judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department had “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling”Well duh. But I must object. It doesn't even matter if it is direct or "indirect" racial profiling. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is quite clear as to when the police may bother a citizen:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.You cannot stop a citizen "just because", nor can you search a citizen "just because". It doesn't even matter that the vast majority of gun crimes in NYC are committed by African-American males. You CANNOT stop and frisk a citizen without probable cause. Unless.... Being black is considered probable cause. That is the ONLY reason that can be proffered to excuse this practice. Dare any elected official, or official seeking election come out and say it, if they support stop and frisk? The data is clear. over 90% of the stops result in nothing. No arms found. Nothing at all. Why is it we're even having a discussion on the legality of stopping citizens for no probable cause at all and with a "bust" rate of less than 10%? Let's review my run down of the NYPD program from the previous link:
So let us review: 1) between 82 and 90% of the persons stopped by NYPD were innocent. They were not committing a crime, had not committed a crime and were not engaged in any behavior other than walking to and from wherever they had a right to go to or from perhaps with other people.As I said before It's the 4th Amendment stupid.
2) Of the remaining 20% of the people stopped, 86 percent of them were arrested or fined for having marijuana. And most of that was found after an illegal search (after the illegal stop). Your officers then willingly committed perjury in order to give these persons arrest records which would have a negative impact on their education and employment opportunities, therefore increasing the likelihood that those persons would commit "major" crimes. Smart.
3) The remaining 5% or so, actually had contraband or something warranting an arrest. And you as a professional cannot figure out a means of getting to these persons without blatant and gross violations of the constitutional rights of the massive number of people stopped.