Speak Outs
Speak Out
Can a stop-and-frisk law be constitutional?

August 26, 2013

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

In August, a federal judge declared that parts of a New York City policy known as “stop and frisk” were unconstitutional as implemented by the police.

The stop-and-frisk law allowed police to stop and question an individual if the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the individual was in the process of committing or was about to commit a crime. The individual could be searched if the officers thought they were in danger.

Since the law’s inception in 2002, more than four million people have been detained. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, 90 percent of those individuals were African American or Latino.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been a vocal supporter of the stop-and-frisk law. He attributes a recent drop in crime to the policy. But U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin said that was irrelevant if the law is unconstitutional.

The judge ruled in Floyd v. City of New York, which contended that the New York police department pressured officers to stop and search thousands of people each year, the majority of whom were African American or Latino. The lawsuit said the policy was a form of racial profiling and a violation of individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The Fourth Amendment states: “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.”

Judge Scheindlin said that New York City police officers were pressured by the department’s top officials to detain and search young minority men, even if they were not acting suspiciously, which violated their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches.

“The NYPD maintains two different policies related to racial profiling in the practice of stop and frisk: a written policy that prohibits racial profiling and requires reasonable suspicion for a stop – and another, unwritten policy that encourages officers to focus their reasonable-suspicion-based stops on ‘the right people, the right time, the right location,’” the judge said.

The judge did not strike down the entire law but said certain aspects were unconstitutional, mainly the unwritten policy that focuses on minority men.

“To be very clear, I am not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk,” Scheindlin said. The judge said she wanted “to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.”

She called for an immediate change in policies of the NYPD, including a trial program that would require all officers in one district to use body-worn cameras. The footage will be reviewed by a community-based panel and overseen by a court-appointed facilitator to determine how stop and frisk can be implemented without violating someone’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Other ideas for implementing a stop-and-frisk policy floated by the media and by officials around the world include deemphasizing racial factors when determining whether to detain an individual. In France, where immigrants from Africa have experienced police intimidation through random stops, one idea is to create a documentation system in which the individual gets a detailed record of the stop, including the police officer’s name. The record allows for a review to determine if the individual officer is focusing on a particular minority group. Officers could then receive training to stop the profiling.

What do you think?

Do you agree with the judge’s ruling? Can stop and frisk be implemented without violating an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
10/14/2016
Sidney/Montana
Zach
Mrs. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
With stop and frisk I would support what the judge decided for the case. When it comes to finding a way to implement it so that it would be not racist to me would be impossible. A majority of crimes are committed in parts of communities where the majority of the residents are part of a minorities. For now to implement a system that would be stopping crime in areas where it’s a majority of citizens are minorities.

10/13/2016
Sidney/MT
Tessa
Mrs. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I believe that the Stop-and-Frisk laws are unconstitutional and should be executed in a much better way. It violates the Fourth Amendment, which states, "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 our constitutional rights. Another problem with these laws is that some police departments have developed certain strategies that encourage cops to stop and question mainly minority citizens first and come up with reasons for having done so later. There are several statistics that show police carry out more stops on blacks and Hispanic residents (who were not acting suspicious) and used unnecessary force to handle the situation. This leads to racial discrimination and deepens the issue of racial profiling.

10/13/2016
Sidney, Montana
Quinten
Mrs. Faulhaber
I believe the stop-and-frisk law is unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment states clearly that people get to own their possessions and they can not be taken away. But people now think they can now be searched by police officers for absolutely no reason. This is just going to get worse and worse until there is no longer a thing as search warrants. The police can't just search people because they may look suspicious. For example, people may look suspicious if a police officer is shining a huge light in their eyes during late night, but the person may just be standing there smoking a cigarette or something. The police should not be allowed to search the guy for minding his own business.

10/13/2016
sidney/mt
chase
Mrs. Faulhaber/Sidney high school
I think that the stop and frisk law is very necessary. It can take days to get a warrant so that you can abide by the fourth amendment. The crime will have already been committed by the time you get a warrant. Stop and Frisk needs to continue, it just so happens to be that 90% of the people who are searched are not white. I do not agree with the judges ruling.

10/13/2016
Sidney, MT
Johren
Mrs. Faulhaber
The way that "stop and frisk" law is being carried out is unconstitutional and goes against my morals as an American citizen. The basis of this ideal fundamentally goes against not only the 4th Amendment, but also the 14th. Everyone deserves to be seen as equal to law enforcement.

10/13/2016
Sidney, MT
Ashley
Mrs. Faulhaber
The stop-and-frisk law is very unconstitutional due to the fact that if the police have a suspicion that the individual was in the process of possibly committing a crime, they can stop the individual and search them. The stop-and-firsk act is unconsitutional due to the fact that the fourth amendment states that unreasonable seizures and no warrants shall be issued.

10/13/2016
Sidney, MT
Quinlyn
Tuttle
Stop and frisk policies are in place for the general populations protection. Although we may be focusing on a specific population it is only because they are the ones who are acting suspicious. As for violating ones fourth amendment rights the amendment clearly states "The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he 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". The key word is Probable cause, probable cause means reasonable grounds. It is that our government and police choose what they believe in reasonable when it comes to stop and frisk.

10/13/2016
Sidney MT
Tayler
Faulhaber
Yes I agree with the judge's ruling. But, I do believe that the stop and frisk is somewhat violating an individual's Fourth Amendment right. I'm very on the fence. I don't think cops should be able to stop people just under suspicion but then again, it seems very affective and that's how they catch some criminals.

10/13/2016
Sdidney. MT
Emily S.
Mrs. Faulhaber/SHS
I agree with the judges ruling because it seems like it is working to decrease crime rates. I do believe that there should be some revising done to help end racial profiling because 90% of the people are the races of African Americans or Latino.

10/13/2016
Sidney, MT
Lauryn
Mrs. Faulhaber
I believe that the stop-and-frisk laws are very unconstitutional. Not only is it violating the fourth ammendment, but it is also racially profiling when most of the detainees are African American or Latino. I feel like it was a good idea in theory, in being able to stop a crime before it happened, but in reality without having set guidelines for proper procedure it is a dud.

10/13/2016
Sidney, MT
Sandra
Faulhaber
I think that the stop and frisk law is unreasonable to an extent. If a person standing on the side of the street looks suspicious, then by all means the police have a right to ask them what they are up to. If the same person is not doing anything wrong after asked by the officer, then the officer has no right to search said person. The Fourth Amendment says that said person is protected from unreasonable searches. The officer would then me going against said person's constitutional rights.

10/13/2016
Sidney, MT
Landan
Mrs. Faulhaber
I am in firm opposition of stop and frisk policies. In my opinion, these practices violate the 4th Amendment that protects the people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" as well as the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Basically, these Amendments guarantee that citizens, especially minorities, will not be able to be unfairly targeted by the government (AKA law enforcement in this case). We can clearly see that stop and frisk policies encourage officers to stop citizens based on ethnicity over anything else, and therefore must be considered unconstitutional.

2/11/2016
Sidney, MT
Cayla Norby
Mr.Faulhaber
I believe the stop-and-frisk law is very unconstitutional and won't be possible to implement it without breaking the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment says no unreasonable seizures without a warrant. The stop-and-frisk law breaks the fourth amendment making it unconstitutional.

2/10/2016
Sidney, MT
Chelsey Metcalf
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I do not think a stop and frisk can be in place without violating the Fourth Amendments rights. To stop someone under suspicion of a crime is against the law before it was put in place. Without the direct harm or danger to themselves, or the public, no one should be stopped and frisked. The judge was on the right track with the ruling. I would be more open to the idea if other cities have established a similar concept, and have set guidelines for incorrect and correct procedures.

2/9/2016
Sidney
Amanda
Mr. Faulhaber
A stop-and-frisk law cannot be constitutional. It allows police to stop and question an individual with reasonable suspicion. The fourth amendment specifically says that probably cause is needed for a search. If it keeps getting easier and easier for cops to search citizens, will there even be warrants in the future?

2/9/2016
Sidney
Amanda
Mr. Faulhaber
A stop-and-frisk law cannot be constitutional. It allows police to stop and question an individual with reasonable suspicion. The fourth amendment specifically says that probably cause is needed for a search. If it keeps getting easier and easier for cops to search citizens, will there even be warrants in the future?

2/9/2016
Sidney, MT
Robert
Mr. Faulhaber Sidney High School
No of coarse it isn't. It violates the 4th amandment

2/9/2016
Sidney/MT
Harmonie H.
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think that it is constitutional to stop-and-frisk people. This is my belief because, if there is suspected suspicion then the cops have a right to inspect the vehicle and or property. The 4th Amendment clarifies this because it states, “unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” If someone is arising enough suspicion then there is obviously a reasonable cause for a search. My thoughts are that a crime should be stopped before it begins.

2/8/2016
Sidney/MT
Brianna
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I think the stop and frisk law is unconstitutional. Just because someone looks like they are a criminal doesn't mean they are a criminal. People shouldn't be detained when they haven't done anything.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Coleton M.
Mr. Faulhaber
I think that it is fair for an officer to stop-and-frisk under reasonable pretenses. However, 90% are African American or Latino. That is racial profiling and should be illegal. If the stop-and-frisk law is continued, there should be monitoring of racial fairness of some sort because there is some wrong doing in the current way that it is being proceeded.

