Case Studies On Racial Profiling In Law Enforcement

06 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Terry v. Ohio (1968) – Stop and Frisk Practices

Facts:
A police officer in Cleveland observed three men acting suspiciously and conducted a stop and frisk, discovering weapons. The defendant, Terry, argued the stop was unconstitutional.

Issue:
Whether a police officer can stop and frisk a person based on reasonable suspicion without violating the Fourth Amendment.

Judgment:

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the stop and frisk practice if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

However, the ruling also opened the door to potential racial profiling, as “suspicious behavior” could be subjectively interpreted.

Significance:

Established the legal framework for stop-and-frisk, which has been criticized for disproportionately targeting racial minorities, especially African Americans.

Sparked numerous later cases and studies addressing racial bias in policing.

2. Whren v. United States (1996) – Pretextual Stops

Facts:
Plainclothes officers stopped Whren and another driver for a minor traffic violation but suspected they were transporting drugs.

Issue:
Whether stopping someone for a minor traffic violation as a pretext, when officers suspect another crime, violates the Fourth Amendment.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that any traffic violation provides a legal basis for a stop, even if officers have ulterior motives.

Courts recognized that racial profiling could occur but deferred to officer discretion unless explicit discriminatory intent is proven.

Significance:

Critically impacted racial profiling debates by allowing pretextual stops, which disproportionately affected minority communities.

Demonstrates the challenge of proving discriminatory intent in law enforcement.

3. Floyd v. City of New York (2013) – Stop-and-Frisk Litigation

Facts:
A class-action lawsuit challenged New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policies, alleging disproportionate targeting of Black and Latino individuals.

Judgment:

The court ruled that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Data showed racial minorities were disproportionately stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion.

Court mandated reforms, oversight, and officer retraining.

Significance:

Landmark case demonstrating systemic racial profiling.

Reinforced the importance of data-driven evidence in proving discriminatory policing practices.

4. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) – Immigration Checks and Ethnicity

Facts:
Border patrol agents stopped Brignoni-Ponce and others near the U.S.-Mexico border, relying primarily on Mexican appearance to suspect illegal immigration.

Issue:
Whether racial or ethnic appearance alone can justify a stop.

Judgment:

Supreme Court held that border stops cannot be based solely on race or ethnicity.

Officers must consider multiple factors beyond appearance, such as behavior, location, and intelligence.

Significance:

Established a key precedent limiting racial profiling in immigration enforcement.

Emphasized the need for objective, individualized suspicion rather than generalized assumptions about ethnicity.

5. McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) – Death Penalty and Racial Bias

Facts:
Warren McCleskey, an African American, challenged his death sentence in Georgia, citing statistical evidence showing that Black defendants receiving death penalty disproportionately for killing white victims.

Judgment:

Supreme Court acknowledged racial disparities but ruled that statistical evidence alone was insufficient to overturn a conviction.

Required proof of intentional racial discrimination in the specific case.

Significance:

Highlighted systemic racial bias in law enforcement and sentencing.

Demonstrated the limitations of using aggregate statistics to challenge racial profiling in courts.

6. Floyd v. City of New York (Revisited) – Policy Reforms

Fact:
Following the 2013 ruling, NYPD implemented reforms, including ceasing aggressive stop-and-frisk, collecting racial data, and monitoring officer behavior.

Significance:

Shows that judicial intervention can effectively reduce racial profiling.

Underlines the importance of policy and oversight mechanisms alongside legal rulings.

7. Hernandez v. Mesa (2020) – Cross-Border Use of Force

Facts:
A U.S. Border Patrol agent shot Mexican teenager Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez from the U.S. side of the border. Family sued alleging discriminatory targeting.

Issue:
Whether racial profiling and excessive use of force can be addressed in U.S. courts.

Judgment:

Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the agent could not be sued in U.S. courts under the Bivens doctrine, emphasizing sovereignty and jurisdictional limits.

Significance:

Highlights challenges in cross-border racial profiling cases.

Demonstrates limitations of judicial remedies in some systemic discrimination scenarios.