stop and frisk

In America there have been multiple tyrannical actions that the government have used on citizens and innocent bystanders. One of these actions are called “Stop and Frisk” which is a prevalent tactic used, especially in New York. “Stop and Frisk” means to be randomly searched by police or high authority when they suspect a bystander is carrying something suspicious. “Stop and Frisk” is a political issue that has been a concern for a long period of time. According to the articles “Growing up with Stop and Frisk” by Sara Maria Glanowski and “Why Stop and Frisk Matters, Even if You Don’t Live in New York” by Andrew Cohen, the cons towards “Stop and Frisk” is clearly stated and relevant. People are being stopped based off racial profiling, while statistics proves that majority of the time, they are innocent. Stop and Frisk must be impermissible and abolished because it is unconstitutional and individuals are stopped based off appearance and not on evidence that proves there guilty.
Under the U.S constitution, the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures such as “Stop and Frisk”. The “Stop and Frisk” law allows police officers to stop someone if they have reasonable evidence, but tribunes are abusing that power by stopping individuals based off seeing furtive movements and not on actual evidence which is unconstitutional. In his article “Why Stop and Frisk Matters, Even if You Don’t Live in New York” Andrew Cohen States “One example of poor training is particularly telling. Two officers testified to their understanding of the term ‘furtive movements’. One explained that ‘furtive movements’ is a very broad concept, and could include a person ‘changing direction’…”. This is a shoddy reason to stop an individual based off furtive movements because it is important for police to muster evidence that proves an individual is guilty. In her article “Growing up with Stop and Frisk” Sara Maria Glanowski states “Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled