Law, Business and Society 11th Edition by Tony McAdams

تمرين 12

Stop-and-Frisk
The New York City police department practices a "stop-and-frisk" policy by which a police officer can stop and question those whom the officer reasonably believes to have committed, be committing, or be about to commit a felony or serious misdemeanor. Those stopped can be frisked for weapons if the officer reasonably believes he or she is in danger of physical injury.
The stop-and-frisk police practice is constitutionally permissible if conducted properly, but in a 2013 class-action lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York, federal district court judge Shin Scheindlin ruled that stop-and-frisk, as practiced in recent years in New York City, is an impermissible violation of citizens' Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and 14th Amendment (equal protection) rights. The judge ruled that police had routinely stopped innocent people without reasonable suspicion and that the police had been engaging in racial profiling. About 83 percent of the 4.4 million stops between 2004 and 2012 had involved blacks and Hispanics, two demographics that make up slightly more than 50 percent of the city population. The city argued that the racial pattern of the stops reflected the disproportionate share of crimes commit-ted by young minority men, but the judge rejected that reasoning saying that comparison would be valid only if those stopped were criminals, but 88 percent of those stopped were released with no finding of a justification for the stops. Judge Scheindlin did not order a halt to stop-and-frisk, which is an important law enforcement tool if properly employed. She did appoint a monitor to ensure police compliance with remedies including the use of body-worn cameras by some officers. The case is on appeal at this writing.
Question
Judge Scheindlin said, "It is impermissible to subject all members of a racially defined group to heightened police enforcement because some members of that group are criminals." Do you agree Explain.