Stop And Frisk Research Paper

What are stop and frisk? Who is allowed to use stop and frisk? Haq tells us that stop and frisk is a "program that enables a police officer to stop, question, and frisk a person for weapons" (Haq). This means that the police officer can stop, search and question you at any time only if they have reasonable suspicion; but, only if they follow the proper protocol and guidelines. Stop and Frisk will promote safety not only for the officer but also in society. Many people may think that stop and frisk will promote racial profiling and that it will interfere with their fourth amendment but will it? Gun violence has been a big issue throughout the United States, we hear it on the news and in social media. Stop and frisk are an

The New York Police Department's stop and frisk has been around for several years and people recently have been taking action about it but this is a very important and useful practice that officer conduct on a daily base, police officer are doing the right thing especially if neighborhoods are known for criminal or violent activities then these people should be stopped, questioned and frisked, from January to June of 2013 the NYPD's report shows that African American and Hispanics are more active to commit crimes like robbery, rape, murder and manslaughter, felonious assault, grand larceny, misdemeanor sex crime, misdemeanor assault, petit larceny, criminal mischief, shootings, procession of drugs, firearms, and other illegal substance overall blacks and latinos being targeted not only because what they are wearing or how they but also cause of what the numbers show us. The new soon to be Major of New York Bill de Blasio has said that he is against the stop and frisk but many officers say that taking away the stop and frisk will increase crime tremendously, people are going to start to walk around with weapons, the whole point about the stop and frisk and why police officers conduct it many times is because they want the public to see that anyone can be patted down meaning that if they carry weapons with them then they will get arrested. Bill de Blasio has also said

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.

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 framework of Stop-and-Frisk started in 1968 in a case known as Terry v. Ohio. This was a landmark case that gave law enforcement the constitutional limitations by the United States Supreme Court to stop and search individuals in streets encounters for weapon or contraband (Rengifo & Slocum, 2016). In 1996, the Anthony General, Eliot Spitzer opened an investigation to assess the effectiveness of Stop-and-Frisk on the minority communities in New York City. The assessment involved looking at 175,000 UF-250 Forms from 1998 to 1999. During

The constitutional requirements of stop and frisk practices were bought up by the Supreme Court during the court case of Terry v. Ohio. Before this case, it was illegal for Police Officers to stop someone and frisk them unless they were being arrested or have a search warrant for that person. After various cases that tested the constitutional rights of Americans such as Sibron v. New York, Peters v. New York and Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court cane to the conclusion that police officers can frisk someone without having

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.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the pros and cons of the Stop and Frisk policy in New York. This paper covers a short history of Stop and Frisk. It also will address the progression of the policy throughout the years. Furthermore, it will relate the topic to the management, gender, and race class focusing in on how the unconscious bias plays a role in how the police choose who to stop. The paper also includes some statistics of Stop and Frisk encounters. It will conclude with the group opinion of the Stop and Frisk policy.

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

Ever since 1968 and the Supreme Court case of “Terry vs Ohio” was settled, stop and frisking policies have been used by police everywhere in the United States. However, lately the use of this tactic, especially in New York, has raised the questions of whether or not these stop and frisks are actually helping as well as the question of whether or not these supposed random stops are unbiased. There have been a great number of arguments for the continuation of stop and frisk policies as well as the cease of such tactics to lower the crime rate in cities. In New York, these concerns were first brought to light in the late 1990’s. Throughout this decade, the huge decrease in crime rates had been credited to the fact that NYPD had taken the stop and frisk policies very seriously. However, “near the end of the decade there were repeated complaints of harassment of minority communities” (Gelman). The people of New York were complaining that the NYPD were stopping people and treating people differently based on their ethnic background, which brings up the bigger and more disturbing question; Were the police stopping minorities based on racial bias?

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

The New York City Police Department stop-and-frisk impacts thousands of peoples lives everyday, and unfortunately most of the cases involve African American and Hispanic Males, which shows racism is still present in the world we live in today. Prior to speaking about a stop and frisk, one must have general knowledge about what it is and all of its supporting parts. A “Stop and frisk” occurs when an officer of the law temporarily detains an individual or group of people on the street to question them about the reason or reasons in which they were stopped, and possibly also frisking or searching them for the safety of the officers and the detainees as well. A stop may end with someone being arrested or given a ticket if evidence of a crime being committed comes to light. “A stop and frisk is a concise, non-invasive, police stop of a “suspect(Cornell University Law School, 2014).”

I believe the Stop and Frisk policy based in New York City is a biased and unconstitutional tactic that police officers use. The Stop and Frisk Policy states “if the police have reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing.” (Law.cornell.edu/stopandfrisk) I am not Pro-Stop and Frisk: by stopping an individual based on the officers own suspicion, the officer is violating that person right of privacy. The fourth amendment in the United States Constitution.

Stop and frisk is about the study of different factors in a particular instance, not racial profiling. The Fourth Amendment guarantees all individuals the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrantless searches and seizures are deemed unreasonable unless the given circumstances of the search fall under the exceptions to a warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, as stated in Katz v. United States. Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause needed for a search warrant, but is more than an inchoate suspicion or hunch but less than probable cause where, an officer my approach a person with the intent of investigating possible criminal behavior even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest, U.S. v. Sokolow. To determine whether an officer had an objective basis for stopping a person suspected of criminal activity, courts look at the totality of the circumstances, as

Katherine Mangu-Ward (2009) interprets stop and frisk in New York City (NYC) and states that in “the first six months of 2009, a record 273,000 New Yorkers were grabbed as part of the program.” Also most of the stops involve Black and Hispanic minorities, while white people