The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
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).
When an officer stops a person in NYC, the officer ...
... middle of paper ...
...using the program, I feel that Bill de Blasio, who is preparing to fill Mayor Bloomberg’s seat as the mayor of New York City, has the right idea when it comes to New York City’s Police Department’s stop and frisk program. He plans not only to redevelop the stop and frisk program altogether, but he plans on focusing on making the program “racially color-blind”.
While making any program in the criminal justice system “color-blind” is not an easy concept, many regulations can be enacted to help ensure equality when finding a precinct and performing a stop and frisk among NYC civilians. The new policy can include regulations that make it necessary to use a higher form of discretion when stoping a person. Such as attempting to overlook the persons race and focus more on where they are coming from, how they are acting, and/or who they are surrounding themselves with.
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.
In the United States of America today, racial profiling is a deeply troubling national problem. Many people, usually minorities, experience it every day, as they suffer the humiliation of being stopped by police while driving, flying, or even walking for no other reason than their color, religion, or ethnicity. Racial profiling is a law enforcement practice steeped in racial stereotypes and different assumptions about the inclination of African-American, Latino, Asian, Native American or Arab people to commit particular types of crimes. The idea that people stay silent because they live in fear of being judged based on their race, allows racial profiling to live on.
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.
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.
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
...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.
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
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...
One of the biggest reason stop-and-frisk should be abolished is in hopes to decrease such blatant racial profiling that has been going on under the name of “stop-and-frisk”. In 2007, 55% of the people stopped in New York were blacks and 30% were Hispanic (“Update: Crime and Race”). When checked again in 2011 a total of 685,000 people were stopped by the police of that 685,000, 52.9% were African Americans, 33.7% were Latino, and 9.3% were white (“Racial Profiling”). There is a story of an innocent victim of the stop-and-frisk policy, a man by the name of Robert Taylor. Police in Torrance stopped the elderly man and claimed he fit the description of a suspect that was linked to a robbery. But there was one simple problem; Taylor is a light complexioned, tall, 60 year-old man and the suspect was believed to be a short, dark complexioned, stocky man in his thirties; nothing like Taylor at all (Hutchinson). His shows that the police do not always stop people based on the right reasons, they tend to stop people based on the color of thei...
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...
Despite the fact racism has been around for hundreds of years, upcoming generations are becoming more open minded and less likely to publicly berate minorities; racial profiling, however, is the one loophole of racism America overlooks. Police officials often use the practices of racial profiling to discretely single out minority races. A common approach to this is through traffic patrols. According to a statistic based in San Jose, CA, nearly 100,000 drivers were stopped; during the year ending in June 2000; and of these drivers less than 32% were white, the remaining 68% of drivers were a...
Many residents of New York City endured harassment from the New York Police Department while Stop and Frisk was implemented. William Brangham, a News Hour special correspondent, interviewed two African American males who were plaintiffs in the Federal court case that decided to ban Stop and Frisk in 2013.
Reports have shown very little benefits from these stops, only one out of 10 yield any wrongdoing and only 1% of the incidents involve a subject carrying a weapon.** Yet NYPD’s officers continue with the stops and spend less time fighting crimes and more time violating a civilian’s Fourth Amendment rights. According the video, not all NYPD’s police officers agree with the harassment and damage Mayor Bloomberg’s policy has caused young people and their families. They are not happy with how these stop-and-frisks have tarnished their image, prohibiting them from doing the real work of protecting people and keeping crime off the streets. Unfortunately, the officers interviewed in the video revealed the reasons why stop-and-frisk numbers are so high and talked about the pressure from their superiors to “make the quota.” They claim that they are asked to “hunt” to meet a numeric goal of stops or face retaliation and penalties. They are promised promotions to the next rank for high numbers or disciplinary action for those with low numbers. Many are fed up with the top down demands to fill their quotas but don’t want to rock the boat and fear filing a complaint about police practice or the system in general, would not be
The stop and frisk program is a concept that has been employed in the New York City for some few decades not. The program was conceptualized after a careful consideration of the crime rates increasing in the city. As such its core function has been to promote a crime-free society within and in the city. However, the program has had mixed feeling from various stakeholders especially the civilians who have filed complaints with Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) against NYPD police officers.