In the state of New York, authorities adhere to a stop and frisk policy. This is a policy which allows them to stop suspicious-looking individuals on the street and question them or check them for drug possession upon approach. The New York Police Department has been working with the stop and frisk policy in place for years, but now many are rising up and declaring that it is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Some politicians in New York believe that the stop and frisk policy has become a life-saving, crime-fighting tool and is effective in keeping crime rates low in the busy city of Manhattan. Others, including a federal judge, believe that the policy targets males in racial minorities and is not a fair way to conduct justice.

The federal judge assigned to the case accused the police department's senior officials of violating the law because of their deliberate indifference to stop and frisk searches and the unconstitutional nature of these searches. The judge wrote that the stop and frisk searches deliberately violated the 4^th Amendment of the United States Constitution which protects individuals from unlawful search and seizure.

The judge on this case also wrote that the NYPD has been making many stops that lack any individualized reasonable suspicion. Instead, the judge argues that police officers simply walk up to people that fit a certain profile and perform a stop and frisk. In some New York City neighborhoods, stop and frisk is the norm. Four men recently sued the police department in New York after they argue that they wre unfairly targeted for a stop in frisk. Studies say that there have been about five million stops in the past decade, mostly black and Hispanic men. The judge ruled in favor of these plaintiffs.

Fox News calls the case one of the largest and broadest legal actions against the police at the nation's biggest police department. Some say that it will have an effect on how the other police departments make street stops. In other states and cities, aspects of the stop and frisk policy may have been implemented, and this ruling may work as an advantage for defendants who believe that their fourth amendment rights were violated when they were approached and questioned or searched by a police officer.

The case may affect the way that police forces do street stops, and what prosecutorial actions are permissible based on a street stop. The New York Times writes that the use of the stop and frisk policy is often cited as a way to save the lives of thousands of young black and Hispanic men by removing guns from the streets. Yet others believe that most of those stopped as a result of the policy would have avoided being stopped if they were white.

The judge who denounced the policy wrote her conclusion in a 195 page work document and even wrote that she believes that the city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the issues at hand. She ordered a joint remedial process to help solicit the public's comments on the policy and see if the general public in New York agrees that the stop and frisk policy is not constitutional.

This new ruling could heavily affect street stop cases all throughout the nation, so contact a lawyer today if you want more information about how the stop and frisk policy might influence the outcome of your case! With a local criminal defense attorney there to help you, you may be able to work towards a favorable outcome.