Stop-and-Frisk is a Failed Public Policy

%3Ciframe%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%20frameborder%3D%22no%22%20height%3D%22300%22%20scrolling%3D%22no%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fw.soundcloud.com%2Fplayer%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F1486662187%26amp%3Bcolor%3D%2523ff5500%26amp%3Bauto_play%3Dfalse%26amp%3Bhide_related%3Dfalse%26amp%3Bshow_comments%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bshow_user%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bshow_reposts%3Dfalse%26amp%3Bshow_teaser%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bvisual%3Dtrue%22%20width%3D%22100%25%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from soundcloud.com.

Speaking Freely With the ACLU-PA · Stop-and-frisk is a failed public policy

The police tactic of stop-and-frisk is back in the news and has become a campaign issue in the 2023 elections in Philadelphia. Some candidates for mayor and for city council have suggested that escalating its use against pedestrians in the city should be on the table as a public safety measure.

For 12 years, the ACLU of Pennsylvania and co-counsel from the law firm Kairys Rudovsky Messing Feinberg and Linn have been enforcing a settlement in a 2010 lawsuit against the city over the aggressive, illegal, and unconstitutional use of stop-and-frisk by Philadelphia police. In this episode, we hear from the Rev. Mark Tyler of POWER, Yahaira Galarza, a community ambassador for ACLU-PA, and Mary Catherine Roper, former deputy legal director of the ACLU of PA. Mary Catherine is now an attorney with the law firm Langer Grogan and Diver and is co-counsel in the lawsuit Bailey v. City of Philadelphia, the case that challenged the city police department’s use of stop-and-frisk.

Resources

Stop and Frisk: A Clear Failure of Public Safety Policy

Bailey et al. v. City of Philadelphia