Floyd V. City Of New York Stop-And-Frisk Criminal Case Analysis
Floyd v. City of New York: Detailed Explanation
Background
The case was filed in 2008 by several plaintiffs including Mr. Floyd, challenging the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program.
Plaintiffs argued the practice violated the Fourth Amendment (illegal search and seizure) and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection due to racial profiling).
The lawsuit focused on the fact that most stops did not lead to arrests or evidence, yet overwhelmingly targeted Black and Latino communities.
Legal Issues
Whether NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Whether the policy was applied in a racially discriminatory way.
Court Findings
In 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk tactics violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The policy was found to be applied in a racially discriminatory manner.
The ruling called for reforms including independent monitoring and changes in police training.
Impact
The ruling set new standards on what constitutes reasonable suspicion.
It influenced criminal prosecutions by highlighting unlawful stops and evidence exclusion when stops violate constitutional rights.
NYPD reduced stop-and-frisk numbers drastically following the case.
Related Stop-and-Frisk and Police Misconduct Criminal Cases
1. Terry v. Ohio (1968) — Foundational Case
Background: A police officer stopped and frisked Terry and two others on suspicion of carrying weapons without probable cause.
Legal Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment allow stop-and-frisk without probable cause?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that “stop and frisk” is constitutional if the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Impact: Set the legal standard for stop-and-frisk practices nationwide, later scrutinized in Floyd.
2. United States v. Weaver (2011)
Background: Weaver challenged his arrest after being stopped and frisked by police in NYC.
Legal Issue: Whether reasonable suspicion existed to justify the stop and subsequent search.
Outcome: Court suppressed evidence because the stop was deemed unjustified, reinforcing constitutional protections.
3. People v. De Bour (1976) — New York Court of Appeals
Background: Clarified levels of police encounters (consensual, stop, arrest) and the degree of suspicion required.
Legal Issue: What standard governs a stop and frisk?
Ruling: Introduced a four-level framework for police encounters, influencing NYPD policy and cases like Floyd.
4. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975)
Background: Border Patrol stopped a vehicle suspected of transporting undocumented immigrants based on appearance.
Legal Issue: Can ethnicity alone justify stops?
Ruling: No; reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on ethnicity or race.
Impact: Supported claims in Floyd regarding racial profiling.
5. Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)
Background: Officers stopped Wardlow after he fled from a high-crime area.
Legal Issue: Does flight in a high-crime area constitute reasonable suspicion?
Ruling: Yes, but limited; flight is one factor among many.
Impact: Police may consider context, but cannot use it to justify racial profiling.
Summary
Floyd v. City of New York demonstrated how stop-and-frisk policies, when improperly applied, violate constitutional rights.
Key cases like Terry v. Ohio provide legal foundation but must be balanced with protections against racial profiling (as seen in Brignoni-Ponce).
Courts often suppress evidence obtained via illegal stops in criminal cases, reinforcing the importance of constitutional safeguards.
Floyd has reshaped policing and criminal prosecutions by emphasizing the need for reasonable suspicion and fair, non-discriminatory enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments