Friday, August 16, 2013

Ruling Against Stop & Frisk Laws - American Apartheid

STOP & FRISK laws were ruled unconstitutional and racist in a class action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs against the City of New York. U.S. District Judge Shira Sheindlin acknowledged that the practice of stopping and searching people who are not suspected of any crime, targeting young black or brown males specifically, smacks of racism. New York is appealing. Key points about the judge's ruling and New York City's objections are outlined in the ABC video embedded below, online at the following link:

In her ruling, Judge Scheindlin acknowledged that the goal of deterring crime may be "laudable," but said, "Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example — but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective."

In a 198-page ruling, the judge said the "case is about whether the city has a policy or custom of violating the Constitution by making unlawful stops and conducting unlawful frisks. The city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner."

The judge's ruling was a major victory for many human rights advocates who fought a lengthy campaign against Stop & Frisk in New York.

Congratulations for this legal victory that protects 
constitutional rights and may end apartheid in America.

Please send legal victories you won or exalt to 

1 comment:

  1. ★★★FRAUD ALERT!★★★

    Beware of The Cochran Firm fraud. Try to get a real lawyer who won't collude with your defendants behind your back.


Your comments are invited and appreciated!