The Case against Stop-and-Frisk

September 30, 2016
Open Society Foundations

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) won its legal challenge to the New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy more than three years ago. But suddenly the phones in our offices are ringing off the hook again. Reporters from the New York Times to Mic.com to All In with Chris Hayes are asking us to explain why stop-and-frisk as a national policy solution would be a terrible idea.

The answer: It would be a terrible idea for the same reasons it was a terrible idea all along, reasons that led CCR to sue the NYPD to end it. Stop-and-frisk, a police practice of temporarily detaining or searching a person, violates the U.S. Constitution if police stop people based on their race or without a “reasonable suspicion” that they’ve committed a crime. ...

Read the full piece here.

[As a 501c3 organization, CCR does not endorse or oppose any candidates. We provide factual information on issues where we have litigation experience and legal expertise.]

Last modified 

October 5, 2016