Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
stop and frisk used by law enforcement
frisking and racial profiling
stop and frisk and racial profiliing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: stop and frisk used by law enforcement
Stop and Frisk Stop and frisk is a brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspicious individual. The Fourth Amendment entails that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is in progress before stopping a suspect. If the officer realistically is certain that the person is carrying a weapon and is dangerous, the officers can conduct a search, a rapid pat down of the suspect’s exterior clothing. A law enforcement officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of impending criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is less demanding than probable cause, less quantity of evidence or information is needed. Reasonable suspicion can come from information less reliable than needed for probable cause. There many levels of intrusion when it comes to stop and frisk. The first level of intrusion is a method to request evidence, allowable only when there is an objective believable reason for an intervention. Police do not necessarily need to suspect criminal activity. The second level of intrusion is known as the common-law right to inquire and is permissible only when the officer has a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. This is a larger intrusion since the officer can interfere with a citizen in an effort to gain explanatory information. However, at this level the intrusion must fall short of a forcible search. The third level of intrusion is sanctioned when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, or is about to commit an offense or misdemeanor. At this level, an officer is also authorized to make a forcible stop and detain the citizen for questioning. Furthermore, an ... ... middle of paper ... ...ack and Latino communities remain to be the overwhelming aim of these procedures. Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent, according to the NYPD’s own reports. Linking police stops to violent crime suspects is a bad calculation. Only 11 percent of stops in 2011 were founded to be on an account of a felony suspect and from 2002 to 2011, black and Latino citizens made up close to 90 percent of individuals stopped, and about 88 percent of stops, more than 3 million, were innocent New Yorkers. Even in areas that are mostly white, black and Latino New Yorkers face the inconsistent burden. For instance, in 2011, African American citizens and Latino New Yorkers made up over 24 percent of the residents of Park Slope, but they also made up 79 percent of all the stops made by the NYPD. Making Stop-and-Frisk clearly discriminatory.
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently executed by the New York Police Department and it grant police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them question and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fell under assault and irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identify himself as a police officer, and make reasonable inquires.
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
City of New York, where in the summer of 2013 US District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled in favor of African-American and Hispanic plaintiffs who had been stopped by police. In the plaintiffs ' Section 1983 class action against the city, Scheindlin considered evidence of a large number of unjustified police stops of citizens, as well as the ineffectiveness of the stops where only six percent of all stops resulted in any type of arrest and a much smaller percentage led to the discovery of any weapons. Scheindlin also evaluated studies showing that police officers were more likely to stop blacks and Latinos than whites (and with less justification). For example, in 2011, nearly 87 percent of all police stops were of blacks and Latinos, and overall, police were more likely to use force against blacks and Latinos. Further, she concluded that these discrepancies resulted from official policies. “Bartley, who is African-American, says his warnings about police harassment have become a daily ritual with his son and two daughters, a sentiment echoed by Yates and other African-American residents. He has told his teenage son and two daughters to take an ID with them before leaving home. If police stop them, they should keep their hands out of their pockets and not make sudden
At the core of the stop and frisk policy as utilized by the New York Police Department is racial profiling. Racial profiling has a significant and often controversial place in the history of policing in the United States. Racial profiling can be loosely defined as the use of race as a key determinant in law enforcement decisions to stop, interrogate, and/or detain citizens (Weitzer & Tuch, 2002). Laws in the United States have helped to procure and ensure race based decisions in law enforcement. Historically, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions which increase the scope of discretion of a law enforcement officer. For example, traffic stops can be used to look for evidence even though the officer has not observed any criminal violation (Harris, 2003). Proponent's for racial profiling reason that racial profiling is a crime fighting tool that does treat racial/ethnic groups as potential criminal suspects based on the assumption that by doing so increases the chances of catching criminals (Harris, 2003). Also, it is important to note, law enforcement officers only need reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk, probable cause is not required as in other circumstances (Harris, 2003). It is because of this assumption that the New York Police Department’s stop and frisk policy is still a relevant issue.
