Police Arguments Against Racial Profiling

According to the Fourth Amendment, The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall no be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon reasonable cause supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures requires police, if they have time to obtain a valid search warrant, issued by a magistrate after the police indicate under oath that they have probable cause to justify its issuance. Magistrates must perform this function in a neutral and detached manner and not serve merely as rubber stamps for the police. The warrant must specify the place to be searched and the things to be seizes. General search
Rules governing the conduct of such administrative searches are more lenient than those for searches by police investigating crimes. Administrative searches conducted without grounds for suspicion of particular individual have been upheld in certain limited circumstances. A recent troublesome area relates to racial profiling the police practice targeting member of certain racial groups for street questioning or traffic stops on the assumption that members of these groups are likely to be engaged in illegal activities. African Americans and civil rights organizations have complained for years about the practice because police do not need probable cause to stop someone and because it encourages racial discrimination. Another controversial practice is the recent expansion of compulsory , random drug testing. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionally of blood and urine tests of rail employees involved in train accidents, of federal employees, and of high school students engaged in interscholastic athletic