Racial Profiling Lives On

By DEVON W. CARBADO, CHERYL I HARRIS and KIMBERLÉ W. CRENSHAW, NYT

LOS ANGELES — THE historic ruling by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin that the stop-and-frisk practices of the New York Police Department violate the Constitution is being applauded as a major victory against unreasonable policing.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, meanwhile, is bitterly disappointed. “This is a very dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works,” he said after the decision was handed down Monday.

But if unrestrained policing is, for Mr. Bloomberg, policing that works, it turns out that he can still have it. The ruling by Judge Scheindlin, of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, does nothing to disrupt the authority the Supreme Court has given police officers to target African-Americans and Latinos with little or no basis. Despite the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that provision gives the police frighteningly wide discretion to follow, stop, question, frisk and employ excessive force against African-Americans and Latinos who have shown virtually no indication of wrongdoing.

That might sound hyperbolic. But consider these 10 actions a hypothetical Officer Bloomberg could still take against a hypothetical black man, Tony.

(More here.)