Stop-And-Frisk Policy Increases People Of Color To Discretion?

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

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 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.

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

“Stop and Frisk” is a program put into effect by the New York Police Department that basically grants an officer authority to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they deem him/her to be as such. They don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. 5They simply need to deem you “suspicious” to violate your 4th amendment rights without repercussions. Since its inception, New York City’s stop and frisk program has drawn much controversy stemming from the disproportionate rate of arrest. While the argument that the program violates an

Stop and Frisk laws have been a statistically proven means of crime prevention across America as a whole. Still, ever since their creation, Stop and Frisk laws have been a major source of controversy in America. The constitutionality of Stop and Frisk laws was confirmed in the 1968 case of Terry vs Ohio and since then, crime levels across America have been at historic lows. Yet, the 2013 verdict of the class action lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York has ruled otherwise. The court found the NYPD of violating both the fourth and fourteenth amendment mostly on the grounds of racial profiling. The court has as a result put in place a serious of complex changes to these laws making the job as a police officer even more dangerous than it already was. The topic of “racial profiling” is the fuel to the majority of the arguments opposing Stop and frisk. However, the subject of racial profiling is vastly misconstrued and deeply misunderstood. Stop and Frisk laws have flaws and are not perfect by any means, nevertheless they are an imperative source of preventing crime in America that needs to continue.

There has always been tension between maintaining a safe society and abiding by the constitutional rights of its citizens. However 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 tactic that allows police officers to stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and conduct a frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and or dangerous. Some argue this policy was created to target minorities. Most of the people who have been stopped and frisked under the program have been African American or Hispanic. This concerns

The Stop and Frisk policy is practiced in New York City and it involves a police officer stopping a potential suspect then they proceed to ask the person questions and/or pat them down. 84% of these stops recorded are young men typically of African American and Hispanic heritage. However, only 6% of these stops lead to an arrest. Many of these men are only being stopped because of the color of their skin, not because the police think they are suspicious of something. These statistics are leading people to accuse the police of racial profiling, and the abuse of privacy rights which has also led to a class action lawsuit. Even though these are the people who live in high crime areas, race doesn't

Did you know that about 88 percent of all Stop and Frisk incidents result in finding the victim to be “clean” meaning ruled completely innocent without cause for an arrest? Remember this statistic and several others that I give you, because they are alarming. Currently, the Stop and Frisk situation in the United States seems to be at a crossroad. The Stop and Frisk practice originated during the 1950’s, when crime rates were at an all-time high within cities. The purpose of this practice was to help eliminate crime off the streets within these major inner cities. This practice was used by law enforcement during a time where racial segregation and racial tension began to build up; and a feud between black citizens and white law enforcement grew rapidly. Unfortunately, we still today live in a world where individuals often times find themselves in the middle of a “wrongdoing” in the eyes of the law enforcement. The results of these situations through history have not always turned fatal, but recently it seems that the end result from these situations do so. How many of you are aware of the incident that occurred between Eric Garner, a 43-year-old black Staten Island male, and the New York Police Department (NYPD)? For those of you who are not, victim Eric Garner was approached by the NYPD under the suspicion of selling untaxed cigarettes. This led to a Stop and Frisk altercation between

Stop and Frisk has been a very controversial topic for quite some time, especially throughout the last election cycle. It is defined as the circumstance where a police officer will temporarily detain an individual, who they have reasonable suspicion that the individual could be armed and/or dangerous, and pat down their clothing. This issue has been of grand concern for a multitude of individuals due to the increased fear in the minority communities, who have been declared more likely to be stopped and frisked, or ‘suspect worthy,’ which points in the direction of the unconstitutional use of racial profiling. In addition, the data — as explained in class — implies that the increase in stops and frisks during the time stop and frisks were

Sadly, African Americans are not the only minority who fall as a victim to unfair stops. Hispanics are constantly being stopped at traffic stops, due to the fact they are not caucasian. In New York, eighty seven percent of the traffic stops were Hispanic or African American (Jost 7). David Floyd was stopped by a New York police officer on his way home for no reason, but simply because Floyd wasn’t white. The officer made an assumption, and pulled Floyd over, even though nothing he was doing was against the law (“Racial Profiling” 1). Police officers and other government officials are becoming known to make assumptions at traffic stops based on the drivers race. While driving through a traffic stop, African Americans and other minorities freedom is in jeopardy.

Stop and frisk is supposed to be a tactic that equally targets all races and tries to stop/ reduce crimes that’s going on in the cities. There is a lot that’s going on with this stop and frisk, many people will say there’s a war going on. The two sides are “Racial Profiling vs. ‘Proactive Policing’”. Some people might say that stop and frisk is working because the deaths in New York City went down 7,300 in the last past eleven years since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office (backlash). In such ways, this is true that stop and frisk helped in New York but in other cities like Los Angeles (59%), New

As the controversial topic of stopping and frisking is widely discussed throughout this country, citizens wonder what factors are involved in causing law enforcement to decide to stop and frisk someone. Some believe that law enforcement wrongly use race as a factor for stopping and frisking, while others refute this claim by arguing that race is a necessary determining factor in order to reduce crime. People not guilty of crimes should be able to feel safe around police officers; however, it is a police officer’s job to take necessary steps to stop those they assume are engaging in suspicious activity. Even though many have lost trust in police officers due to recent innocent lives who have been victims of police brutality,

As pointed out in Wade C. Jacobsen’s Minority Youth and Police Contact, “One example of police contact is New York City’s Stop-and-Frisk program. It has been practiced by the New York Police Department for decades……………but the practice has nonetheless been met with heated debate and complaints of racial profiling. Indeed, a recent report by the New York Civil Liberties Union

The stop and frisk policy is a practice employed by the New York Police Department where officers can temporarily detain, question, and with reasonable suspicion, search civilians on the street for illegal contraband and weapons. This policy has gained a high controversial status due to questions about its constitutionality, effectiveness, and racial profiling causing it became a hot topic for debate during the 2016 presidential election. This election led to an even further increase in awareness within the American public as it became sensationalized fostering more controversy within the public. Although it can act as a deterrence for unlawful possession of illegal substances, the stop and frisk policy instated in New York City is both ineffective