On August 12th 2013, a New York City judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) policy, stop-and-frisk, is unconstitutional. Stop-and-frisk is a policy that allows police officers to stop people they deem suspicious. They are permitted to frisk them in search for illegal items such as weapons and/or drugs. Since Mayor Bloomberg introduced stop-and-frisk to the city it has been very controversial. The reason the policy is so controversial is that data shows that most stops targeted young black and Hispanic men. This is an example of racial profiling
Judge Scheindlin determined that the constitutional rights of the some of the city’s black and Hispanic minorities were being violated and suggested several reforms. One of the reforms is that they are going to conduct and experimental program that will require some officers to wear cameras to film their stops in five or more precincts. In addition, the judge mandated community meetings to share opinions and suggestions about how to improve the NYPD policy. Finally, Judge Scheindlin appointed a judicial monitor, Peter L. Zimroth. His role will be to oversee the reforms, policy and compliance of stop-and-frisk with the constitution.
The judge said that the NYPD has to protect “the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, by still providing much needed police protection”. However, she found that “Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively found suspicion than whites”. Too often, officers stopped individuals because of their suspicious movements. These include “being fidgety, changing directions, walking in a certain way, grabbing at a pocket or looking over one's shoulder.” All these behaviors are done regular...
... middle of paper ...
...ges to the policy. A person’s race, their appearance and how they look, their age and their behavior and neighborhood are all factors that lead to racial profiling. The hidden privilege as it relates to stop-and-frisk is being white. There are fewer stereotypes that lead to racial profiling in connection to crime and violence.
Stop-and-frisk is something I’m aware of but not something that is part of my day-to-day life, but it is part of a New Yorker’s life. Therefore, because I’m 13, there are limited things that I can do about stop-and-frisk. I can help educate people about the policy and raise awareness about the topic. Also, I could write an article on it, call 311, call a police station and contact the press if I see something unfair take place. It will be interesting to observe how Judge Scheindlin’s reforms are implemented and how they will impact the policy
Opponents will argue that racial profiling is based on suspicious behavior and not on race. They feel as though racial profiling can potentially stop certain crimes befor...
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
The judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.
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).
Racial profiling is the tactic of stopping someone because of the color of his or her skin and a fleeting suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal behavior (Meeks, p. 4-5). This practice can be conducted with routine traffic stops, or can be completely random based on the car that is driven, the number of people in the car and the race of the driver and passengers. The practice of racial profiling may seem more prevalent in today’s society, but in reality has been a part of American culture since the days of slavery. According to Tracey Maclin, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, racial profiling is an old concept. The historical roots “can be traced to a time in early American society when court officials permitted constables and ordinary citizens the right to ‘take up’ all black persons seen ‘gadding abroad’ without their master’s permission” (Meeks, p. 5). Although slavery is long since gone, the frequency in which racial profiling takes place remains the same. However, because of our advanced electronic media, this issue has been brought to the American public’s attention.
“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...
Racial profiling in the dictionary is “the assumption of criminality among ethnic groups: the alleged policy of some police to attribute criminal intentions to members of some ethnic groups and to stop and question them in disproportionate numbers without probable cause (“Racial Profiling”).” In other words racial profiling is making assumptions that certain individuals are more likely to be involved in misconduct or criminal activity based on that individual’s race or ethnicity. Racial profiling propels a brutalizing message to citizens of the United States that they are pre-judged by the color of their skin rather than who they are and this then leads to assumptions of ruthlessness inside the American criminal justice system. With race-based assumptions in the law enforcement system a “lose-lose” situation is created due to America’s diverse democracy and destroys the ability to keep the criminal justice system just and fair. Although most police officers perform their duties with fairness, honor, and dedication, the few officers who portray to be biased then harm the whole justice system resulting in the general public stereotyping every law enforcement officer as a racial profiler (Fact Sheet Racial Profiling). When thinking about racial profiling many people automatically think it happens only to blacks but sadly this is mistaken for far more ethnic groups and races such as Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, Native Americans, and many more are racially profiled on a day to day basis. Many people believe racial profiling to be a myth because they see it as police officers merely taking precautions of preventing a crime before it happens, but in reality racial profiling has just become an approved term for discrimination and unjust actio...
