Two New York State Court Panels Suppress Evidence and Spark Great Controversy: | Sherry F. Colb | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

This is Part Two in a two-part series of columns on two New York State appeals court panel decisions and the law relating to stop and frisk.  Part One appeared on August 8 here on Justia’s Verdict. -Ed.
Prof. Colb:

Shawn Hempel/

In the first column of this two-part series, I examined a controversy surrounding two New York state appellate court decisions that ruled evidence inadmissible because it resulted from what a majority of the judges regarded as an unlawful stop and frisk.  I suggested in that column that differences between New York law and federal law governing police-civilian street encounters help explain the negative public sentiment that followed the two decisions.  In this second column of the series, I will explain how I think those differences have contributed to the controversy.

Related articles