the case that established the foundation for stop and frisk is
Terry v. Ohio
title: Stop-and-frisk in New York City text: and property crime rates in New York City. The United States Supreme Court made an important ruling on the use of stop-and-frisk in the 1968 case "Terry v. Ohio", hence why the stops are also referred to as "Terry" stops. While frisks were arguably illegal, until then, a police officer could search only someone who had been arrested, unless a search warrant had been obtained. In the cases of "Terry v. Ohio", "Sibron v. New York", and "Peters v. New York", the Supreme Court granted limited approval in 1968 to frisks conducted by officers lacking probable cause for an arrest title: Stop-and-frisk in New York City text: Stop-and-frisk in New York City The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City, is a New York City Police Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at times searching civilians on the street for weapons and other contraband. This is what is known in other places in the United States as the "Terry" stop. The rules for stop, question, and frisk are found in the state's criminal procedure law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of "Terry v. Ohio". 12,404 stops were made in 2016. The stop-and-frisk program has title: Floyd v. City of New York text: reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a penal law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons. The rules for stop and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011. The vast majority of these people were African-American or Latino. New title: Stop-and-frisk in New York City text: racially charged stop-and-frisk of an innocent teenager from Harlem. Following its upload, the recording soon turned viral, as it triggered outrage and "shed unprecedented light" on the practice of stop-and-frisk. In "Floyd v. City of New York", decided on August 12, 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that stop and frisk had been used in an unconstitutional manner and directed the police to adopt a written policy to specify where such stops are authorized. Scheindlin appointed Peter L. Zimroth, a former chief lawyer for the City of New York, to oversee the program. Mayor Bloomberg indicated that the title: Floyd v. City of New York text: the United States Code, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York. Although this case is a class action suit filed on behalf of the minority citizens of the city of New York, David Floyd and David Ourlicht specifically alleged that the NYPD had employed "stop and frisk" on them without reasonable suspicion. Floyd, an African-American man, claimed that on February 27, 2008, he was walking on the path adjacent to his house in the Bronx, New York.