According to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, a study in Maryland revealed that “70 percent of those stopped and searched on a stretch of I-95 were African American- despite the the fact that they represented only 17 percent of drivers on the road.” In light of this confounding statistic, it can be seen that racism and racial profiling was, and still is, an issue in society. Even so, in his essay “Just Walk on By”, Brent Staples apprises of his story as a young, black man growing up in a large city and him facing racial profiling on the city streets. Furthermore, Staples shows his message that many people are willing to judge a person and assume what that person might have done and will do by their outside appearance by using a strong
Racial profiling is the most idiotic and arrogant thing you can ever do as a person. Usually the people who are affected by racial profiling are minorities, however, any person can be a victim of racial profiling. Some may think that racial profiling is non-existent, however, I would like to bring the situation into focus and show that it is still in existence and has been observed in the past and now in the current year. Although, more than fifty percent of the time racial profiling is conducted it is against a man or woman of color; an African-American in other words. There are instances where a white person can be a victim as well. Trying not to say that there isn't any person out there that is exempted from racial profiling, because there isn't a single person who is just exempted from this cruel method of decision making. In my essay I will talk about racial profiling and what it is, however, you can't forget about where it happens and of course why. Several resolutions will be discussed in this essay to alleviate this problem.
According to a 2011 report from Washington Press, “the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights found evidence of widespread racial profiling, showing that African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately likely to be stopped and searched by police, even though they’re less likely to be found possessing contraband or committing a criminal act”( Natarajan) Racial profiling has its origins in the nineteenth century, when many scientists in Europe and America tried to prove that people of certain physiques bore positive and negative personality traits that matched their physical features as stated in Racial Profiling: An
This essay will bring to light the problem of racial profiling in the police force and propose the eradication of any discrimination. 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.” Despite this right, multiple minorities across the country suffer at the hands of police officers through racial profiling; the singling out of a person or persons as the main suspect of a crime based on their race. Many people have also suffered the loss of a loved one because police believed the suspect to be a threat based on their races therefore the officers use their authority to take out the “threat”. Although racial profiling may make sense to police officers in the line of duty, through the eyes of the public and those affected by police actions, it is a form a racism that is not being confronted and is allowing unjust convictions and deaths.
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently being implemented by the New York Police Department. It grants police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them questions 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 fall under assault and are 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, identifying himself as a police officer, and making reasonable inquiries.
“It was so hostile. I was so confused. It was happening so fast that I could easily see how this situation could get out of hand very quickly. I didn’t feel safe as all. But one officer stopped his questioning and said, ‘we may not let you go’.” (Perry) This is a quote from famous producer Tyler Perry, talking about his experience being stopped by two white police officers in Atlanta. Police officers are among the most trusted men and women in American society, they should be anyway. However, in some cities and states the trust between officers and people of a racial minority, such as Africans, Latinos and Arabs, has been tainted by mistreatment of policing powers. Some officers are stopping, searching, or pulling people of these races over and breaking the code they stand for by disrespecting the citizen, most of whom are completely innocent. This is not only morally unacceptable, but also completely unconstitutional and needs to stop promptly. With proper legislative action this injustice can and will be righted!
This quote explains how even before a citizen is officially stopped by a cop, there are times when that they have already had their personal conversations assessed without their knowledge or without them having done any wrong acts. It was done, based solely on their ethnicity and social status. You can add an example of what the people, who were being watched, were doing. when police are out watching the streets, they proceed to stop people again simply based on racial profiling. In an article called Watching Certain People by Bob Herbert, stated that “not only are most of the people innocent but a vast majority are either black or Hispanic” (Herbert 1).