Stop And Frisk During The United States

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “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” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

The stop and frisk policy came about many years ago. The stop and frisk is used for protection for the officer or officers. An officer can stop a suspect and frisk him/her for weapons, contraband or any other items if the officer feels any other suspicion. A Stop and Frisk do not require a warrant. This practice is very common now days, but similar procedures to stop and frisk policy started in the 1980s. According to Clark (2015), the earliest origins of stop and frisk were used in 1994 by Street Crime Unit to prevent the carrying of illegal guns in well-known hot spots and areas with high crime rates. The crime rates decreased over time, but it caused another issue in the communities.

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

There has always been tension raised between maintaining a safe society and observing by the constitutional rights of its citizens. The New York City aggressive program of Stop and Frisk have been widely criticized and considered unconstitutional. However, Stop and Frisk, per se is not unconstitutional unless people are being stopped illegally. It 's a crime prevention tool that allows police officers to stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and to conduct a frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Some argue this policy was created to target minorities. Most of the people who have been stopped and frisked under this program have been African American or Hispanic. This concerns citizens and makes them oppose the policy because they believe its racial profiling and guided by color. Stop and frisk is now one of the biggest controversies in United States. It has become something that is affecting society in both a positive and negative way.

Eighty-seven percent of stops in 2012, were Black and Hispanic people. Compare that percentage to the amount of water on Earth, only seventy percent. Now, imagine eighty-seven percent water covering the Earth. That would make the world unbalanced and difficult to live in, which is how life is for the minorities impacted by Stop and Frisk. One of the most debated and controversial topics in New York City is the Stop and Frisk policy, and the impact it has on police, Latinos, and African Americans. Stop and Frisk fails to promote justice and equitable society because it creates a society where one group is lesser than another. The Stop and Frisk policy was created in Ohio, 1968, because of the a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (US Courts).

The statistics show that to be an African American or Hispanic in New York you are more than twice as likely to get stopped as a white or Asian person. Studies of reports show that 15,000 or 30% of stops are deemed unconstitutional; and those are just the ones that are reported, imagine all of those that go unreported. Imagine all of those people who were victimized just because of the color of their skin. The stop-and-frisk procedure was once a good thing that helped clean up the streets, but now it’s becoming an epidemic of racial profiling, and teaching racism and intolerance to anyone who is a victim or witness of these stops.

Yes, Stop-and-Frisk is racial profiling because it mostly targets NYC’s African American and Latino citizens. According to United States Census Bureau in NYC about 50 percent of the population is Black and Latino, 44 percent is White, and the other 6 percent are other minor races. Therefore, it would be assumed that the Stop and Frisk policy if applied equally would target Black, Latinos, and Whites the most since they are the largest race populations in the city. However, this is not the case because 90 percent of Stop and Frisk searches were conducted on Black and Latino men which clearly shows that out all the races in the city that Black and Latino citizens are clearly being targeted because of the way they look. Some would argue that because most violent crimes are committed by Black and Latinos it is necessary to search them more over any other race. However, out of Stop and Frisk searches done on Black and Latinos 88 percent were found to be innocent. Therefore, most Black and Latino Citizens are not breaking any laws and such not involved in any crimes. The Stop and Frisk policy clearly racial profiles Black and Latinos because of stereotypes of these races being more violent and dangerous when statistics clearly show that is false.

Stop and Frisk started in New York City in the early 1990’s as a combined response to the “Broken Windows” sociological theory and the ruling in the Terry v. Ohio case. The initial prompt for this policy came from the ruling in the 1968 Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio. The court decided that fourth amendment rights are not violated when the police stop, detain, and search a suspect on the street. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This theory alleges that by reducing petty crime you can also deter more major crime much in the same way as fixing broken windows (which are thought to invite potential thieves) will prevent future crime. Kelling’s theory combined with the Terry v. Ohio ruling eventually led to the implementation of full blown Stop and Frisk in the New York City area during the mayoral term of Rudi Giuliani. The idea behind stop and frisk initially was for police officers to patrol streets in order to stop those they suspected of carrying illegal goods and then frisk them to ascertain if they were indeed breaking any laws. This would serve duel purposes in that those found to be carrying illegal goods would be stopped while letting others in the area who may be participating in illegal activities know that there was an active police presence there, hopefully deterring

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

Stop and frisk is a tactic designed for reducing crime by allowing police officers to stop and search individuals that may seem suspicious. This law allows police officers to search individuals only if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime might occur or if the suspect is carrying anything illegal or dangerous. Between the years of 2002 and 2016, there have been 5 million stop and streets interrogations, and nine out of 10 individuals who were stopped have been completely innocent (“Stop-and-Frisk Data”). With that being said, stop and frisk should not continue to be a policing tactic because it is ineffective, it gives too much power to police officers, and promotes racial profiling.

I think Stop-and-Frisk is not a racial profiling, here is why. Base on the data provided, most of the murder cases were involving minorities which happen to be Latinos and Blacks. Plus 50% of New York populations are Latinos and Black and most murders victim and suspects were Latinos and Black. I know that most of the Stop-and-Frisk victim were minorities, which I can see why people might think it racial profiling against minorities. However, New York’s police shouldn’t just targeted minorities base on statistic, because everyone can be a suspects. Therefore, I think the intention for Stop-and-frisk to stop crime from happening, it was met for police to stop and frisk everyone, not just minorities. It just so that minorities tend to crime

One of the big issues involved with the stop and frisk policy is whether the policy itself could be considered constitutional. Law enforcement only need reasonable suspicion to justify a stop which gives police too much discretion. The constitutionality of SQF was scrutinized in 1999 and it concluded that 15% of SPQ stops were potentially unconstitutional

The terms “stop-and-frisk” is used as one, then the reality is that its two separate acts. Stops are the first act with frisks being the second that requires the police officer to have two different legal justifications. When a police officer stops a subject that officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is in the act to commit a crime. To frisk a person by a police officer that officer must have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person who is stopped poses a threat to the officer’s safety which may include a concealed weapon ("Report on the NYPD 's stop and frisk policy," 2013).

But also 80 to 90 percent of those people that were stopped were doing nothing wrong.Also in 2013 a federal judge in New York said that the policy of stop and frisk was discriminatory and unconstitutional.Therefore, these reasons show why stop and frisk should be discontinued.

The controversy of the stop-and-frisk centers around the Fourth Amendment 's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. As mentioned above, the stop-and-frisk is not an unreasonable search; in fact, it is not a search at all. It is an anti-crime measure that police utilize as a proactive method of policing, with the objective of deterring criminals from “toting” illegal weapons on the streets. This preventive approach to crime fighting allows law enforcement to question suspicious individuals, while offering protection for the officer.