2/8/2016
Sidney/Montana
Desirae
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
In a way, I do agree with the judges ruling because she is helping get rid of the racial discrimination in the stop and frisk practice by changing the law immediately and making all the officers wear a camera that will be reviewed. I also think its a good idea that the judge came up with this procedure. Especially if it is decreasing crime rates in New York City. They only have to find a way to go about this procedure in a lawful way.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Nang
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I believe that the stop and frisk is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it goes against the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. I believe that the police should only be able to intervene if, for example, they witness a person in black trench coat with and assault rifle approach an elementary school. Then they should definitely intervene. I believe that reasonable suspicion could be loosely interpreted to fit a person's personal need. Which can be used against someone's right by the police officers. I truly side with the framers of the constitution for they believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In the eyes of a dead constitutionist this would definitely be unconstitutional.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Gunnar
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think that the stop and frisk law is some bull shit and the fact that 90 percent of those individuals that were arrested were African American or Latino. I also think that it is a direct "legal" way of getting away with profiling.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Sierra
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I agree with the judge's ruling that this is racial profiling and the way it was carried out was unethical and unconstitutional. If they carried on in a civilized manner I believe the stop and frisk can be implemented without violating an individuals Fourth Amendment rights. The police officers should however not search minorities such as African Americans and Latinos as much as they did. That was ridiculous. I believe that stop and frisk can be very essential in certain situations, especially emergency situations such as a kidnapping, serial killers, or sex trafficking crimes.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
kyle
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The stop-and-frisk laws violate the fourth amendment. They may help reduce crime and help prevent crime but they law violates a persons rights.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Katlyn
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I agree with the judges ruling about the stop and frisk policy. The policy is a good idea but should be revised to end racial profiling. It is decreasing crime rate so should be used but revised. If the racial profiling continues the policy should be taken away.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Dakota
Mr. Faulhaber SHS
The stop-and-frisk laws are a clear violation of the fourth Amendment. Although the idea is good and may help prevent crimes it is still violating an individuals rights and the law should not be executed.

2/8/2016
Sidney
Mason
Mr. Faulhaber
I think that stop and frisk seems like a good idea, but personally I don't like giving policeman another reason to stop the majority of law abiding people who are going about there day to frisk them.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Kaitlyn T.
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I honestly don't see how this can be legal. How can a police officer; a human being who naturally commits sin, be able to have a "suspicion" about a random person; also a human being who naturally sins. There is no way to expertise in this and no way to know. A police officer should not be allowed to do this.

2/8/2016
Sidney/Montana
Cade
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The stop-and-frisk law is a good idea. Although it is borderline unconstitutional i think it is a good law. It could prevent many crimes from happening. If the police officer is doing his job right and focusing on if the person is doing something right or wrong rather than the color of that persons skin, I don't see how this could be a bad thing. If the person has committed a crime or is about to then they should get arrested. If the person has not done anything wrong than they can be let go.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Mikayla H.
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I believe the law was created with good intent, but of course we have a few bad apples. The way this law was carried out was unreasonable and unethical, since many people sought it as an excuse for their racist and sexist intentions. Its a work in progress, so we have many issues to work through in order to make this law work without violating the 4th amendment. Police officers should have a valid justification of their reason to stop an individual, not just "They looked suspicious". A valid witness should be present as well, because we know an officer's word is not always valid.

2/8/2016
Sidney/MT
Michael
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I personally agree with the changes made to the law and the decision not to completely remove the law from the system. The law is made with good intentions, but with all other complex laws, it needs to be refined in a way so that certain factors don't skew its results or it execution by the Police.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Luke
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I agree with the judge's decision. It is clear that the officers were profiling, and the judge was right to try to change this disturbing trend. I absolutely believe that an officer can stop and frisk without profiling. The police departments should never pressure officers to make stops. Stops should only be made when a trained officer has reason to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed. I would not be opposed to having body cameras or victim complaint files to determine if certain officers are profiling. However, I am against banning the stop and frisk to "preserve the rights of the citizens." It is my personal belief that an officer should be allowed to stop someone if they have reason to believe a crime will be committed, regardless of race. If an officer displays behavior that suggests racial profiling, I believe that officer should be punished accordingly.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Ryan
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think that stop and frisk should not be implemented, and if the officer is really that interested in searching you they should get a warrant.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Clay
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The stop and frisk policy was a good concept. However, it cannot continue to be used if it is violating the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. That being said, if certain failsafes were put into effect so that this policy would not be a form of racial profiling, then the stop and frisk policy should continue. It has been shown that the crime rate has gone down since the enactment of the policy. This trend should be continued, as long as the officers can be held accountable when an unjust frisk occurs.

2/8/2016
Sidney/MT
Taryn P
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I believe that "stop and frisk" is a good idea if they had an actual reason to stop and search. Although I think if they didn't have an actual reason to search then it would be violating the Fourth Amendment.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Dylan
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I don't think the "stop and frisk" law should be practiced since it does violate the Fourteenth Amendment with the equal protection clause. This also violates the Fourth Amendment and therefore should not be practiced.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Hunter Nice
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I believe this stop and frisk law should be kept in place and is constitutional. The main reason being is that it works. The crime rate has gone down and thats a good thing. So why get rid of something that works. it doesn't make much sense to me, so i think this stop and frisk law is constitutional and should be kept. Too many people pull the racist card and its unsettling.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Marcus
Mr. Faulhaber/ SHS
The police will abuse the stop and frisk law by always claiming they had "reasonable suspicion" and no higher govt authority will question them. This law is a clear 4th amendment violation.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Heather Chreiman
Mr. Faulhaber
I do not think the practice of stop and frisk was a good idea and is harassing minorites because 90 percent of the individuals being stoped are African Americans and Latinis. It does violate their Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

2/8/2016
Sidney/Montana
Clay Fox
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I do see the problem with the stop and frisk movement violating certain rights. My opinion on the issue though is that if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. It is a relatively quick stop and is based on a legitimate suspicion.

2/8/2016
Sidney/ MT
Tyrell
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
The Fourth Amendment states: “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.” Stated herer the government can not stop you and sarch you for no reason unless found with reasonable cause to be a threast or suspicious to committing a crime. but when 90 percent are african american and latino males that are being searched then its racial profiling at its finest and not constitutional.

2/8/2016
Sidney/MT
Kelsie
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think that the stop and frisk law was a terrible idea. Not only is it a chance to harass people that just look suspicious, but it also is a chance to discriminate against minorities. If 90% of the people getting stopped are African American or Latino, then there is clearly something wrong with the law and the cops the carry out the law. The law just proves that racial profiling is happening by the the police and it needs to be stopped. The law was clearly unconstitutional and I respect the judge's decision in saying so.

2/8/2016
Sidney Montana
Christian Eggar
Mr.Faulhaber Sidney High School
I agree that Stop and Frisk can be implemented without violatin the fourth amendment. I belive that this is an ok law. IF They have reasonable suspicion that the suspect in question is involved in criminal activity, then they should be allowed to carry this law out. I think to many times pepole use racist profiling as an excuse to get out of trouble. Too many times pepole of diffrent race pull the race card on us and it is not fair. Even if it is carried out poorly i do not belive that this law is unconstitiutional!

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Brady G
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
No I do not think that stop and frisk can be implemented without violating the fourth amendment rights. The stop and frisk will keep causing racial profiling because of this it should be stopped.

2/8/2016
Sidney/MT
Dominic
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High school
I would agree with the judge in her ruling that the practice of the law was carried out in an untimely unethical way that was unconstitutional. I believe if it is monitored that the law can be better implemented to be constitutional so that there is no major focus on minorities.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Danielle
Mr. Faulhaber
I believe that the "stop and frisk" policy was a great idea and had good intentions but the execution of the policy was poorly done. In the Floyd v. City of New York case, the policy resulted into a form of racial profiling and a violation of individual rights. I don't think there should be a direct end to the policy, but if it continues to be a violation to people termination of the policy should be taken into action.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Trent
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think that the stop and frisk policy should be kept in place. The policy may be executed poorly but I think if crime is down then it is worth it. Racist profiling is just an excuse people are trying to use to get out of trouble and challenge authority.

2/8/2016
Sidney, Montana
Lexi
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I believe that "stop and frisk" should be constitutional. I believe that if a peace officer suspects a person is doing illegal things then they should be stopped and searched. I think as long as the law enforcement officers have a body-worn camera on them it should be allowed.

2/8/2016
Sidney/ Montana
Kade Jacobson
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
The "Stop and Frisk" policy is a very great idea on paper but not well in action. The idea of searching or frisking suspicious personal is a good plan to prevent crimes or busting people of stealing, but the reality is certian groups would be targeted. If it is possible to ensure the police would not target specific people or specific races, the "stop and frisk" policy should be allowed. Until then, it should be made unconstitutional until proven otherwise.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Lane
Mr. Faulhaber
I thinl the stop and frisk policy is a smart idea, But needs to be done in a better way. It could help end alot of crime I beleive.

2/8/2016
Sidney, MT
Chris
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think that the "stop and frisk" program has all the right reasons but I think its unconstitutional. I think it goes against the 4th Amendment and that it shows them how to do more profiling. It will cause more of an uprising or riot if it goes to far in todays world.

2/8/2016
Sidney/MT
Tel Hermanson
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I believe that the stop and frisk law is a good idea, it just needs better execution. It needs to be enhanced so that it does not violate people's 4th amendment rights. The stop and frish policy has shown to decrease crime and make New York City a safer place. I think that if we can go further with the stop and frisk and train our policeman to use it in the right way then there would be no violation of anyone's 4th amendment rights.

2/8/2016
Sidney Mt
Lucas
Mr. Faulhaber
No i do not think that a stop-and-frisk law is constitutional. It goes completely against the fourth amendment which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. So unless there is reasonable cause for someone to be searched I do not think someone should be searched at random.

2/8/2016
sidney MT
Nick
Mr.Fualhaber/ sidney high school
I think the stop and frisk law was just a thought it has good intentions but poor results. I beleive that it is constitutional and could keep people safe but then again if the cops enforcing the law use it in the wrong way i feel like it will create more problems down the road.

2/5/2016
Sidney, Mt
Blaine
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
The "stop and frisk" policy had good intentions but has had poor execution. It is an extreme impeachment on our constitutional rights, however. This policy should be removed to help prevent anymore racial profiling.

12/1/2015
Murrieta
Davin C
Jabro/Creekside High School
As citizens of the U.S. we have a right to a free and safe travel. Meaning a "stop and frisk" is completely unconstitutional to my standards. We don't have to answer any questions, nor do we have to give them identification or any other possession of ours unless we are being detained

5/27/2015
murrieta / ca
omaree
mr.jabro / creekside high school
no because that's giving and officer to judge me upon my clothes and any slight movement I'm doing and now in day and age any African american Mexican Asian could be shot down in a stop-and-frisk for standing up for their constitutional rights

2/25/2015
Berlin, CT
Hannah
Buzzelli/McGee
I believe the fourth amendment should be loosely followed.

