Class Action Law Suits Against Stop and Frisk

        Throughout the history of the Stop and Frisk program, it has always been held up to a challenge by the law. There has been several class action law suits, and even a case brought before the Supreme Court. It has not just been a case of the people of New York, but something that stretches across the entire Nation. The Terry V. Ohio case was a pioneer and a big example of such cases. In 1968,when an off duty police officer in Ohio noticed three men on a street corner repeatedly walking up and down the same street, they would periodically stop and peer into a store window and then talk. The officer believed the men were casing the store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the men, questioned them and decided to frisk them, which produced a concealed weapon that the men were later convicted for. The United States Supreme Court made a decision that the fourth amendment is not violated when a police officer stops and frisks a suspect, without probable cause to arrest, and there is reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed and dangerous and can commit a crime. Even though the Supreme Court's decision deemed Stop and Question to be constitutional, it emphasized also on the frisk which clearly violates the privacy of thousands of innocent citizens.
       According to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, " Stopping and frisking are two different things: An officer / agent cannot automatically frisk everyone lawfully 'stopped' under Terry. In addition to reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, the officer/ agent must also be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. 'Officer safety' alone will not justify a frisk".This shows that officers can not just stop and frisk people on the street whenever they(the officers) feel like. They can question the person, but frisk only when the officer has a strong suspicion of possible crime cause.
        Also , a big class action law suit in New York was the Floyd et. al. V. City of New York, et. al., in which Federal Judge Scheindlin said, " I also conclude that the city's  highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting frisks in a racially discriminatory manner' she wrote, citing statements that Mr. Bloomberg and the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, have made in defending the policy", Goldstein writes for the New York Times. Statistics and records clearly showed the racial malpractices of the program which influenced the judge's decision of ordering the City for a reform.
        Lastly, the people and civil societies all stood up to challenge the racial discrimination in the Stop and Frisk program, and called for reforms. The bad execution of the program which violated the privacies of thousands of innocent New Yorkers was realized and spoken against by then social activist, Bill De Blasio before he even became a mayor, hence all the great reforms and a significant stop and frisk drop rate under his administration.

Works Cited.

Argiriou, Steven L., Terry Frisk Update. "The Law Field Examples and Analysis". www.fletc.gov, N.D. Web. 21 October 2017.

Goldstein, Joseph, "Judge Rejects New York's Stop and Frisk Policy". www.nytimes.com. 12 August 2013. Web. 21 October 2017.