Police Stop And Search: Diversified Or Justified?

This paper outlines the studies, incidents, facts and statistics that have found evidence of racial profiling which causes distrust in the law enforcements (police, government etc0. Studies of racial profiling shows that blacks, Hispanics, Middle Eastern and other racial minorities are more likely to be stopped than those who are white. They are more likely to be stopped and searches, traffic stops, license and registration checks. In addition they are more likely to be ticketed or arrested after being stopped and search. Some scholars and studies believes that minorities being that are frequently stopped and searched has nothing to do with them being racially profiled. According to Roh and Robinson,” studies raise the possibility that minorities may be more involved in criminality (Gaines, 2006), some drug crimes (Lichtenberg, 2006), and speeding offenses (Lange, Johnson, & Voas, 2005), thereby justifying higher stop and arrest rates by police of some groups.” (Roh, S., & Robinson, M.)

Racial profiling is a very prevalent issue within the criminal justice system that is quite controversial, but there is a significant number of evidence that shows that racial profiling has been present since the 1600’s and continues to be a significant issue. Racial profiling is evident in the criminal justice system in various ways such as in interrogations, jury selection, misleading statistics, stops, and immigration laws. Racial profiling within interrogations and jury selection can be seen with the Brandley v. Keeshan case. Racial profiling within statistics can be seen in instances where the numbers focus on arrests and incarcerations that do not necessarily mean a crime was committed. Stops are seen as evidence showing racial profiling with a personal experience, and lastly, immigration laws are seen as showing racial profiling by the encounter of a Mexican American women had with an officer in Arizona.

Racial profiling is simply, “the unlawful police practice of using race, color, or ethnic background, as the reason for conducting a traffic stop on an individual.” (Michigan Civil Rights Commission) This definition can be extended to any kind of discrimination mainly based on myths and stereotypes towards a certain race or ethnicity. However, the term racial profiling is commonly used when a police officer or any other law enforcer stops, questions, searches or arrests an individual purely on the basis of their race. African Americans or simply blacks have been the major racial group that has suffered much of racial profiling. Much of this is based on the stereotypes against the blacks are perceived as more likely to engage in criminal activities. For instance, in a 2013 Racial Profiling Data from Ferguson Police Department, out of 5384 police stops, 4632 were against blacks. (Ferguson Police Dept. 1) Despite the low population of blacks in U.S. compared to other races, the former continues being subjected to more racial profiling. Racial profiling against African Americans continues to expose the blacks to humiliation and racial injustices, as this paper will expose, thereby calling for the responsible authorities to address and find solutions for the problem.

The issue of stop and search is considered to be an extremely controversial area. There is significant debate on the legitimacy and the accountability of police powers when conducting stop and search, which has led to concerns about the effectiveness of policing. Reiner (2000: 80) has stated that policing is ‘beyond legitimation’ as a result of consistent complaints concerning the abuse of police powers within stop and search. The cause for concern is not only raised by the public, or other agencies, but is now recognised by senior British police officers (Ainsworth, 2002: 28). The cause of concern has been raised through complaints that police target ethnic minorities through stop and search and public opinion, that stop and search is a

Every day people walk down the street of New York wondering if they are going to be stopped. Paul Butler a law professor at Georgetown University and a former United States Department of Justice prosecutor says that “the problem with stop and frisk is not only that it makes the citizens of New York less free, it also makes them less safe” (Butler, 2012). This brings the feeling of the people in New York to light, as they feel like they are less than others and less free with the ability to them being stopped and searched whenever an officer has a suspicion. Not all officers have the right sense in mind when it comes to their suspicion about someone, because “according to the analysis, just 1.5% of all stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a jail or prison sentence. Just one in 50 stop-and-frisk arrests, 0.1%, led to a conviction for a violent crime or possession of a weapon. Close to half of all stop-and-frisk arrests did not result in a conviction” (Lee, 2013). The percentages show that officers’ suspicions aren’t always correct and that they may use their own stereotype about someone when they stop and frisk. This policy is ineffective because they don’t have a 100 percent on catching people, and many times officers’ own opinions on someone gets in the way. This policy is kept around for the little percentage it has worked and to give the officers an option to do a stop and frisk if they feel necessary. If this policy

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

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.