11/13/2014
Sidney/Montana
Holly
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I personally agree with the judges decision. Stop-and-frisk does go against the Fourth Amendment. In the article it says the NYPD were pressured into detaining and searching young minority men. This is completely wrong. I might consider this stop-and-frisk law if it wasn't mostly discriminating minority groups. A statistic from 2011 is 700,000 people were stopped because of "reasonable suspicion," but 87 percent of these people were either black or Latino. If the statistics keep showing that it is severely racial then this law should not continue. Isn't it completely racist that the majority of the time police officers have "reasonable suspicion" and they thought they were in "danger" is when blacks and Latinos are around? If this law is continued, I believe we should make the police have to document the stop to determine if that officer is focusing on a particular minority group and make it stop.

9/26/2014
New Caney Texas
marcos
Edwards NCHS
I agree with the stop and frisk policy because, sometimes the people they stop are up to something bad and that's one less crime that happens. and this is were people get confused and say stop and friskes are illegal and stuff cops don't look threw your clothes they pat you down then if they fell a weapon or something they aren't supposed to have on them then they go into your pockets and only that specific pocket so yes i do agree with the stop and frisk policy and instead of them adding more to what they need to have to stop and frisk somebody suspicious they should reduce it.

9/26/2014
TX
Caster
NCHS
I don't think it's constitutional because the Constitution clearly states that you shouldn't be searched under unreasonable searches and shall not be violated by something over a crime that did not exist (meaning when a cop thinks a crime might be commited and goes up to a random person and frisks their body with no reason which doesnt make sense and lets say if they have a gun and under the 2nd amendment you are aloud to carry a gun as long as you dont harm someone at random) but even so the rates may go down for crime the crime will still be there.

9/26/2014
Tx
Israel
Edwards/NCHS
I believe that a stop-and-frisk law can be constitutional because it has been most helpful in so many different situations. Another reason is because when you frisk someone and find a weapon, you can take that from them and potentially save your own or that suspect's life.

9/26/2014
Houston, Texas
Dais
NCHS
Stop and frisk is not really violating the 4th amendment's rights when it is conducted the correct way. Many police officers lately have had to actually tackle down in a brutally way to stop someone. The fact of most stop and frisk situations are involved with mostly Blacks or Latinos, gets me very sad. I am Hispanic and this really hurts me because we are not all the same. People judge by appearances and that is unconstitutional.

9/26/2014
New caney,Texas
Albert Einstein
Mrs.Edwards/NCHS
I could understand why people complain about this, but I don't because I'm not African american or Latino and I can't see how life is for them but what I can see is the mistreatment of other race's besides caucasian. So I don't agree with this because I'd like to see everyone treated the same way in something related to this even if they are or not in a high crime rate area it could be because of the cop not because of the race most cops could be just power hungry their should be some kind of test to see if cop's would abuse their power or not.

9/26/2014
texas
dennis
edwards
Yes ,I think that will help a lot in the streets i anysly think that it will ceep the people safe

9/26/2014
Houston, TX
Tyler
Edwards/New Caney High School
I agree with the judges ruling of stop and frisk policy with out violating an individual's Forth Amendment rights.

9/26/2014
New Caney,TEXAS
Daquan
New caney high school <---- in TEXAS
I like the stop and frisk policy but i dont like that they target blacks and hispanics.I think that they should be equal and target all races

9/26/2014
Houston, TX
Pollo
Edwards NCISD
I disagree with the judges ruling because any stop and frisk situation is violating the fourth amendment. To search other peoples properties they should have a warrant to be able to search.

9/26/2014
New Caney/TX
Tommy
Edwards
I agree with this because it stops crime on the street. Police have said that they have stopped possible multiple crimes in the last 10 years. But I also disagree because it is violating the fourth amendment. By not having a search warrnat. This is my reason.

9/26/2014
new caney Texas
Jones
Ms.Edwards
I think it is wrong that it is wrong that 90% of those who are frisks are African Amarican and Latino.

9/26/2014
New Caney/TX
Faraon
Edwards/NCHS
I agree with the stop and frisk policy because if it wasn't for that policy, the crime rate would be higher.

9/26/2014
new caney tx
diana
edwards/new caney
i agree with the stop and frisk policy because you never know when a crime is going to be committed unless you stop and search them. the policy also drastically lowered the crime rate.

9/26/2014
new caney,texas
jojo
edwards nchs
i do and dont agree with the judges because you can stop and frisk people but i also dont agree because a lot of people look suspicious but there arent doing bad.

9/26/2014
new caney/texas
jose
mrs edwards new caney high school
yes you can becuase if you ask for there id and they dont have it then you can frisk them. if you see someone running and you tell them to stop and they don't you can stop and frisk them because they broke a law.

9/26/2014
New Caney
Jake
NCHS
I agree with this comment Because it clearly reduces crime rate and puts more safety precautions out there it stops alot of robberys and murders and does not go against any rights that we have

9/26/2014
New Caney, Tx
Starr
Edwards/ New Caney High School
I agree with the judge's ruling, the "Stop and Frisk" policy could be considered unconstitutional in some situations. I like that they suggested officers wearing body cameras. This would help a lot with cops stopping people for no reason and finding a weapon on them. I don't believe it violates your 4th Amendment, unless the officer is frisking you for no actual reason.

9/26/2014
new tx
Tyler Smith
edwers new caney high school
I agree with the topik

9/26/2014
HOU,TX
daniel
Mrs Edwards/ new caney high school
This goes against the fourth amendment, it is a form of racial profiling. Only under extreme circumstances of some kind of threat to the nation should the police be allowed to stop and frisk you on the street.

9/26/2014
New Caney, Texas
Jocelyn
NCHS
I agree with the policy, but i dislike the fact that most of the detained were African American or Latino. In my opinion I see why it would be unconstitutional. I would be more constitutional more Whites were also detained. Other than that I think it's an effective way to get weapons of the streets and ensure everyone's safety.

9/26/2014
new caney
braden
edwards
yes because the officer has a gut feeling and the suspect could do something very harmful and it can get alot of weapons rapists stalkers and all the other kind of criminals off the street.

9/3/2014
Murrieta, CA
Kailee
Jabro/Creekside
I don't agree with the judges ruling because any stop and frisk situation is violating the 4th amendment. To search someone, you should need a warrant, even if they are just walking down the street. I don't think it's fair to judge someone by how they look and search them.

5/9/2014
Frisco/TX
Brennon
Adams/CTE Center
The fourth amendment law is apart of our law wether we believe as citizens it is constitutional, or not. Yes, there is racial profiling and every human does it. Naturally people judge and make assumptions about the other race. We as people will never change our habits although they may be wrong and/or insufficient to the cause of what we are aiming for. 70% of teens that get into trouble with the law are African American and Latino. This could be a form of racial profiling, or it could be the different ways minorities live. There are many different rules in different households. 65% of African American, and Latino households run their home more loosely than a White home. Yes we should state the law more clearly and ban unwritten policies but I do not believe everyone should assume that its racial profiling. Maybe we should keep our officers in check and not change the law because of unwritten policies.

5/9/2014
Frisco, TX
Andrew
Adams/CTE Center
There is no reason why the police officers should be conducting these searches. New York City's mayor, Mayor Bloomberg's statement may be true regarding less crime rates since the introduction of this policy, yet this policy is unconstitutional. In Terry v. Ohio the plain-clothed police officer stopped and frisked Terry only because he had reasonable suspicion that they were casing a business and the police officer suspected that they had a weapon. It is only constitutional to stop and frisk if they had reasonable suspicion that they or anyone else is in danger. In this case, police were practicing an unconstitutional policy that violates citizens rights.

5/9/2014
Frisco, TX
Fabiha Rahman
Adams/ CTE Center
I feel that stop-and-frisk law is unconstitutional. I think it violates peoples other rights since "reasonable suspicion" is starting to seem like such a grey area. Like noted it said that, most people that were searched were minorities and I feel that with reasonable suspicion profiling ties into it . . Also I agree that it denies people their 4th amendment rights because it may seem unreasonable to someone else. Which is why I disagree that the stop and frisk law is constitutional.

5/9/2014
Frisco/Texas
Ryan
Adams/CTECenter
In cases like these, there are going to be officers who say there is reasonable suspicion and proceed even without probable cause; however, that is not necessary in circumstances like these. The Fourth Amendment states " 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." Now, given the fact that an officer has reasonable suspicion, with that he can move into the next step, probable cause. In New York, officers were pressured by the departments top officials to detain and search young minority men, even if they were not acting suspiciously. That right there violates their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches, If there is an act of suspicion among someone/ people, then reasonable suspicion comes into play, If there is evidence among probable cause then I believe that the officers have the right to push forward and make an arrest. Now a stop-and-frisk law? That is a whole other situation where people are being asked to stop and be frisked even if they do not have any possessions or such. A stop-and-frisk should only be necessary among reasonable suspicion among people who are under suspicion, not just because it was demanded by an official to stop someone randomly and perform a stop-and-frisk.

5/9/2014
Frisco,TX
Jacob
Adams/CTE Center
A stop-and-frisk law can't be constitutional. The 4th Amendment states "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." Police officers doing racial profiling is a violation of individuals' 4th Amendment rights as well as 4th Amendment's equal protection clause. The article says "More than 4 million people have been detained since the law's inception in 2002. 90 percent of those individuals were African American or Latino according to the New York Civil Liberties Union." Police officers need to have reasonable suspicion if somebody was in danger, but police officers did a stop-and-frisk because they thought they were in danger. Judge Scheindlin says "I am not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk, I am to ensure that the practice is carried out in a respectable manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection."

5/9/2014
Frisco, TX
Victoria
Adams/ CTE Center
I believe that the "stop and frisk" law is not constitutional, besides racial profiling rising as an ethical issue, the officers would have to reason in court why the felt as their safety was at compromise; the officers are not in danger when someone is looking guilty.

