Stop and Frisk and the Constitution

Read the Case Study- Floyd v. City of New York and the Bill of Rights and watch the segment,

Ending Stop and Frisk for Good. August 7th 2013. The Nation https://youtu.be/URyLanHZ4fk.

The 4th, 5th,6th and 8th amendments to the US Constitution (Bill of Rights) are generally considered to be the sections of the Constitution that contain protections for the criminally accused. These amendments, along with the first section of the XIV amendment (posted below) were used to challenge the constitutionality of Stop and Frisk in New York City.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Explain how the work of activists and advocacy organizations helped to overturn Stop and Frisk in 2013 using the framework of the US Constitution. While the US Constitution can provide certain priveleges and protections from government abuse, many argue that simply waiting on the courts, which tend to be inherently conservative, without social movements and political action will not yield resutls. It is only the combination of legal advocacy with political advocacy, social movements (protests), and public education that can bring lasting change.

As we have seen in the past week, the composition of courts can change which will (likely) produce changes in their temperament and decisions. How can those who want to advocate for change combine legal advocacy with social and political advocacy? How can this be applied to other areas of criminal justice reform in New York and accross the country?