Stop And Frisk Case Study

Stop and Frisk have been in practice in policing for many years now. However, the policy was enacted or better said put into full effect during the Bloomberg era in the New York City area. This policy of stop and frisk was created to decrease crimes by getting guns and contrabands off the streets. But before a police officer proceeds to stop a civilian to stop and frisk them, they must have “reasonable suspicion” meaning that based on their training and experience they should be able to determine if a person is involved in criminal activity. Once the person is stopped, the police will conduct several questions to determine his/her identity and their activities also said as their whereabouts. If the police fears for their safety they move on to the next step, to frisk the person for any weapons or other illegal contrabands.
The term “reasonable suspicion” and for a police officer to have such thing, in order to stop a person arose out of the case Terry v. Ohio (1968). This case changed policing because prior to it, police officers needed “probable cause” to stop someone, meaning that the officer has sufficient information to believe the person has committed or is about to …show more content…
Ohio, another court intervention arises because of a police officer’s misjudgment. The cases Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. and Daniels, et al. v. City of New York, et al. once again brings up the question if the way police officers is stopping and frisking and conducting searches are constitutional. In both cases the Plaintiffs sue the City of New York because the New York Police Department violated the fourth and fourteenth amendments. Other than having the breaking of laws in common and same sued Defendants, the judge assigned to both cases was the same Justice Scheindlin. The plaintiffs in both actions claimed that police officers targeted a certain race with having data confirming same. Such cases showed that the stops made were