5/9/2014
Frisco,TX
Ashley
Adams/CTE Center
The stop and frisk law is unconstitutional. People's right to keep their Fourth Amendment should not be taken away. The fact that NYC officers had to search people whether they were acting suspiciously or not is completely unreasonable. The officers didn't have any probable cause and were infringing on the multiple young men's rights "to be secure........against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.........but upon probable cause." Also, the fact that 90% of those who were stopped and soon detained were African American and Latino proves that racial profiling among officers is occurring. Whats even more "unconstitutional" is the racial profiling because if an officer were to see a white and African American man walking down the street, according to statistics he would evidently frisk the African American. What if that were you? Unless the officer has visual evidence or another form of probable cause the stop-and-frisk law should not apply. Anyone can have reasonable suspicion that someone has a weapon,etc. but it doesn't mean we can stop-and-frisk. By implementing this law we are giving officers the right to search practically anyone, even if the situation doesn't call for it. That is certainly unconstitutional and a violation of our Fourth Amendment right.

5/9/2014
Frisco/Texas
Ryan
Adams/CTECenter
In cases like these, there are going to be officers who say there is reasonable suspicion and proceed even without probable cause; however, that is not necessary in circumstances like these. The Fourth Amendment states " 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." Now, given the fact that an officer has reasonable suspicion, with that he can move into the next step, probable cause. In New York, officers were pressured by the departments top officials to detain and search young minority men, even if they were not acting suspiciously. That right there violates their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches, If there is an act of suspicion among someone/ people, then reasonable suspicion comes into play, If there is evidence among probable cause then I believe that the officers have the right to push forward and make an arrest. Now a stop-and-frisk law? That is a whole other situation where people are being asked to stop and be frisked even if they do not have any possessions or such. A stop-and-frisk should only be necessary among reasonable suspicion among people who are under suspicion, not just because it was demanded by an official to stop someone randomly and perform a stop-and-frisk.

5/9/2014
Frisco/TX
Jeremy
Adams/ CTE
After 1968 it was found constitutional to stop and frisk an individual upon reasonable suspicion. I find this supreme court ruling very subjective because the word reasonable is quite subjective. One officer might find a citizen who is a minority suspicious as we have seen by the figures in New York, and the officer might use this as a basis for a search. For this reason I agree with with the fact that the stop and frisk rule is unconstitutional because it is a breach of your privacy with inadequate evidence from a peace officer. I think stop and frisk should not be implemented unless the officer thinks his/her life is in imminent danger.

5/9/2014
Frisco, TX
Sydney S.
Adams/ CTE Center
I believe in Judge Scheindlin's ruling on this case. You cannot just stop someone for no reason or because of their skin color. Perhaps the reason why 90 percent of the arrests from this "stop and frisk" law were african american and latinos were because they weren't stopping and frisking the other races. Skin color has nothing to do with crime. A white man is just as capable of committing a crime as any other race is. Also, this law is unconstitutional, because you must have reasonable suspicion of a weapon or fear of safety to frisk someone. Is skin color reasonable suspicion of a weapon or a threat to your safety? I don't think so.

5/9/2014
Frisco, Tx
Brooke
Adams/CTE Center
I think that the "stop-and-frisk law" is unconstitutional to peoples Fourth Amendments rights. They are unconstitutional because racial prohibiting is obviously a problem. In the article it said most people detained are either African American or Latino. That shows that their is some kind of racial discrimination. Even though the law is used to lower crime in our country it also violates peoples right, which is never okay. Police also violate peoples rights because they can't search someone just because they look suspicious without showing a obvious sign that they are about to commit a crime. Crime could be solved in a way that doesn't violate the fourth amendments rights. With all that, the law is unconstitutional.

5/9/2014
Frisco / Texas
Taylor Sloat
Adams / CTE Center
Can a stop-and-frisk law be constitutional? I would say no due to the numerous amounts of racial profiling our country faces. The article states that the majority of the people detained or processed due to the stop-and-frisk policy were mostly minorities. The Fourth Amendment should also guarantee them the right to be secure in their persons, without any racial profiling. The stop-and-frisk policy should still be in effect, but should have more of probable cause then just a feeling that someone is up to no good.

5/9/2014
Frisco, Tx
Brooke
Adams/CTE Center
I think that the "stop-and-frisk law" is unconstitutional to peoples Fourth Amendments rights. They are unconstitutional because racial prohibiting is obviously a problem. In the article it said most people detained are either African American or Latino. That shows that their is some kind of racial discrimination. Even though the law is used to lower crime in our country it also violates peoples right, which is never okay. Police also violate peoples rights because they can't search someone just because they look suspicious without showing a obvious sign that they are about to commit a crime. Crime could be solved in a way that doesn't violate the fourth amendments rights. With all that, the law is unconstitutional.

5/9/2014
Frisco/TX
Sahar
Adams/CTE
The stop-and-frisk law is can be constitutional as long as it's not racially related. Even though some people are against it, statistics have shown that it does indeed help to subdue the number of crimes in an area. However, if it's racially targeted, it's wrong. Just because someone is of color or Latino doesn't mean that they're automatically committing any sort of crime. If there is a part of town or a city in which there is a high crime rate, they should stop and frisk everyone going through the town, not just people who look "suspicious".

5/9/2014
Frisco, TX
Alberto
Adams/CTE Center
In my opinion, i think that a stop and frisk law directed towards certain races is unconstitutional. I believe that it does violate an individual's fourth amendment rights when certain races are being singled out, on the other hand i also believe that it is authorities' jobs to keep citizens safe and if an officer is legitimately concerned that an individual seems suspicious, then a stop and frisk search is reasonable.

5/9/2014
Frisco, Texas
Brielle
Adams/CTE Center
The "stop and frisk" law that allows police to stop and search and person who seems suspicious is not constitutional and in many cases regarding stopping mostly African American or Latino people would be unconstitutional in that they are using a form of racial profiling. But even if they had the same number of stops for all races the law would still remain unconstitutional in that it is only pulling out specific people. The only way for the law to be put in place without the problem of unconstitutionality would be if they were to stop and search every car just they would at a check stop or at the boarders when leaving in the country.

5/9/2014
Frisco, TX
Claire
Adams/CTE Center
The stop and frisk law is ultimately unconstitutional, no matter how you argue it. The law according to the information says that the police are allowed to stop and question an individual if the officers had a "reasonable suspicion" that they were committing or about to commit a crime. The Fourth Amendment specifically states that the people are protected against unreasonable search and seizure unless the authorities have "probable cause". This empowers the police to conduct a search only if they have probable cause which links specific evidence to a specific person to a specific crime. This law is unconstitutional because it does not use probable cause to conduct a search, but instead uses reasonable suspicion which is not under the authority of the police.

4/17/2014
Sidney, MT
Tresha Sanders
Mr. Faulhaber
The issue in this article is over the Fourth Amendment. Is the "stop and frisk" law constitutional? I say no. Mayor Michael Bloomberg may say that there has been a drop in crime because of the law but there's also been a drop in people's rights. Policeman are doing their job as best they can, I'm not say they aren't but racial profiling is an obvious factor here. The article says that 90 percent of the four million detained since the law's inception in 2002 have been either African American or Latino. Even if racial profiling wasn't a factor, an officer doesn't have the right to search a person just because they might be a criminal. Of course it's bringing down crime, because they're searching everyone at the cost of their fourth amendment rights. Taylor is correct in saying that we can't give so much power to the police force. People are innocent until proven guilty.

4/14/2014
Sidney/Montana
Taylor
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue in this article is very scary. Our fourth amendment rights are very important. As the Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons." This allows us to walk down the street without being stopped and unreasonably searched. As the article has stated more than four million people have been detained 90 percent of those who were African American or Latino. I agree with Tori Hill who said that this seems suspicious it is hard to look at this fact without thinking that this is racial profiling. I agree with what Judge Scheindlin has said in the article that the facts on how it has caused a drop in crime are irrelevant because of it being unconstitutional. I cannot see how stop and frisk is constitutional at all. We are giving police officers the sole power to judge a person by their looks. We don't allow all of the power to one branch for a reason. There is a very slippery slope. The police are going to be able to use this to do even more things to violate our privacy.

4/13/2014
Sidney/MT
Lexie Brunsvold
Faulahber/Sidney High School
The issue described in this article is wether the stop and frisk law violates a persons fourth Amendment right. The Fourth Amendment states "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..." Judge Scheindil said that the police were being pressured into stopping and searching young minority men. This would violate the Fourth Amendment because they have no probable cause and the only cause they have is racial profiling. I agree with her and believe it does violate the Fourth Amendment because out of the 4 million people detained, 90% were of a minority. I think the changes she makes will really show how the stop and frisk law is helping or if it is just violating Fourth Amendment rights. I do agree with Nicole though. She said "if safety is really an issue, i feel there are other ways to obtain it than just by stopping random minorities and people." I Agee with this because really if it causes people to racial profile, then it's not right. And It has been obvious that it has pressured police into racial profiling. In Floyd v. The City of New York, it was evident that racial profiling was occurring. If stopping people and frisking them is what the city thinks they need to do, they are wrong. The police need to find a way to keep the city safe by not violating the Fourth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment.

3/17/2014
Sidney, MT
Nicole Moore
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue in this article is whether or not the stop and frisk policy is constitutional and whether in not it violates the Fourth Amendment and also the equal protection clause. I believe it does violate both of these especially because it notes that 'officers were pressured...to detain and search young minority men'. This shows that not everyone was being searched or protected equally. I also believe this is a violation of warrants and that random searches do violate privacy. I don't agree with the judges rulings in that these searches should be continued because I believe it does violates a person's privacy when going about their daily activities. If safety is really an issue, I feel there are other ways to obtain it then just by stopping random minorities and people. I disagree with Tori on the fact that it is constitutional, because there are no warrants and it seems unreasonable to stop people who may just be 'rough looking' but are actually good people.

3/13/2014
Sidney/MT
Tori Hill
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue presented is whether or not a stop-and-frisk law is constitutional in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. As noted in the article, the stop-and-firsk law allowed police to stop and question an individual if the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the individual was in the process of committing or was about to commit a crime. The individual could be searched if the officers thought they were in danger. Since the law was enacted in 2002, more than 4 MILLION PEOPLE have been detained. According to the NYCLU, 90% were African American or Latino. Seem suspicious? I agree with judge Scheindlin. This is a form of racial profiling and a violation of the Fourth Amendment's equal protection clause as well as search and seizure. "The right people, the right time, the right location." I would assume this never means "The white people, the white time, the white location." I agree with Dev from Keswick, for the most part. I wish that the judge would just stop the whole policy, but I am glad that the judge struck down the unwritten policy that focuses on minority men. Good for her. I do not believe that stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. However, I do see how the written policy is a compelling government interest, especially in NYC. Interesting movie to watch that reminds me of this is The Place Beyond the Pines.

