The Fix There’s a lot of chatter about ‘stop and frisk.’ Here are the facts.

October 5, 2016
Washington Post

In the last two weeks, some Americans have heard more about a controversial New York City Police Department tactic — “stop and frisk” — than possibly ever before.

A whole host of conservative ideologues, elected officials and others have stepped forward to defend the Trump-Pence campaign's claims that that tactic is an essential crime prevention tool uniquely capable of fending off anarchy and saving lives in crime-ridden communities. That's what the Trump-Pence campaign continues to say even when confronted with the fact that a federal court ruled in 2013 that the way New York City police officers used the tactic was unconstitutional and could not continue.

So, The Fix thought it wise to check in with Darius Charney, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). For the last 11 years, Charney has practiced federal civil rights and constitutional law, with a focus on challenging illegal policies, the actions of government officials and agencies that disproportionately harm marginalized groups. When Charney joined CCR in January 2008, the organization was compiling a stop-and-frisk legal challenge. A few weeks later, Charney personally filed the case, Floyd v. City of New York. Later, he was part of a team of attorneys that successfully challenged the way the tactic was used in federal court.

What follows is a Q&A conducted via email, edited only for clarity and length. ...

Read the full interview 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