Can We Constitutionally Implement Stop and Frisk?
August 27, 2013•35 min
On this edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, Bob Ambrogi speaks with Sunita Patel of the Constitutional Center for Human Rights and Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research on Judge Scheindlin's recent ruling, Floyd vs. City of New York, which deemed the NYPD’s use of the stop-and-frisk policy unconstitutional. • Sunita Patel, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, litigates racial profiling, immigrant justice, and other human rights issues. She represents the named plaintiffs in the Floyd class action, four minority men who argued that the stop-and-frisk law was being upheld unconstitutionally and caused indirect racial profiling. The case was filed by the CCR. • Heather Mac Donald is a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor at the City Journal. She covers a number of topics including immigration, policing and racial profiling, and the New York courts. She has been featured in numerous publications regarding why the stop-and-frisk ruling will increase New York crime. Tune in to hear Patel and Mac Donald’s opinions on the stop-and-frisk policy and how it affects crime rates, what the ruling means for the NYPD and similar policies nationwide, and if they think stop and frisk can be carried out constitutionally. A special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.