12/4/2013
Keswick
Dev
Bailey/Monticello
No if I were a judge I would stop the whole policy. We have way more important issues then stopping people at random just because they look guilty. That’s not smart at all. The New York police department should grow up and start looking for real criminal activity, instead of a little bag of marijuana that they found on someone illegally.

10/2/2013
Gettysburg/Pennsylvania
Destiny
Mr.Zychal/Gettysburg MiddleSchool
The stop and frisk rule is outrageous. Stopping someone just for their race. The mayor of new york city does have a point but that point is also wrong in a way as well. But if you think about it, the ratings of Black people that have been stop and frisked just as well as the Hispanic are more done by police then stopping whites. Also when police officers detain you and sometimes they get the feeling that they are on to something but really they aren't. Most of the time they would go see a group of Black kids hanging out and might find something suspicious but they are being harmless and are asking questions to them for just a suspicion?! In my terms that is not right to do either.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Ma
Leo
Rimas/Watertown
A stop and frisk law is unconstitutional in every aspect. As the fourth amendment states that no one can be unreasonably searched. The "stop and frisk law" in New York city is a direct violation of this amendment. The fact that the New York Police department was also racially profiling people just makes this case that much more ridiculous. The ruling of this case is unjust, as the Judge stated that the practice of a "stop and frisk" is reasonable and that the practice will continue. Ultimately, she indirectly ruled the racial profiling stop and frisk to continue.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Massachusetts
Adam
Rimas/ Watertown High school
I do agree with the judge's ruling. If the person that has committed a crime, then they should be stopped and frisked. In my opinion, the police should not be able to stop anyone on the streets just because of what they look like. Most of the time, they might find something on someone, but it would violate the rights of the people who are innocent.

9/27/2013
Watertown MA
Dennis
Rimas/Watertown High School
A police officer shouldnt be allowed to frisk a person without probable cause. by technicality, this goes against the Fourth Amendment and is a form of racial profiling. with the judges ruling, it should help out to see as to if the Fourth Amendment is really violated or if the cops are being racial or people are simply ranting.

9/27/2013
Watertown/MA
Youki
Rimas/Watertown High School
I believe that the stop-and-frisk law is constitutional to a certain point. It definitely was made to decrease the crime rate, but nowadays the police abuse this power and stop whomever they want. According to the text, 90% of the stop-and-frisks detained African Americans and Latinos. This statistic proves that there is racial profiling involved within these stop-and-frisks. It violates the people's rights as citizens of the United States and that should never happen because what if it was you getting stopped and frisked? How would you feel being singled out by a cop because of your race? That's the point in which these stop-and-frisks become unconstitutional.

9/27/2013
Watertown MA.
Hussein
Rimas/Watertown High School
I believe that the Stop-and-Frisk Law is unconstitutional because it breaks the 4th and 14th Amendments. The Stop-and-Frisk Law might sound like a good idea but the police could always come up with a reason to why they find something wrong with you. It becomes very easy for them to abuse their power and by doing that the people lose their rights. I also believe this is wrong because 90% of the people questioned were African American or Latinos, telling us that most people were racially profile and not actually suspected of a crime.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Massachusetts
David
Rimas/Watertown High School
I don't think the police should be able to "stop and frisk" you for any reason. the way i see it is if you are doing something wrong or against the law at this time should the police be able to arrest you.i don't think the stop and frisk can be implemented without violating the Fourth Amendment.

9/27/2013
Watertown/Massachusetts
Sophia
Rimas/Watertown High School
I don't think a cop should be allowed to touch anyone unless they have probable cause. If they think another person is going to have bombs with them or going to kill someone I understand the need to check them. Unless you can visibly see something that is harmful you have no right.

9/27/2013
Watertown, MA
Julia
John Rimas/Watertown High
I think that stop and frisk laws are constitutional to an extent. The police have a right to protect the citizens of the United State and if they have a reason to believe that a person is a threat to society I am all for it.

9/27/2013
Watertown MA
Evan
Rimas/Watertown High School
No, there is no way that a stop and frisk law can be constitutional without the person who is stopped having done something wrong. The example from New York City was clearly just giving the right to police to racially profile people as 90% of people stopped were either African American or Latino. There is no way that this law could possibly be constitutional.

9/27/2013
Watertown MA
Gabriella
John Rimas
I think that the police should only if you are only in immediate danger or a threat to society. Which is what the Constitution says in the Fourth Amendment. No Search without probable cause. Although in today's world, people have become so sensitive and tend to think that cops stereotype certain groups of people. I don't care who they stop and frisk, if the police is keeping society safe.. people shouldn't care.

9/25/2013
Watertown, MA
Kevin
Rimas/watertown high
You cannot be stopped without being suspected of doing something illegal

9/25/2013
Watertown/Mass
Alistair
Rimas/ Watertown High School
This goes against the fourth amendment, it is a form of racial profiling. Only under extreme circumstances ergo some kind of threat to the nation should the police be allowed to stop and frisk you on the street.

9/25/2013
Watertown, MA
Kate
Rimas, Watertown Highschool
Obviously this is unconstitutional... read the constitution..................

9/19/2013
Irving/Texas
Cyndel Solano
Bradley/Nimitz
A Stop and Frisk can not be applied without violating the citizens fourth amendment. It protects the citizens from being searched without a probable cause. With The Stop-and Frisk Law we would only be going back to when we were subject to be searched without warrants and imprisoned for no reason just because the “officials” wanted it would be like back in our colonial time period.It would also increase the feeling of racial profilining and would only increase the prejudice and steriotyping in our society.

9/19/2013
Pocomoke City,Maryland
De'Aunjanae
Ms.McInterney/Pocomoke High School
I think the Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional. It viloates the 4th Amendment. The 4th amendment say no search without an ureasonble reason. This makes me mad that someone would violte the 4th amendment that our ancestor made for our independence in this country.

9/17/2013
Irving/Texas
Emily
Bradley/Nimitz
The stop and frisk law can not be preformed without violating the fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights. I have seen many videos of people who appear to be thugs doing good deeds for people in the community. There is more than meets the eye with some people. 90% of 4 million people stopped have been African American or Latino when most mass shooter in America have been Caucasian. The law will most likely lead to racial profiling of minorities in poor areas of the country. I disagree with the judge's decision the policy is discriminating and will violate our fourth amendment.

9/16/2013
Sidney, Mt.
Bobby
Brad Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I dont belive the stop and frisk law can be performed without violating the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment states that no person should be searched without probable cause, the stop and frisk law allows officers to search a person's property only if an officer has supspicion of a person performing a crime. The stop and frisk law basically states that an officer can search a person just off of suspicion which violates the fourth amendment.

9/16/2013
Rudyard / Montana
Sarah
Mrs. Campbell / North Star
I believe that the judge's ruling was sound. Stopping people based solely on race or gender is wrong, and searching people based on something they have no control over is a violation of their rights as a citizen. However, this law is also an effective way to fight crime and maintain a safe society, so I also believe that the judge's ideas for optimizing the system are great. Double checking how the officers deal with the people they stop will help new laws to be enforced to make sure the individuals rights aren't impeded. It is a free country as long as long as a persons activities doesn't hurt anyone else, and if we can stop those people from being hurt in the first place than life will be so much better for everyone.

9/13/2013
Sidney, Montana
Sam
Mr.Faulhaber
I believe if stop and frisk is left alone, America will have lost sight of the ideals of freedom. Stop and frisk is an Orwellian concept, and there is no excuse for it to continue as it is today. Stop and frisk is almost entirely racially motivated, as 90% of those searched where African-American or Latino. Even the veteran police chief of the police force was searched purely based on the fact that he was black.

9/13/2013
Sidney
Sheridan
Mr. Faulhaber
I think that a stop and frisk search directed towards African American and Latino people is unconstitutional. I believe that it does violate an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. But I do believe that it is the governments job to keep the people safe, and if an officer is legitimately suspicious about an individual, that a search and frisk search is reasonable.

9/2/2013
Irving, Texas
Jacob F.
Bradley/Nimitz
I do not believe that the "stop and frisk" law can be constitutional as it violates the fourth amendment. The forth amendment stating, "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." Going off of their intuition is not enough to be allowed to search through a person's personal belongings. Unfortunately, many have dubbed African Americans and Latinos as trouble makers, so this makes them a prime target for the unconstitutional law. Reiterating, I believe that the law cannot be constitutional due to its violation of the fourth amendment, but I don't believe much will be done to change it as the government continues to gain control.

8/31/2013
Irving/TX
Annabel
Bradley/Nimitz
A stop-and-frisk law can be constitutional if and only if regulations are set to where the search party follows certain guidelines that would identify the search and seizure as reasonable. Since the 4th amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizures, it is only ideal to formulate a set of universal signals that would help recognize suspicious behavior. For instance, if an individual acts in a way that falls in accordance to what is considered to be suspicious, police should be able to search that individual with undoubted reasoning. Not only would this resolve the question of whether the stop-and-frisk law is constitutional, but it would also interfere with the chances of racial profiling.

8/30/2013
Irving,TX
Joseph C.
Bradley/Nimitz
I think the the "stop and frisk" law is unconstitutional. I beleive this law breaks The Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ...." If this amendment were true people should not be unwrongly searched just because an officer thinks suspiciously of a citizen. We cannot have both The Fourth Amendment and the "stop and frisk" law without them contradicting one another.

8/30/2013
Irving/Texas
Viviana
Bradley/Nimitz
Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision to declare certain aspects of the stop-and-frisk-law unconstitutional is completely understandable. The point that these searches are made when individuals seem suspicious makes this law a bit comprehensible, but the fact that it's mostly African Americans and Latinos being searched is what makes it impenetrable. Since when are unreasonable searches and seizures acceptable though? Although this law was made to serve as a tool for law enforcement and to reduce crime, it not only violates the Fourth Amendment in the United States Constitution, but it also discriminates against African Americans and Latinos. There's no way this law should continue to be enforced.

8/30/2013
Irving/Texas
Roberto.S
Bradley/Nimitz H S
The stop-and-frisk law is considered unconstitutional, because it's believed that the officers in New York City are making unnecessary arrests. Due to this law many believe that racial profiling is a key issue, out of all the individuals in New York, 90 percent have been African American and Latino. I believe that the stop-and-frisk law is only targeting minorities, because officers have been only judging minorities and detained them only by how they look and by their race. I feel that the stop-and-frisk law should have been made with less loose strings because officers have been taking advantage of this law that have, been in effect since 2002. Also the cops or officers that take this law beyond the red line, should have to face consequences, because racial profiling is immoral and harsh to minorities. Even thought this law is providing protection to everyday citizens it shouldn't be used to discriminated.

8/30/2013
Irving/TX
Daniel S.
Bradley/Nimitz
When it comes to the Stop-and-Frisk law in New York, it cannot be put into effect when it is accompanied to the Constitution. Also to go a step further it can’t be established based on the Bill of Rights within. This up and coming law violates the Fourth Amendment based on the fact that, simply stating, an officer can pull over and search an individual just on the mere suspicion that they could be potentially dangerous. Statistics lead to a large showing(90%) of “minorities” being targeted(that’s African Americans and Latinos). The officials leading the charge are not pulling them over for reasonable concern, but unfortunately it has become a matter of race. Ultimately racial profiling is occurring and therefore their is no moral/ethical way of putting this law into effect, based solely on what the Constitution states. I agree in the manner of the overall concern, but strongly disagree on the issue, when taking into the fact that it breaks the code of what’s morally and mentally right!

8/30/2013
Irving/Texas
Roberto.S
Bradley/Nimitz H S
The stop-and-frisk law is considered unconstitutional, because it's believed that the officers in New York City are making unnecessary arrests. Due to this law many believe that racial profiling is a key issue, out of all the individuals in New York, 90 percent have been African American and Latino. I believe that the stop-and-frisk law is only targeting minorities, because officers have been only judging minorities and detained them only by how they look and by their race. I feel that the stop-and-frisk law should have been made with less loose strings because officers have been taking advantage of this law that have, been in effect since 2002. Also the cops or officers that take this law beyond the red line, should have to face consequences, because racial profiling is immoral and harsh to minorities. Even thought this law is providing protection to everyday citizens it shouldn't be used to discriminated.

8/30/2013
Irving/Tx
Pedro
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think that a "stop and frisk" law could ever be constitutional. I agree with the judge's ruling that parts of the 'stop and frisk" law were unconstitutional. I don't think that stop and frisk could be implemented without violating an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. The fact that 90 percent of the people that the officers detained were African American or Latino makes this stop and frisk seem like it's just another form of racial discrimination or profiling. Just because one look suspicious doesn't mean that he is. What exactly gives the police the right to search someone without a warrant? I don't see how this can be implemented without violating the rights of the Fourth Amendment.

8/30/2013
Irving/Texas
Leanna
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the "stop and frisk" law is only constitutional to a certain extent. If a police officer is searching the suspect solely on their race, then it is violating the fourteenth amendment on equal rights. I do agree with the judge's ruling. Since the "stop and frisk" law did bring down crime, I agree that it shouldn't go away, but there should be more equal rights practiced in it. I think that "stop and frisk" can be implemented without violating the fourth amendment. The "stop and frisk" law is beneficial for the protection of all the people.

8/30/2013
Irving/Texas
Teven
Bradley/Nimitz
A stop-and-frisk law cannot be constitutional as it violates the 4th amendment of the Constitution. I cannot support District Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision to qualify the law. The judge should have struck down the entire law; random and suspicion searches of a person's body falls under the category of unreasonable. While stop-and-frisk laws exist, they will always target "the right people, the right time, the right location" and as such, will encourage racial profiling.

8/30/2013
Irving/Texas
Christian S
Bradley/Nimitz
In my opinion i don't agree with the judge because the “stop and frisk law”. because it is not reasonable it is just like the illegal immigrant laws that where trying to get passed in new mexico. The laws where pretty much that if you looked illegal then you could get or stopped for looking illegal. Same as "stop and frisk" how can somebody say someone looks suspicious for being African american or being Hispanic. Its not right.

8/30/2013
Irving, TX
Marissa B.
Nimitz HS
The stop and frisk law that has been practiced in New York should not be a law. The law contradicts what was written in the Constitution. The 4th amendment in the Constitution is supposed to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, and require search warrants with a probable cause. Having this law would be conflicting with the foundation that was set for the United States.

8/30/2013
Irving,Texas
Daniel I.
Bradley/NimitzHS
I disagree with the judge, the NYPD should not be allowed to stop and frisk someone merely on suspicion. Especially if their suspicion of the person going to commit a crime is based on racial profiling, policy implied or not it’s wrong. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," the Fourth Amendment states that Americans are protected from unreasonable searches. This practice is clearly unconstitutional. The Stop and Frisk law is not unconstitutional because of the racial profiling,it is unconstitutional because of the Search itself and can not be implemented without being so.

8/30/2013
Irving/Texas
Kristiyan
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the stop-and-frisk law should not affect people's attitude and view towards their particular city because if you are an innocent individual, it should not be a big deal. So what, a police officer is going to search you, they cannot harm you by doing so! I strongly disagree with the judge's ruling because the facts and numbers have to be looked at before putting an end to stop-and-frisk. It is obvious that it has worked in the past, so why not keep practicing this method, and keep catching criminals? I also think the stop-and-frisk method can be implemented without violating an individual's rights by maybe carrying a metal detector instead of using hands and actually making contact with individuals. Training on how to stop-and-frisk without violations can also help this method of protection go on without issues with judges and courts and so on. In conclusion, I personally think stop-and-frisk should continue. This provides extra protection for citizens of bigger cities.

8/30/2013
Irving/tx
Elizabeth Cisneros
Bradley/Nimitz
As we all know, The stop-and-frisk law has allowed all police men to stop and question any individual they feel are dangerous. With that being said, this law gives all officers the right to search" potential criminals". Although I believe that The stop-and-frisk law should remain its importance in New York, there are definitely some adjustments that need to be made. Due to the percentage of Latino and African American detained individuals, there is no doubt that there is tons of racial profiling going on. How can improve The Stop-and-frisk law without violating an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights? I say we start by achieving an appropriate balance between knowing the right's of the citizens and the duty of an officer.

8/30/2013
Irving/Tx
Monica M.
Bradley/Nimitz High School
I believe the "stop and frisk" law should be constitutional at a certain extent. If police officers suspect someone to be suspicious they should have the right to stop and question the person but have a very good reason for their suspicion to why they'd be questioning someone. At the same time the police officers shouldn't take race into consideration. Doesn't matter if the person is either African American, Latino, American or any other race; they shouldn't disrespect or out of line by violating the fourth amendment. Yes i do agree with the judge's ruling. And yes the Stop and frisk can be implemented without violating an individual's Fourth Amendment rights.

8/30/2013
Irving/TX
Hailey
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the stop-and-frisk law could be constitutional if the officer has a good reason to suspect something bad is about to happen. If someone is spotted acting suspicious or suspected to be putting someone in danger I think the stop-and-frisk law should be practiced. I agree with the judge, I think that if the stop-and-frisk law is practiced incorrectly then it could be considered unconstitutional. The fourth amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their persons against “unreasonable searches”, therefore if the officers search is reasonable it is still constitutional. I also understand how racial profiling could become a problem if the officers are stopping people just because of their skin color rather than for the safety of the citizens around. In conclusion, if practiced correctly I think the the stop-and-frisk law could be constitutional.

8/30/2013
Irving/TX
Sergio G.
Bradley/Nimitz
The law stop-and frisk is believe to be constitutional in what way is what I wonder? What it seems to me is that all this law in reality really does is give a good reason to stereotype many of the people who would just like to be unique. I believe this law is well beyond unconstitutional debating that in real life scenarios the only citizens that can really be checked are the ones that in some just want to be different, living all the regular looking citizens/criminal alone to commit crime. I believe that their is no real way to prevent this law from being unconstitutional because no matter what the officers of the law will always just be biased on the citizens appearance, acts, and many other things which will prevent it from violating the Fourth Amendment.

8/30/2013
Irving/Tx
Pedro
Bradley/Nimitz
I don't think that a "stop and frisk" law could ever be constitutional. I agree with the judge's ruling that parts of the 'stop and frisk" law were unconstitutional. I don't think that stop and frisk could be implemented without violating an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. The fact that 90 percent of the people that the officers detained were African American or Latino makes this stop and frisk seem like it's just another form of racial discrimination or profiling. Just because one look suspicious doesn't mean that he is. What exactly gives the police the right to search someone without a warrant? I don't see how this can be implemented without violating the rights of the Fourth Amendment.

8/30/2013
Irving, TX
Jesus Gonzalez
Bradley/Nimitz HS
I agree that if there is a high crime area the people in that area are either criminals or potential victims of crime so police should be able to use the law.The cops who practice this law happen to do it in the high crime rate locations, those happen to also be the areas where their is minorities.I don't think its unreasonable because if there is an area of a city that people are murdered and robbed daily the police have an obligation to protect the innocent.

8/29/2013
Irving/Texas
Rudy
Bradley/Nimitz HS
An irrational, paranoid,Michael Bloomberg would have you put faith that random searches conducted by New York City Police Officers would be conducted correctly and fairly, based solely on the their intuition. He would claim that this conclusion was merely logical and not affected by his obvious fear of other cultures and strangers that don’t mimic him, but I digress. We can all gather that this policy is currently unconstitutional. The fourth amendment clearly states that people have the right against unreasonable searches, which happens to include their person. What I find so interesting is the statistic given covering the ethnicity of the victims. Ninety percent of frisked people were Latino or African American. Now the calculations may be a bit off, but the US Census Bureau determined that seventy one percent of New Yorkers were caucasian or “White” while Latinos and African Americans added up to roughly thirty five percent, in two thousand twelve. Would you look at that. My version of logic is telling me ninety percent is too high for minorities to be getting stopped by police officers based on suspicion. Of course my conclusion is based merely on facts stated by our federal government, while Michael Bloomberg’s conclusion is based on low crime reports the city received in two thousand twelve due to a ten year old program. As for the judge’s decision to maintain the practice in a new format, I remain skeptical. The placing of cameras in the uniform has too many variables to be successful. I also find it difficult to accept an unconstitutional program as an ongoing part of a major city. If I could look past that, I would suggest to the judge to investigate into the use of more abstract technology, even verging towards the line of science fiction. If our current methods aren't working we shouldn't repeat them.

