New York City Police “Stop and Frisk” Practices Unconstitutional — But Practices Continue
A federal lawsuit, Daniels v. City of New York, challenging the practice of stops and frisks by the New York City Police Department (NYPD), was settled through a stipulated agreement on this day.
The challenge charged that the practices were unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The stipulation required the NYPD to institute reforms to end both racial profiling and unconstitutional stops and frisks. Violations of citizens’ rights continued, and the NYPD greatly escalated the number of stops each year, reaching 600,000 a year at its peak.
A new suit, Floyd v. City of New York, was filed in 2008. On August 12, 2013, the U.S. District Court found the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices to be unconstitutional, ordered a series of reforms, and appointed an independent monitor to oversee their implementation. The city appealed, but in January 2014, the new mayor, Bill De Blasio, withdrew the appeal, allowing the court decision to stand.
The Supreme Court established the law of stops and frisks in the case of Terry v. Ohio (June 10, 1968). Under that decision, a “stop, which is a temporary detention,” is justified only when an officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the person is committing or is about to commit a crime. The judge ordered a sweeping set of reforms for the NYPD, including a new stop-and-frisk report form and improved procedures for the review of officers’ conduct in stop and frisk situations.
Read the Daniels Stipulation: http://ccrjustice.org/files/Daniels_StipulationOfSettlement_12_03_0.pdf
Learn more about the cases at the Center for Constitutional Rights: http://www.ccrjustice.org
Read: Stephen Schulhofer, More Essential Than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-First Century (2012)
Learn more about the 2013 Floyd case: http://www.ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_Floyd_Timeline-20140130.pdf