eflatminor
Classical Liberal
- May 24, 2011
- 10,643
- 1,669
- 245
I tend to agree with you that this policy is wrongheaded, at least as an official policy of a government body...the NY police department in this case. It seems a slippery slope to me.
But, if I were to play devil's advocate, I suspect one could make an argument that the policy is not in violation of the 4th, which reads:
One could argue that the policy of responding to where crimes have taken place and frisking those that look like what eyewitness reports indicate are perpetrators of those crimes, does not constitute an "unreasonable" search. I suspect that's what Bloomberg's attorney would argue anyway.
Certainly, one could justify such a stop and search in a more clear cut case. For instance, if a bank robbery took place where the robbers were dressed in red with black ski masks, no one would consider it unreasonable for a cop to stop two guys walking down the same street as the bank, dressed in red with black ski masks. That's an extreme example, but I suspect Bloomberg would argue the same logic holds for stopping young Black men with saggy pants and hoodies when there has been recent crime in the same vicinity carried out by young Black men with saggy pants and hoodies.
Again, I do not support the policy, but I think a case could be made that it's not unconstitutional.
What say you?
