In this year’s first presidential debate one of the programs president-elect Donald Trump said he would like to bring back was stop question and frisk program that was started in New York City after 9/11. He said in the first debate, “But stop and frisk had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City.” So should we bring back the program or get rid of it? I believe, stop and frisk is an invasion of privacy and is in clear violation of the 4th amendment, so it should be ruled unconstitutional and done away with. The main argument for stop and frisk is that it helps fight crime and protects us from terrorist attacks. However in 2013 federal judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that the practice was unconstitutional for discrimination reasons. After this ruling stop and frisk stops went down dramatically the number of stops had declined by 72 percent from its peak in 2011. Although ruled unconstitutional stop question and frisk is still allowed. Last year, New York City police conducted 22,939 stops, or about 63 a day. So stop-and-frisk has not been terminated at the end of the day but, has been …show more content…
Guns may be removed in searches, but only 1% of the time. While 88% of all stops in searches did not result in arrests, and 99% of all searches did not come up with a weapon. The percentage of a legitimate reason to imprison or stop is very small, so why should we keep wasting people's time? Stop and frisk was meant to stop crime or at least lower crime rates. However, it is not doing so. Crime rates may have dropped 20%in NYC, but that is nothing compared to the alternate measures taken by other cities that have crime rates drop 50%. Aren’t there better alternative methods than stop and frisk? Well, instead of harming youth and violating the Constitution, there are many other ways police could catch people involved in crime. For example, get to know the neighborhood and what happens in the
In the United States, law enforcement officers are infamously known for violating average citizen’s constitutional rights in order to get a confession. Instead of being innocent ‘til proven guilty, the roles are actually swapped. The minute you are booked for an alleged crime you may have committed, your chances of walking away are slim. But is this actually feasible? Is the law enforcement that is supposedly there to protect us, in reality harming us?
Stop and Frisk is a practice that was put into play by which a police officer initiates a stop of an individual on the street supposedly based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity “Stop and frisk” and other discriminatory policing practices have spiraled out of control.
...0 stops, another ostensible reason for supporting stop frisks. This ineffective program continues to consume police time, tax payer dollars and leave minority youth their communities feeling oppressed by an agent of government that formerly was held in high esteem.
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
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
While the stop and frisk program ultimately seems like a great idea and that it will help residents of New York City feel safer while on the streets, there has been much controversy with this program. The issue of racial profiling is largely discussed when talking about NYPD’s stop and frisk program. Besides police officers targeting lower income neighborhoods, more stops are of African Americans or Latinos than of whites. These stops often end up with a higher arrest rate. Of the 685,784 stopped last year, 92% were male and 87% were African American or Latino (Devereaux, 2012).
“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...
The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.
This is the police practice of stopping, questioning, and searching for 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 a 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 that race would have a higher arrest rate.... ...
Reasonable suspicion constitutes a stop by police. According to our textbook, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is why is it important for police to justly stop a person (p. 17). The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained from improper police work, like an unwarranted stop, is not allowed in court.
Profiling is unconstitutional and violates civil rights. Police can search a person without a warrant if they have reasonable doubt that they are armed and dangerous; however, of people who are pulled over while driving, less than 4% of whites are searched while about 10% of bla...
Before any argument can be made against racial profiling, it is important to understand what racial profiling is. The American Civil Liberties Union, defines racial profiling as "the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin"(Racial Profiling: Definition). Using this definition we can determine that racial profiling excludes any evidence of wrong-doing and relies solely on the characteristics listed above. We can also see that racial profiling is different from criminal profiling, which uses evidence of wrong-doing and facts which can include information obtained from outside sources and evidence gathered from investigation. Based on these definitions, I will show that racial profiling is unfair and ineffective because it relies on stereotyping, encourages discrimination, and in many cases can be circumvented.
First of all, the initial foundation of the Stop, Question and Frisk ruling started on October 31, 1963 when a Cleveland Police Department investigator, Martin Mcfadden, recognized two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a road turning at 1276 Euclid Avenue. According to the officer, their acts were suspicious. Detective Mcfadden, watched the two going sequentially here and there and then here again along a vague track, stopping to gaze in the same store window. At the end of each track, the two men gathered on a corner. The two men rehashed this activity five or six times.
There seems to be nothing stopping it as it continues to grow out of control throughout the country. Even before the stop is made (add comma after made). cops watch possible suspects of any suspicious activity, even without any legal right. “Plainclothes officers known as “rakers” were dispatched into ethnic communities, where they eavesdropped on conversations and wrote daily reports on what they heard, often without any allegation of criminal wrong doing.” (NYPD Racial Profiling 1)
The core or primary reason for instituting the stop-frisk program was to keep the city crime free. David Weisburd, Cody W. Telep & Brian A. Lawton (2014) embarked on a study to ascertain if the reduced crime rates in the city of New York was as a result of NYPD innovations. The innovation under study or the interest was the NYPD stop and frisk