There is a difference between supporting stops and frisk on reasonable suspicion, which is merely the law, and supporting a policy which, as Judge Scheindlin ruled, discriminates against people and subjects people to police intrusion on less than reasonable suspicion.
Don't confuse "stop and frisk" as it is used generally in jurisprudence, which is not changed by this decision, with a policy which encourages officers to stop and frisk people on less than a credible objective reason to believe they are committing a crime.
Some people will always prefer a police state. Some people will accept overreaching police actions as a preventative to criminal conduct. Others believe in reasonable limitations on police interference with our liberty, as does our system of criminal jurisprudence since the beginning of this country.
The Constitution guarantees that there will be no unreasonable searches or seizures. While less than a full blown seizure, a stop and frisk is a lesser intrusion on privacy, and is still subject to the constitutional safeguard of, if not probable cause as in the case of a seizure, reasonable suspicion.
Judge Scheindlin was, in my opinion, correct in her findings that NYPD policies need to be changed to cohere to constitutional standards, as those standards have been interpreted by our courts. Young black men are routinely stopped and frisked in this city on less than reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime. This is not merely a practice by a few rogue officers. NYPD not only turns a blind eye to this practice but has actively promoted it through department wide policies, including a discriminatory enforcement scheme and the imposition of effective quotas on stops and frisks. And it's wrong.
Updated On: 8/13/13 at 02:18 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