City of New York: The difficulty of proving fourteenth amendment violation” by David Clark, he writes about how the stop and frisk violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment by providing statistics. In this reading he mentions, “Although, these Fourth Amendment holdings are important, the most controversial holdings relate to the discriminatory intent behind the policy and the Fourteenth Amendment violation by the New York Police Department (N.Y.P.D.) in the way they carried out their stop and frisk program.” (Clark 342) which is true, because according to the fourth amendment no person should be searched or seized without warrant, unless it’s an reasonable suspicions and under the fourteenth amendment which protects individuals life, property and liberty which should not be violated by any governmental officials. However during stop and frisk police officers not just violating a person fourth amendment, but they also discriminating and abusing the humans rights. No person should receive a physical and verbal abuse, first and foremost it’s not just a discrimination, but also emotional and mental breakdown of the individual who is stopped and frisk even if the person is innocent. Clark also mentions “police departments can and should be better incentivized to follow protections offered by the Constitution with a Fourteenth Amendment exclusionary rule for unlawful, racially selective stops.” (Clark 343) meaning that
Rengifo & Slocum (2016) concentrated on community policing procedure that was implemented in New York City known as “Stop-and Frisk,” also known as “Terry Stop.” Stop-and Frisk” was a method that was implemented by the New York City Police Department in which an officer stops a pedestrian and asked them a question, and then frisks them for any weapon or contraband. The data for this study was collected from 2005-2006 from an administrative area known as Community District1 in South Bronx, New York. This area is composed of the following neighborhoods: Melrose, Pork Morris, and Mott Haven. Majority of the population in this
That did not seem to be sufficient in wanting the power to search people of color arbitrarily, hence the advent of stop and frisk. With the power of full discretion granted to law enforcement and no effort to stop the targeting of people of color, stop and frisk quickly became an implicit measure to spike up incarceration rates within the black community. Officially, stop and frisk can apply to anyone and is not exclusive to black men. Unofficially, it is commonly known that black men are the primary sought out target of stop and frisk procedures. Evidence of this is clearly shown in how stop and frisk is predominantly practiced in areas with a larger population of people of color. To demonstrate, a simple thought experiment can clearly show that even with full discretion, it would be imprudent and irreverent of any police officer to round up all the white women in an Orange County mall for a mass stop and frisk (Madva lecture 11/14/17), but the same would not apply for a group of young black men in a public
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
“From 2005 to mid-2008, approximately eighty percent of total stops made were of Blacks and Latinos, who comprise twenty-five percent and twenty-eight percent of New York City’s total population, respectively. During this same time period, only about ten percent of stops were of Whites, who comprise forty-four percent of the city’s population” (“Restoring a National Consensus”). Ray Kelly, appointed Police Commissioner by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York in 2013, has not only accepted stop-and-frisk, a program that allows law enforcers to stop individuals and search them, but has multiplied its use. Kelly argued that New Yorkers of color, who have been unevenly targeted un...
One discriminating practice used by police officers is racial profiling. This is the police practice of stopping, questioning, and searching potential criminal suspects in vehicles or on the street based solely on their racial appearance (Human Rights Watch, 2000). This type of profiling has contributed to racially disproportionate drug arrests, as well as, arrests for other crimes. It makes sense that the more individuals police stop, question and search, the more people they will find with reason for arrest. So, if the majority of these types of stop and frisk searches are done on a certain race then it makes sense that tha...
Law enforcement officers need a reason to stop you. Remember, it cannot be just a hunch the police officer had. Their action has to be backed up with facts that led him to believe you, or someone else had committed a crime. Like the Supreme Court cases we went over, all dealt with reasonable suspicion in some way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard police officers need to stop and frisk someone. They will need probable cause, a higher standard, to search and arrest a person. Remember, officers need reasonable suspicion to stop, question, and
The stop-and-frisk program, devised on the basis of the broken windows theory, seems to be a great solution to preventing and addressing crime in New York City. The broken windows theory is based on the concept that if one can detect and monitor smaller crimes, then larger, more serious crimes will be prevented (Hopkin). So why has this program with a goal of preventing larger scale crimes and promoting proactive policing caused so many controversial issues leading to lawsuits? By law and protected under the Fourth Amendment, in order to stop and search someone, the officer is required to have “reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime” (Rosenthal). However, many searches have begun with no reasonable suspicion and have ended with the officers coming up with a reason at a later time (Rosenthal). The main issue here, though, is not in the fact that they are searching people without reasonable suspicion as much as it is the type of person, specifically, that is being searched. After watching the documentary, The Scars of Stop-and-Frisk, which follows the story of an 18-year-old boy named Tyquan Brehon, I realized a major fault in this program. Many officers are structuring the basis of their search more on the color of one’s skin than having actual reasonable suspicion. Through examining racial profiling and the reasoning behind determining the perfect suspect, I will argue whether the stop-and-frisk program is creating its desired effects.
Even though we have rules that states that people are not allowed to be search if they do not want too, like the fourth amendment, but this rule have been violated, in so many ways. The fourth amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Legal Information Institute). The social justice system allow policeman, and other authorities to violate this law. The stop and frisk rule to search individuals, just because they look suspicious of carrying drugs. Even if a driver pass a red light by accident, they will stop that person and search for drugs, when they were only suppose to stop the person because he violated the rule. It is very critical and scary to be stop by a policeman, they are suppose to be the one protecting us, but they are putting us at risk at the same time. The fact that some people do not realize that, hurts. It is not normal, for people to be stop just because of the way
The police initiated 49% of these incidents. In this report by Langton & Durose, 2013, 25% of those who were stopped on the street, indicated that the behavior of the police was inappropriate. The report also brought out the fact that the percentage of people who file a complaint if they feel the police have not behaved properly was less than 5%. The report also examines the racial disparity in the number of drivers stopped by traffic. It was discovered that there were 13% more black drivers stopped that their white counterparts. Concerning the public’s perception of the behavior of the police during the stop and frisk incidences more blacks than whites reported that the officers displayed inappropriate behavior. Most of the drivers stopped by an officer of a different race believed that the search was illegitimate. The authors of the report also discovered that the rate of ticketing was higher in black drivers compared to the
Law Enforcement policy is designed to help law enforcement agencies cut down on the amount of crime in communities and give structure to the agency. It also helps lessen the number of certain cases in certain areas, as well as from a certain group of people. There are several policies that I disagree with, but there is one policy I will be discussing. Law enforcement officers sometimes stop and frisk people based on gender, race, financial status, and social ranking. It is a very controversial issue because anything dealing with race and ethnicity can cause a lot of disagreement and discord. According to a New York judge on dealing with the stop and frisk laws, "If you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related . . . . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress. I know because I have been through this several times.