POL303: The American Constitution

Respond to Peers: Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts by Day 7. In your responses to your peers of at least 200 words, extend the conversation by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or by responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can. For instance, analyze your classmate’s discussion of the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable search.  Is their discussion valid, well supported, and logical? Also, support your analysis with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.

Our text states that over time, the Supreme Court has authorized numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement, specifying situations in which a warrant is not needed. These exceptions are based on what the Court has called exigent circumstances, or situations in which obtaining a warrant might compromise the safety of police officers, result in the loss of evidence, or interfere with the pursuit and potential arrest of criminal suspects. (Ivers, 2013). Chicago police department supports “stop and frisk”. Jazeera America, LLC (2015) states that The Chicago Police Department will allow independent evaluations of its stop-and-frisk procedures that critics say target blacks under an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU report identified more than 250,000 Chicago stop-and-frisk encounters in which there were no arrests from May through August 2014. African-Americans accounted for nearly three-quarters of those stopped, even though they make up about a third of the city's population (Jazeera America, LLC 2015). The Chicago police department has violated the constitutional rights of many African Americans because they are being stopped and searched and frisked for no other reason than because the police think they look suspicious. In the Terry v. Ohio decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 makes it where the police can stop and search people if the police thinks they might commit a crime.

One argument that is against stop and risk is Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. against the City of New York to challenge the New York Police Department’s practices of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop and frisks of New York City residents. Center for constitutional rights (2015). States, “a federal judge found the New York City Police Department liable for a pattern and practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stops. Under a new administration, the City agreed to drop its appeal and begin the joint remedial process ordered by the court.” In this case David Floyd, David Ourlicht, Lalit Clarkson, and Deon Dennis were all subjected to racial profiling because they were stopped so many times because they were black.

Ever since September 11^th racial profiling has been a big problem in the United States and the police violates citizen’s fourth amendment when they stop and frisk them for no probable cause except the color of their skin. I do not think it is right for police offers to be able to stop someone over the color of their skin or because they think the person might do something wrong. They should have to have cause in order to do this.

References

Center for constitutional rights (2015). Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. Retrieved from:

https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/floyd-et-al-v-city-new-york-et-al

Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional law: an introduction [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

Jazeera America, LLC (2015). Chicago police OK independent stop-and-frisk evaluations. Retrieved from:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/7/chicago-police-ok-stop-and-frisk-oversight.html