Racial Profiling and Stop-and-Frisk Policies

Stop-and-Frisk Has Become a Tool for Discrimination

For years, “stop-and-frisk” was described as a crime-fighting tactic. Officers would stop someone on the street, ask questions, and search for weapons or contraband. In theory, it was meant to keep communities safe. In practice, it became something very different: a system that targeted communities of color, making young Black and Latino men feel like suspects the moment they walked out their doors.

The statistics don’t lie. During the height of stop-and-frisk in New York City, over 80% of those stopped were Black or Latino. Most had done nothing wrong. Most weren’t arrested. They were simply harassed, searched, and humiliated, for walking home, for wearing a hoodie, for looking “suspicious.”

That legacy lingers. Even after courts reined in the practice, the shadow of stop-and-frisk remains. At Horn Wright, LLP, we’ve seen how racial profiling through stop-and-frisk scars people, leaving them wary of the very officers who are supposed to protect them.

How Stop-and-Frisk Works in New York

Legally, stop-and-frisk stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio (1968). That case allowed officers to stop and briefly detain someone if they had “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity. It also let them frisk for weapons if they believed the person was armed and dangerous.

New York built its own version of this doctrine into practice. Under Criminal Procedure Law §140.50, officers may stop and question a person when they reasonably suspect a crime has occurred or is about to occur. But the problem lies in what “reasonable suspicion” means. In communities of color, suspicion has too often been a matter of skin tone, clothing, or neighborhood.

The courts eventually stepped in. In Floyd v. City of New York (2013), a federal judge ruled that NYPD’s use of stop-and-frisk systematically violated both the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection). That decision forced reforms, but the damage had already been done to countless New Yorkers.

When a Stop Crosses the Line Into Profiling

Not every stop is illegal. Police do have authority to investigate when they see specific, articulable facts suggesting crime. The problem comes when stops are based not on facts, but on assumptions rooted in race.

A stop crosses into profiling when:

• The officer cannot articulate specific behavior that justified suspicion.
• The only “reason” for the stop is the person’s race, clothing, or presence in a neighborhood.
• Multiple stops happen to the same individual without evidence of wrongdoing.

In practice, many victims describe being asked the same vague questions: “Where are you going? Where are you coming from? Do you live around here?” These aren’t crime-based questions. They’re attempts to justify a stop already made because of who the person is, not what they did.

Courts look closely at whether suspicion was supported by observable facts. When it isn’t, the stop may be struck down as unconstitutional racial profiling.

Evidence That Strengthens a Stop-and-Frisk Claim

Winning a claim requires evidence that the stop wasn’t just unfair — it was unlawful. Fortunately, several types of proof can make the difference.

Body camera recordings often capture the encounter. If the video shows vague questioning without any concrete reason, it supports the claim. Police paperwork is another source. Stop-and-frisk forms, known in New York as UF-250 reports, document why the officer claims they stopped someone. Patterns of vague or boilerplate reasons (“furtive movements,” “high-crime area”) can be exposed in court.

Data is also powerful. Attorneys often request stop-and-frisk statistics under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). When the numbers show disproportionate targeting of minority communities, they back up individual stories.

Witness testimony rounds it out. A friend walking with you, a passerby, or a nearby shopkeeper can confirm what the officer did or said. Under CPLR Article 45, their testimony is admissible and can be decisive in racial profiling cases.

Unlike Vermont, New York Provides Broader Remedies for Unlawful Stops

State protections vary, and New York offers broader remedies than many places. Vermont, for example, applies stop-and-frisk rules narrowly, often siding with officers when “reasonable suspicion” is even remotely arguable. That makes it harder for victims there to succeed.

New York law is more robust. Victims can bring federal §1983 claims for constitutional violations, but they can also pursue state tort claims like false imprisonment, assault, or battery. Courts here recognize emotional distress damages, not just physical harm. And under New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law §296), profiling in public accommodations can be challenged as a form of discrimination.

This broader framework gives New Yorkers stronger paths to justice, and it reflects the state’s recognition of how damaging racial profiling has been.

How to Challenge Profiling Based on Stop Data

One of the strongest tools in stop-and-frisk litigation is data. Individual cases matter, but when patterns emerge, courts take notice.

Attorneys often analyze years of stop data, broken down by race, neighborhood, and outcome. If statistics show that a community of color is disproportionately targeted, and that most of those stops end without arrest or summons, it suggests profiling rather than real policing.

This was the strategy in Floyd v. City of New York, where expert testimony on stop data convinced the court that racial bias was baked into NYPD’s practices. Today, similar analysis continues. Plaintiffs request department-wide stop logs, officer histories, and demographic breakdowns. Under CPLR Article 31, these discovery requests can force departments to reveal uncomfortable truths.

For victims, this data turns a personal story into part of a larger, undeniable pattern of discrimination.

Remedies for Victims of Discriminatory Stops

Victims of racial profiling through stop-and-frisk have several remedies.

• Suppression of evidence. If an illegal stop leads to a search, any evidence found can be excluded under the exclusionary rule.
• Civil damages. Victims may recover compensation for humiliation, lost wages, medical bills, and emotional trauma. In egregious cases, punitive damages may apply.
• Policy reforms. Courts sometimes order departments to adopt reforms, adjust training, or accept independent oversight. These remedies go beyond the individual case and address the system as a whole.

The remedies matter not just for the victims, but for communities that have endured years of discriminatory policing. They send a clear message: stop-and-frisk cannot be used as a cover for racial profiling.

Horn Wright, LLP, Stands Against Racially Motivated Stop-and-Frisk Practices

Racial profiling in the form of stop-and-frisk has left scars across New York. It has shaken communities’ trust in police and left thousands of people with memories of humiliation and fear. At Horn Wright, LLP, we fight back. Our civil rights attorneys gather data, demand body camera footage, analyze UF-250 forms, and expose patterns of discrimination that departments would rather hide. If you’ve been targeted in a stop-and-frisk encounter, we’ll stand with you and pursue justice with the full strength of the law.