Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
ACLU
Racial profiling cases have always been an integral part of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) docket. Cases involving racial profiling have become increasingly high profile, if not actually more prevalent, since September 11 created mass witch hunts against Muslims and Muslim-Americans. According to the ACLU (2011), "Racial profiling continues to be a prevalent and egregious form of discrimination in the United States. This unjustifiable practice remains a stain on American democracy and an affront to the promise of racial equality."
Cases involving racial profiling or accusations thereof range from those that deal with individual cases (such as drivers being pulled over for no reason other than they were black) and collective cases. Collective cases include recent ones involving an ACLU=led lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The lawsuit was successful, resulting in "the first time ever" that an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was caused to "substantially alter its policies...
Another landmark case spearheaded by the ACLU caused the state of Arizona Department of Public Safety to agree "to collect and review statistical data relating to traffic stops and vehicle searches statewide," (ACLU 2005). The data collected will be used to better tabulate instances of racial profiling so that it can be systematically and scientifically addressed.
Of course, the simplest way of staying out of court is to stop all racial profiling immediately. In order to prevent racial profiling in practice, organizations need strong management. An organizational code of ethics is only the first step towards creating an organizational culture that does not tolerate racial profiling of any sort. Putting that code of ethics into practice requires strong leadership. Managers must both create and enforce policies that prevent racial profiling.
In the case of the TSA, the organization needs to stop detaining people based on "the way they look," rather than on the way they behave or display other more…
References
ACLU (2005). "In Landmark Racial Profiling Settlement, Arizona Law Enforcement Agents Agree to Major Reforms." ACLU. Retrieved online: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/landmark-racial-profiling-settlement-arizona-law-enforcement-agents-agree-major-refor
ACLU (2011). Racial profiling. Retrieved online: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/racial-profiling
ACLU v Reno: A definitive victory for free speech The First Amendment in the United States of America's Constitution is perhaps the hallmark of what current President Bush refers to continually as our "freedom." It represents the fundamental difference between America and so many other countries that do not offer their citizens rights to freedom of speech, religion and the press. Specifically, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right
5 May, 2005. Retrieved at http://news.public.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/05-06-2005/ca790022a837290c.html. Accessed on 11 May, 2005 Civil liberties groups unite against a surveillance society. 21 April, 2005. Retrieved at http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=civillibertiesgrou1114086814&area=newsAccessed on 11 May, 2005 First Amendment History. 5 January, 2005. Retrieved at http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/Main.asp?SectionID=16&SubSectionID=30&ArticleID=49Accessed on 11 May, 2005 In ACLU Case, Federal Court Strikes Down Patriot Act Surveillance Power as Unconstitutional. September 29, 2004. Retrieved at http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16603&c=282Accessed on 11 May, 2005 Ramasastry, Anita. Reform the Patriot Act to ensure
Arizona vs. USA The recent Supreme Court spat between the United States and the state of Arizona has raised some interesting questions. These questions include whether and when laws are clearly discriminatory in nature, whether the federal government should have sole dominion over immigration enforcement, whether the federal government is indeed doing its assign duties as far as immigration enforcement goes and what levels of involvement the state can or should
Steiney Richards, Petitioner v. Wisconsin The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits police officers from conducting seizures and searches on a suspect's person or property, unless under the authorization of a judge. The case of Richards vs. Wisconsin brings into perspective the knock-and-announce rule of the Fourth Amendment. Statement of the Case (adopted from LII, 2014; ACLU, 1997; Hall, 2014) Police officers in Madison, Wisconsin, suspected Steiney Richards of drug dealing and requested
Since Padilla had joined the terrorist organization al Qaeda and engaged in warlike actions against the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan, the Judges said in concurrence with the Government, the President possessed an authority to designate Padilla an "enemy combatant." The issue sparked a controversy and intense debate among lawyers and other observers. One of the complications of the case was the position taken by Padilla's lawyers.
Williams" Case the Williams case settlement and methods of evaluating the cost of adequacy level of education The Williams case settlement has several important provisions that should be mentioned before we assess the settlement and evaluate the future consequences and its impact. The most important of them are: Provision of $138 million for textbooks and instructional materials million for "assessment of facility needs" at critical condition schools Investments of close to $1 billion in repairs