"U.S. lawsuit targets Philly's 'stop-and-frisk' policy" »

The plaintiffs are seeking class status and rulings to prevent the police from conducting pedestrian stops based on race or national origin.

The suit also asks the court to order more police training, supervision, and monitoring to ensure that “stops, frisks, searches, and detentions comport with constitutional requirements.”

Oh, you.  The idea that Terry stops are actually anything more than vehicles for legitimizing racial profiling is sort of funny* to me!  I am seriously curious as to what the ACLU’s strategy is, though, given that courts all over the nation have upheld thinly veiled instances of racial profiling as constitutional, pursuant to the low, low bar set by Terry v. Ohio.

The Terry standard is the oft-quoted “reasonable suspicion.”  If this sounds familiar, it might be because the same language is used in SB1070.  Proponents of that bill have been quick to state that a “reasonable suspicion” is something substantial enough to protect against totally arbitrary police action… but case law demonstrates that almost anything can qualify as “reasonable suspicion.”

A broken headlight, for example.  That is really all it takes for a cop to justify pulling someone over.  And then people are surprised to hear that instances of racial profiling are alive and well amongst police enforcement!  Funny.*

*And by funny, I mean incredibly sad.