8/29/2013
irving/ texas
adrian
bradley/ nimitz
Being a person of Latino descent , I fervently support the judges ruling. Because even after all the significant advances made in the eternal struggle for equality, people in the 21st find new ways to alienate and affirm their prejudice toward people of color. It may not be consciously but it manifests itself none the less. The stop and frisk law was not initially meant to be a tool to show the ugly head of racism and stomp on the 4th amendment , but the statement " 90 percent of those individuals were African American or Latino" should not be taken lightly nor ignored. It is a blessing that this problem has been addressed and not simply overlooked. The judge acknowledged the problem and is promoting measures to end it (if only temporarily ). I agree that cameras would be a gigantic leap forward in the struggle to rectify this growing issue,because in the end, some effort is better than none at all. I am hoping that with time, patience, and most importantly open mindedness , this problem will be solved by those willing to see past the color of ones skin.

8/29/2013
Irving,Texas
Mario
Bradley/Nimitz
I honestly think that the stop and frisk is unconstitutional.Seeing that 90 percent of the individuals are Hispanic/African American, it seems as if police officers are being stereotypical in the making of decisions on whether or not a person seems suspicious.Although the police department has a written document stating that prohibits racial profiling, it is clear that the police are focusing most of their attention on a certain,specific racial group.What this reminds me of is the Black Codes of 1885.Sure, blacks were told they weren't slaves but they were treated like them.In the same way, African Americans and Hispanics are told they aren't under racial profiling yet most of them are looked at as potential criminals.

8/29/2013
Irving/Texas
Jose A.
Bradley/Nimitz
The Stop-and-Frisk law that has been implemented in New York can’t be constitutional at all because it violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution which states that search and seizures can’t be carried out without a proper search warrant. The fact that four million people have been detained since the law was made in 2002 is in itself unconstitutional. In addition to the Fourth Amendment being violated, the Stop-and-Frisk law is also discriminating against Latino and African American people. The report proves this when it states “90 percent of those individuals were African American or Latino”. I agree with the judge’s ruling, however I don’t think it is possible to carry out the Stop-and-Frisk laws without violating the Fourth Amendment.

8/29/2013
Irving/TX
Yamilleth
Bradley/Nimitz
I disagree. The stop-and-frisk law is just a loophole from the Constitution's 4th Amendment for the Police Department to violate someone's personal rights. Officers question people they have mere suspicion of without any actual evidence, which in many cases target low-income areas that have predominantly POC. You never hear of the cops stopping-and-frisking someone in the suburbs. No matter how many laws you input to make sure that an individual's right's are not violated, it still does not change the human toll of unconstitutional stops. The Stop-and-Frisk has caused more problems and controversy among certain areas in New York. Ninety percent of the accused were innocent of any crime. Trying to reform a law that still has the possibility of violating an individual's right's is pointless.

8/29/2013
Irving/Tx
Alonzo
Bradley/Nimitz
The “Stop and Frisk” law doesn’t seem like a fair law in my opinion. The police shouldn’t just be able to stop someone and search them for no reason. I Believe that all Americans any race are allowed out in public not worried about being frisked just because they “look” suspicious. This law clearly violates the fourth amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches. The police shouldn’t just be able to stop someone and search them just because. I believe that the Latinos and African Americans are going to be targeted the most since according to stereotypes are the ones that commit the most crime. Yes people carry weapons and other substances around that they shouldn’t be carrying but maybe there is a reason they are carrying those weapons, maybe they make a living out of what they do. As long as there is no evidence showing they deal drugs, or have a concealed weapon Americans should be able to walk the streets without having to hide from the people that protect us.

8/29/2013
Irving/TX
Brandon D
Bradley/Nimitz
The stop-and-frisk law clearly violates the fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. In addition, we are able to see that this law has been the source of blunt racial profiling as "90% of individuals were African American or Latino." Although this law could help lower crime if implemented in a better way, I believe there is no way it could be done without violating an individual's fourth amendment rights.

8/29/2013
Irving/TX
Reyanna
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the stop-and-frisk law in New York is unconstitutional and unfair to the people. The fourth amendment prohibits any unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant, but stop-and-frisk allows any officer who is suspicious of a person to search them without probable cause. 90% of the suspicious people that are being searched are African American or Latino, which brings up the issue of racial profiling.An officer should have no right to stop and search someone just because they look suspicious or because they are a certain race. White people commit crimes too. If stop-and-frisk did not violate the fourth amendment and police did not base their suspicions on race, then I believe that it could be very useful and prevent many crimes from happening.

8/29/2013
Irving, TX
David W.
Bradley/Nimitz HS
The stop-and-frisk law that has been allowed in New York can't be put into effect when coincided with the Constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights. The basis that a mere suspicion gives an officer the right to stop and search an indivual(s) without their consent doesn't agree with the Fourth Amendment. The reports of "90 percent of individuals stopped were African American or Lation" further brings out the wrongdoing being committed in the carrying out of the law. The ones in power are discriminating who they stop by their skin appearance, "racial profiling", rather than a "reasonable suspicion". I agree with the intentions that the judge has, however, I do not believe the practice of stop-and-frisk could be implemented in a completely moral and professional fashion while also agreeing with the constitution. therefore, the stop-and-frisk law can't be put into effect constitutionally.

8/29/2013
Benson
Dante
Sorenson
The stop and frisk law does seem like a violation of rights, especially the unwritten code that orders them to stop the right people. Who's to tell an officer who looks suspicious. The stereotype is that Latino and African American men commit crimes, and in urban areas, what makes a person "suspicious"? It's up to the discretion of the officer, and that isn't right.

8/29/2013
Benson AZ
Justin
Benson
i belive that the frisking policy shoud be lightened becuase it is targeted mostly towards minority races other than white people. the policy could be being used by the officers to make it harder for people to lead normal lives. Its a violation of privacy and peoples right to not be stoped or searched without a valid cause. They also no longer have the right to refuse an unvailidated search because the subjectiveness of the stop and frisk policy. It encourages suspicion-based policys to violate laws that were set down in every americans citizens right. it supports racims and the persection of innocents, mainly minorities.

8/29/2013
Benson, AZ
Chandler and Kaytrina
Benson High School
The "Stop and Frisk" law is monstrous. Why should people have the right to check your body without your permission. You can't just look at someone and feel like the police should arrest them. I have my own right and you have no right to take them away from me. We have the right to express our body in our own way and can't have people just check us for no apparent reason.

8/29/2013
Benson/Arizona
Alyx
Sorenson/Benson
The "Stop & Frisk" law seems to be unintentional causing racial profile. With 90% of the of the detainees being African American or Latino there is a problem with the law because officers may be using it for racial profiling. Even with this happening the "Stop & Frisk" law may be helping protecting the people.

8/29/2013
Benson/Arizona
Brianna
Sorenson/Benson
The constitution has been used as the foundation of this country's rights and liberties since its founding. The reluctance in challenging liberties provided by the constitution. In this case the fourth amendment right of no illegal searches is being challenged as the stop-and-frisk law calls/gives police officers the ability to stop anyone randomly and frisk/search them. What happens the the "no illegal searches"? However, if the officer has a "gut feeling" and he or she is able to stop a crime from occurring, good for them, if not and nothing is wrong or found on the person of interest, sorry for the waste of an hour in your day. If what the police officers are doing crosses any personal boundaries or isn't done in the correct manner the officers should be held accountable for their actions. Ultimately I believe if a police officer sees any reason whatsoever to stop and frisk a citizen, the citizen should openly comply with the officer for the fact the officer is just doing the job he or she was assigned to do. I understand personal confidentiality, but if you have nothing to hide why cause a scene and resist.

8/29/2013
Benson/Arizona
Kendra
Sorenson/Benson
The "Stop and Frisk" law seem to be mainly targeting Latino and African America men, at 90% i think it has drawn notice and has created a problem within this law. even though it seems to only target African or Latino men i think it is beneficial to the people, seeming as if there is an immoderate threat to the united states

8/29/2013
Benson/Arizona
Ashley
Sorenson/Benson
The stop and frisk law seems to produce results, whether or not the current unwritten statutes are immoral, there does seem to be a legitimate amount of statistics that prove that the lower crime rate is due to the new policies. But the judge has a point, that by targeting minority men they are engaging in racial profiling, which is both unconstitutional and violates their state given rights.

8/29/2013
Irving/TX
Matt M.
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the stop and frisk law can be a beneficial law to our society, but has some flaws that need to be sought out before it can be completely effective. Any law that can prevent future crimes from being committed sounds like a great law to me. But the thing that bothers me is the way it seems to be being used in New York. Our criminal law says that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Not "Maybe guilty" because one cop is getting a little suspicious. That just seems unconstitutional to me. What need to happen is a system in which, if a cop has an issue with someone, they can pull them over and search them, but they are required to write an in-depth report on what they believe the person was up to and if the person was indeed, in the wrong. And if the cop continues to pull over people with just a "feeling" and no proof, and continues to be wrongly convicting, the cop starts to get penalized. I also agree with the Judges ruling on the issue because it seems she is trying to make the law better and more improved. The only issue with cameras is the money it is going to take to obtain them. And who is going to pay for them? Taxpayers. Taxpayers who are African American or Hispanic, which makes up a hearty percentage, will be reluctant to pay for devices that are being used to target them out as a racial group by cops. All it is going to take to spark an outbreak is one cop believing his authority is greater than the law and taking is "feeling" too far. I believe the fourth amendment should be left alone and if a cop has a feeling about someone, they should go by regular procedure until we can correct the flaws in the stop-and-frisk policy.

