeals and fighting Judge Scheindlin’s ruling. Until Scheindlin’s reforms are instituted or the program is suspended indefinitely, the stop and frisk program will continue to violate the rights of New York’s …show more content…
The majority of the stops made are people that are black or Latino. In his article “Frisk Assessment”, Scott Pilutik breaks down the percentage of races have been stopped by stop-and-frisk:
“The NYPD made 4.4 million stops over the 8.5-year span in question. Approximately half of those stops resulted in frisks. Six percent of all stops resulted in arrest, and 6 percent resulted in summons. In 52 percent of all stops, the person was black; in 31 percent, Hispanic; and in 10 percent, white (against a population made up of 23 percent black, 29 percent Hispanic, and 33 percent white).”
Minorities are targeted by the stop-and-frisk program. Racial profiling is evidently one of the main way police officers choose to performance the searches. Officers are also encouraged to seek out minorities when conduction
Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.” As a society, we are repeatedly sacrificing our freedoms to increase our safety. One eye-catching example of this is relate to the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution gives U.S. citizens the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures without proper documentation or probable cause. In the City of New York, the Fourth Amendment has lost its power with the institution of the stop-and-frisk program.
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court made an exception to probable cause doctrine by allowing police to engage …show more content…
Allowing the stop-and-frisk program to continue is essentially giving up our protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Federal Judge Scheindlin found the NYPD and the stop-and-frisk program guilty of extensive neglect for the Fourth Amendment and that the police did not take the proper steps before deeming people as showing “suspicions behavior” before searching them (Goldstein). She did not get rid of the program entirely, but instead, she set up a plan for reforming the program so it would be more effective and not violates rights. Stop-and-frisk as it is directly goes against the 4th Amendment by violating the rights explicitly laid out in it. If it is unconstitutional then there is no reason to continue these practices. Although the judge found the program unconstitutional, NY Mayor Bloomberg continued the program by making appeals and fighting Judge Scheindlin’s ruling. Until Scheindlin’s reforms are instituted or the program is suspended indefinitely, the stop and frisk program will continue to violate the rights of New York’s …show more content…
The majority of the stops made are people that are black or Latino. In his article “Frisk Assessment”, Scott Pilutik breaks down the percentage of races have been stopped by stop-and-frisk:
“The NYPD made 4.4 million stops over the 8.5-year span in question. Approximately half of those stops resulted in frisks. Six percent of all stops resulted in arrest, and 6 percent resulted in summons. In 52 percent of all stops, the person was black; in 31 percent, Hispanic; and in 10 percent, white (against a population made up of 23 percent black, 29 percent Hispanic, and 33 percent white).”
Minorities are targeted by the stop-and-frisk program. Racial profiling is evidently one of the main way police officers choose to performance the searches. Officers are also encouraged to seek out minorities when conduction