Law Enforcement within urban communities has always been a difficult task for police. They are forced to deal with vastly different variables when trying to maintain order. The ability to identify who is a potential criminal is a daunting task for police. In order to assist these officials in their guest to stop a potential crime before it would happen, New York State adopted the “Stop and Frisk” law. This law was created in order to enable the police to fight a more efficient and effective war on crime. It gave them more options in identifying individuals who may commit crimes and to make communities safer. This was a policy whose origins had all of the best intentions and if implemented correctly could be a huge asses in lowering the crime rate. However, there has been an unexpected element that has been added to the enforcement of the law. Through poor interpretation of individuals rights. As well as inadequate training of police officers, this law has become one that is viewed as being biased and racist. The enforcement of Stop and Frisk serves as a catalyst for class and race division within the city of New York and as long as it continues to be enforce the way that it is, minorities will always be at a disadvantage.
“If the courts force policy to obey the law, then the legislature should give the police a law worth obeying.” Richard Kuh expressed this idea to the New York State legislature during a hearing in January of 1962. This in response to the Supreme Court ruling in the Mapp vs. Otto case. The ruling barred unlawfully seized evidence from admission in state criminal proceedings. In this particular case the police forcibly entered Dollree Mapp’s residence after she told them they were not allo...
... middle of paper ...
...this data base. In 2010 a lawsuit was filed in order to erase the names of the people who were stopped but never charged. In July of 2010, then Governor David Patterson signed into law a bill that eliminated the police the police practice of keeping the names of people who were not charged. This bill was sponsored by Brooklyn Democratic Senator Eric Adams, who was a former NYPD captain. Senator Adams said he endorsed the bill in order to protect people, especially minorities from being target by the police. Senator Adams alongside Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer launched a campaign in 2011 calling for aid from federal prosecutors. They requested federal intervention in order to protect the rights of minorities. This campaign was met with staunch resistance from the NYPD claiming once again that the program was vital in getting guns off the streets.
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.
Explain how the "Stop and Frisk" policies have changed and what role public opinion played in making these changes.
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.
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.
Some policy supporters argued that the strategy reduce crime rate even though there are no empirical data to support their claim. This policy shed a light on the negative perception that community has regarding community policing. I chose the second article “An analysis of the new york city police department 's 'stop-and-frisk ' policy in the context of claims of racial bias” by Gelman Fagan & Kiss (2007) would assist me because it dealt with racial bias in community policing and its shows how certain minorities groups are racially profiled through the process of ‘stop-and frisk.’ My topic focuses on community policing and this policy will give an argued to know the route of the distrust communities has towards law enforcement
...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
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 New York City had a new leftist mayor, many foreshadowed there would be a significant rise in crime spanning over a few years. The new mayor, Bill de Blasio, was to blame. De Blasio wanted to reform city measure, but he went about it in a different way. De Blasio talked and listen more to ex-cons on this matter, putting their options and advice to the forefront of his mind. Many of them rallied for reducing police stratagems to reduce New York City’s crime rates. It was believed that de Blasio agreed with this idea because of his thoughts on some of the tactics New York City’s police officers used. De Blasio fought against “Stop and Frisk”, because of how they unjustly discriminated against young, African American males and put their safety at risk.
“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...
First of all, stop and frisk is an act of racism. Stop and Frisk is a great evidence of an ineffective policy which, under the guise of
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...
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.
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.