The stop, question, and frisk policy was implemented in the NYPD in an effort to make the city a safer place. With weapons becoming more easily accessible than ever, they are becoming more of a problem, and officers and the general public are now in more danger than ever of being killed by a firearm, knife, or a weapon. Although the policy is intended to prevent harm and protect society, it has been under major scrutiny in not only the past few years, but also the past few decades as well. Due to the fact that minorities are believed to be the main target of this policing tactic, many people have argued it is inherently corrupt should be abolished. On the other hand, it has shown to provide some positive outcomes and as a result, it is a necessary

Supreme Court's verdict on pretext traffic stops in Whren v. United States, racial hostility between white law enforcement and African American citizens is as insidious as ever. Statistics of unarmed African American men killed by police officers are seemingly alarmingly universally. In spite of the national quarrel against discrimination by police officers, the U.S. Supreme Court has lately made a choice that will expand police judgment. The fickle political background that sets the matter of “racial profiling” has directed local and state police agencies across the nation to start collecting information about traffic and pedestrian stops (Engel et al., Vol. 19, 2002). The disagreement over this topic is plagued by the uncorroborated notion that all race-based judgment by law enforcement is motivated by the type of person the police officers' are. Potential profiling would further show the role of how the agency has an influence on how the police officers distribute traffic violations as pretext. To further show the connection among civilians and police

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino. In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times. 605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

Apart from periodically publishing stop and search records, supervisors and managers of police force are now required to closely monitor such statistics and take timely actions if something wrong is being observed. Also stricter rules on stop and search have since been imposed, along with the requirement of police officers writing a detailed report on spot about every single incident which subjects to review seems helpful in improving police conduct (Fyfe 1979; Skogan and Frydl 2004 in Miller 2010). While stop and search practice has been somehow improved, racial discrimination can still be seen in stop and search statistics. The notion of “Black and minority ethnic groups, particularly black people, have for many years been disproportionately at the receiving end of police stop and search—a fact associated with profound community resentment towards the police” (Bowling and Phillips 2002 in Miller 2010) still largely applies today. Miller’s (2010) analysis indicate that black people are about 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched, while it is about 2 times more likely for Asians. Similar idea is seen in Bennetto’s (2009) report, which draws on police statistics that shows in 2009 “black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white”, worse than Miller’s analysis with the most recent figures in 2008. No official explaination is provided by Police, but Bennetto (2009) assumes this may be caused by simply discrimination of

The police procedure stop and frisk is a highly controversial topic in society. In order for the officer to initiate the procedure, he or she needs reasonable suspicion or probable cause that meet minimal legal requirements. People that have been stop and frisked may wonder if the procedure is discriminatory towards race, since a majority of people stopped are minorities, or if the procedure is against ones constitutional rights that are protected by the amendments, or if the procedure is effective in reducing crime rates. Citizens may feel that being stopped and frisked by an officer is against the constitutional rights they have as people. The reason an officer initiates this procedure is to hopefully reduce crime rates in the long term. Officer’s need probable cause in order to initiate the procedure. The top five reasons for the stop and frisk practice to occur include “high crime areas, time of day fits the crime incident, fugitive movements by the suspect, casing victim or location, and proximity to the crime scene” (Avdija 27). Under those circumstances a person is more likely to be stopped by an officer. One may ask; What is the stop and frisk procedure? What are the minimum legal requirements needed to initiate a stop and frisk? Is the stop and frisk procedure discriminatory towards race? Is the stop and frisk procedure unconstitutional? Does the procedure actually reduce crime rates? Suspects involved in a stop and frisk procedure do have constitutional rights, but

It has been known that members of ethnic minority groups are more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. Police are able to use this “power” if they have “reasonable

A major issue that has been at the forefront of the topic of race in America is racial profiling. This practice of targeting individuals based on the individual’s race is not new and has been in use for many many years. However it has recently come to national attention with the killing of unarmed black teenagers by police officers. The issue of racial profiling not only highlights the lack of equality in America but the issue of policemen using excessive force when dealing with criminal activity.