The Constitutionality Of Stop And Frisk Laws

2636 WordsApr 29, 201611 Pages
Stop and Frisk laws have been a statistically proven means of crime prevention across America as a whole. Still, ever since their creation, Stop and Frisk laws have been a major source of controversy in America. The constitutionality of Stop and Frisk laws was confirmed in the 1968 case of Terry vs Ohio and since then, crime levels across America have been at historic lows. Yet, the 2013 verdict of the class action lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York has ruled otherwise. The court found the NYPD of violating both the fourth and fourteenth amendment mostly on the grounds of racial profiling. The court has as a result put in place a serious of complex changes to these laws making the job as a police officer even more dangerous than it already was. The topic of “racial profiling” is the fuel to the majority of the arguments opposing Stop and frisk. However, the subject of racial profiling is vastly misconstrued and deeply misunderstood. Stop and Frisk laws have flaws and are not perfect by any means, nevertheless they are an imperative source of preventing crime in America that needs to continue. New York City is the most prominent and populated city in the country. As a result, cities all over the country commonly look to the policies model their laws and after that of New York City. Thus, when during his time of Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg decided to ramp up the frequency of the number of stop and frisks in New York City, other cities around the country followed
Open Document