8/29/2013
Irving/Texas
Sarah M.
Bradley/Nimitz
To me, it is clear as day that the stop-and-frisk laws violate the fourth amendment. It's one thing for officers to search a building or house with a warrant if the premises is believed to contain something or someone against the law. But, when walking down a street, no one should have to worry about being stopped for no other reason than how they look. Officers have been given the 'OK' to stop and search anyone who looks incriminating, and it seems like this action has not been stopping much crime at all. I agree with the judges ruling of this law being unconstitutional because it seems like all it's doing is contributing to racial profiling. It has been shown that a ridiculously low number of criminals have actually been caught using the stop-and-frisk method, and 90 percent of all people who are stopped were African American or Latino. It's nice that New York is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of crime, but they are going about it in the wrong way. The NYPD should focus on finding a way to reduce crime while still following the guidelines of the constitution. If we allow a violation of the constitution to slide, order cannot be properly maintained.

8/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Monica M. M.
Bradley/Nimitz
A stop and frisk law can not be related to justice or it being constitutional. The fourth amendment clearly states that the people should be safe from any unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is a probable cause to issue a warrant. A cop should not be able to stop an individual if there is no clear evidence of suspicion. A gun in a hand is an example and a probable cause for a warrant if necessary to make an arrest. An officer must know the true meaning of the amendment and the stop and frisk law before stepping out to their duty. Also stopping an innocent individual for seeming out of line would automatically make that person uncomfortable and start to question their rights. The stop and frisk law can not be trusted or depended on if the people are not being respected of their rights. It seems manipulative and for a case to be made in such a manipulating way does not assure the people's safety.

8/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Chadwick
Bradley/Nimitz
The constitution has been used as the foundation of this country's rights and liberties since its founding; thus the reluctance in challenging liberties provided by the constitution. In this case the fourth amendment right of no illegal searches or seizures is being challenged as the stop-and-frisk law calls/gives police officers the ability to stop anyone randomly and frisk/search them. What happens the the "no illegal searches or seizures"? Concurring with Judge Scheindlin's ruling calling the officers to wear body cameras to ensure the rights of the people are being protected, I agree that the officer should have a legitimate reason for stopping anyone; however, if the officer has a "gut feeling" and he or she is able to stop a crime from occurring, good for them, if not and nothing is wrong or found on the person of interest, sorry for the waste of an hour in your day. If what the police officers are doing crosses any personal boundaries or isn't done in the correct manner the officers should be held accountable for their actions. Ultimately I believe if a police officer sees any reason whatsoever to stop and frisk a citizen, the citizen should openly comply with the officer for the fact the officer is just doing the job he or she was assigned to do. I understand personal confidentiality, but if you have nothing to hide why cause a scene and resist.

8/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Seth
Bradley/Nimitz
Can a stop and frisk law be constitutional? Yes it can but without violating the fourth amendment. You shouldn't stop and frisk someone because of their race or because the right place the right time and the right people. Only if they are suspicious should you then stop and frisk the individual but even then you still don’t have to the right to violate their rights. Policeman are the ones who enforce the law they shouldn’t break the law otherwise our law enforcers are corrupted. With corrupt law enforcers who do we turn to for help when we are being stripped of our born citizen rights. I believe the judges ruling was right. Yes stop and frisk can be implemented without violating an individual’s fourth amendment rights. Plus by adding the camera's officers know that they are being watched and recorded as proof.

8/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Aaron G.
Bradley/Nimitz
The judge's ruling, in my opinion, is probably the best solution possible in regards to the stop-and-frisk policy. The procedure itself is in no doubt a well-meaning law destined to heighten public safety, but within its grounds, the law is also at risk of being taken advantage of. The personal liberties of an individual should not be violated without a reasonable cause, and so the idea of implementing a video-based monitoring system on all capable officers seems to be a fair and reasonable doing. Public safety is a must in maintaining a well-balanced area, but when its laws prevent the people from exercising their personal freedoms, the word "Safety" loses its comfort.

8/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Lyndsey
Bradley/Nimitz
I do not agree with the judge. I don’t think stop and frisk should be practiced at all. Being able to go up to a random person and having the right to search them is kind of scary to me. No one would feel comfortable having a stranger come up to them and start searching their things. Just because somebody looks like they’re getting into trouble, doesn’t mean that they are. For example I personally have been told that I look rude while walking in the hallways at school, but as soon as someone gets to know me they realize that I’m a nice person. Also, I think it provides the opportunity of raising racism in authorities when they have the right to search anyone. In the article it even states that 90% of the people being searched are African American and Latino. I think if they make stop and frisk legal then that number will only get higher. Stop and frisking someone will always be unconstitutional because it is violating the 4th amendment. It is not legal for an authority to search somebody without a warrant and I think it should stay that way.

8/28/2013
Irving/Tx
Miriam
Bradly/Nimitz
I agree with the judge that “stop and frisks” are unconstitutional. I agree because officers need no concrete evidence proving an individual is committing a crime, in the process of committing a crime or endangering an officer's life. “Stop and frisk” violates the fourth amendment, and it also cause fear among the community. There is a strong focus on minorities. They seem to be the ones are having their rights violated. If this law was followed as the policy stated things would be more beneficial. The idea overall all is good, but the enforcement is the one that is lacking. This law have to outline what someone who has just committed a crime looks like because everyone has their own opinion. Perhaps after these guidelines are established the “Stop and Frisk” law will be more successful.

8/28/2013
Irving/Texas
Scotty C.
Bradley/Nimitz
I agree with the judges ruling because I feel like she is trying to make sure that there is no racial profiling going on, and that fourth amendment rights are not being violated. I believe in personal liberties and protecting our constitutional rights, but at the same time I don't think that we should be politically correct when it comes to possibly saving lives. If someone looks suspicious, whether they're white, black, brown, or green, I want law enforcement officials checking them to ensure that everyone is safe. The last thing anyone should want is a police officer not checking a man or women because they feel like it might look like they're racial profiling, and then someone loses their life to that individual who was not stop-and-frisked.

8/27/2013
Irving/Tx
Reed
Bradley/Nimitz
I think that any procedure that keeps innocent people out of danger is a good procedure. However, I do think that the city of New York needs to be careful with the "stop-and-frisk" policy, because if it is not gone about correctly it can be unconstitutional. I agree with the New York judge's decision to make the officers wear body cameras to ensure no unnecessary profiling occurs. I also think that the police officer should have to document who, when, and where he or she stops and frisks someone. That officer should also be required to give the person they frisked his name and badge number as well as a way to see the documentation of the frisking. I do believe that this procedure can be implemented without violating our 4th amendment rights, because if there is probable cause that someone is going to harm another person or break the law, the authorities should have the right to do their job and prevent unlawful things from occurring. However, I do think that necessary steps must be taken to ensure that the authorities don't go overboard with this power and don't make New York citizens feel like their rights are being threatened.

8/27/2013
Irving/Tx
Hannah W.
Bradley/Nimitz
When the topic of search and seizure comes up you might typically think of when police come to your front door and announce the words “We have a warrant to search the premises.” But something that is not really on your mind is an officer coming up to you in the street and asking you is they could question you. Now bear in mind they wouldn’t randomly come up to you. Hopefully if they are good trained policemen they will probably think that you are presenting yourself in not the best light. This issue of police not presenting a proper warrant to search you has come up and is a growing issue in the sight of some people. I think that if you think that someone is up to no good, then in the looking out for the citizens you should make it known that you want to keep everyone safe and that if they would calmly come down to the local police station and submit to questioning. If they refuse to come into questioning then you may read out to them their miranda rights and take them in.

8/27/2013
Irving/Tx
Brian J.
Bradley/Nimitz
The basis on which the "stop and frisk" law, I believe, is sound. With the multiple complaints these officers seem to be receiving, they must be carrying out the "frisking" in an unprofessional manner. I agree with the judge when she says she wants the practice to continue but be carried out in a way that still protects the rights of the individuals being searched. I believe some simple changes to the law including asking the person in suspicion if they are okay with being searched before being taken over by an officer.

8/27/2013
Irving/TX
Edward H.
Bradley/Nimitz
I am going to have to agree and disagree with the “Stop & Frisk” Law. I agree with this law because it has lowered crime in New York, even though it goes against the 4th amendment, is worth more than the publics safety? But, I disagree not with so much this law, but the reason why this certain person is being stop. Lately, this law is being used towards certain races or by the way someone is appeared to be, not because the police feel threatened by the individual. So in all, I agree with the law, i just feel it needs to be gradually introduced to the public so it won’t cause an uproar.

8/27/2013
Irving, TX
Imbri
Bradley/Nimtz HS
A stop and frisk search can never be constitutional in accordance with the United States bill of rights. Stop and search runs on a "reasonable suspicion" basis, while the fourth amendment states that probable cause is needed for any part of the government to search anyone. The decrease in crime rate is irrelevant, for the stop and frisk law is indicative of a police state's laws. Using that logic, if we set up random search checkpoints at every intersection and abolished the need for search warrants, crime would also decrease. Furthermore, it is being used as a discriminating law and I do not trust people who have the power and position to hate with out consequence to not use it. So no, the stop and frisk law could never be implemented constitutionally.

8/27/2013
Irving/Tx
Jordan B.
Bradley/Nimitz
With the constitution being the foundation of America, it always seems like it’s a hot topic. For example the most recent, the second amendment: the right to bear arms. Now the new hot topic, the fourth amendment with no illegal searches and seizures. If airports do it why can’t we do it in everyday life right? Now I understand when a police has a warrant to search someone or someone’s house, but if they just get suspicious, is that a good reason to pull that person aside and search and violate their personal space? With the judges ruling I feel like it was thought out very thoroughly. He decided to put limits on the law. Only to ensure that the amendment is not violated in anyway. Which if you think about it makes sense. You can’t make or change a law and not think that people are not going to find some loophole to get around the law and break it. With saying that is it still right to give police this right to search someone off of a gut feeling. After all we were always told to go with our gut when choosing or doing somthing, so why should this be any different? I feel like this is a very different situation. No matter how much you change or put restrictions on this law its always going to be violated. This to me is just a way for police officers to have more intimidation over you, and as much as we would to not think, police officers are people too. So to wrap up my opinion, yes, this law and ability that these officers have does violate the 4th amendment. With not having to have a warrant to search someone it’s plain to see that it does.

Related News
Related Resources
Share