In the wake of Judge Shira Scheindlin’s ruling in Floyd v. City of New York striking down the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy, the latest edition of Lawyer2Lawyer looks at whether and how stop-and-frisk policies can pass constitutional muster. To help us examine this issue, we have two guests:
- Sunita Patel, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who 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, 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.
You can stream or download the program via The Legal Talk Network.
Tags: No tags