Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Stop-and-frisk was an issue in the 2013 mayoral election. The race to succeed Bloomberg was won by Democratic Party candidate Bill de Blasio, who had pledged to reform the stop-and-frisk program, called for new leadership at the NYPD, an inspector general, and a strong racial profiling bill. [42]
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) — stop and frisk for weapons OK for officer safety; Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) — companion case to Terry. Peters v. New York (1968) — companion case to Terry contained in Sibron
The Terry stop operates under the assumption that although stop-and-frisk is an intrusion, the potential harm from weapons outweighs it. [16] The cases following Terry expanded the power of the police. While the original case was concerned with armed violence and firsthand observation by officers, Adams v.
With stop and frisk, ... Black people were stopped in 55% of such cases, Latinos in 32% and whites in 10%. In addition, the murder rate fell to record lows after stop and frisk was banned, ...
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.
A Terry stop is the legal justification for police tactics like "stop and frisk", the application of which has been controversial to some. [9] Sharpe specifically focused on the length of Terry stops, whereas much of the controversy focuses on other parts of the Terry framework, like use of force and legality of certain "frisk" tactics. [8]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Pretextual stop; Consent search; Search warrant; Case law; Terry v. Ohio; Whren v. United States; Controversial aspects; Racial profiling; Stop-and-frisk in New York City