The New York Police Department’s Stop and Frisk Policy: A Time Series Analysis

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.

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).

In 1990, New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton instituted a stop, question, and frisk policy in his jurisdiction . The program allows police officers to search citizens without probable cause . This empowers police officers to use their discretion when deciding whether or not to search a subject . Since its inception, the policy has disproportionately targeted people of color . When police officers are allowed to use their discretion, some call upon their own prejudices against people of color to guide their decision-making . Despite President Trump’s calls to expand the program, stop-and-frisk should be eliminated altogether because it exposes people of color to discrimination. This discrimination creates resentment for police in minority communities.

The root of the stop and Frisk law was dated back to 1960’s when it was implemented. Astoundingly Harris (2007), this examination can work in the clarifications that NYPD law use strengths usage power when a stop and frisk is begun. (15) The NYPD's persuading stop and frisk approach has been a broken subject among the city's voters and course of action makers, the NYPD saw to oneself out for this issue in 2007 by commission the RAND Corporation to lead an examination of its stop and frisk plan. In their report, the RAND encouraged effort gathered data from the NYPD's minding Uf250 so investigated the race of the suspects United Nations alliance were subjected to a stop and frisk by a NYPD officer. The Uf250 may be a worksheet that is pressed

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

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

(Rudy Giuliani, 2007) Quality of life and zero-tolerance policing took effect and with these new standards came a drastic drop in crime. One of the main policy changes was stop and frisk. The stop and frisk policy was adopted from English law in a number of American courts. In accordance with English common law, without statutory provisions, a police officer has the power to stop, question, and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. Based on a standard which holds less than probable cause, this power is granted upon the standard of reasonable suspicion. It is a question of circumstances of each individual case that determines whether reasonable detention and investigation is validated The NYPD's stop-and-search has raise genuine worries over racial profiling, unlawful stops and constitutional rights. The Department keeps records and reports on its stop-and-search actions, and it affirm what numerous individuals in groups of color over the city have long known: The police are searching a huge number of well-behaved New Yorkers consistently and most by far are dark and

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

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

Within the article, Police Stop and Frisk-Encounters Plunged in Second Quarter of 2013, Joseph Goldstein indicates how random stop searches by police officials have declined severely over the last few years. The purpose of stop and frisks are to determine if suspicious individuals are carrying any weapons, drugs or any other illegal objects. This topic is a very sensitive subject due to the nature of discrimination that many police offers are found to be in trouble with. Numerous individuals are against stop and frisks because they feel that this is a way that allows racists police officers to employ their racial ideologies towards the community, and enforce discrimination amongst minorities.

The stop and frisk policy has evolved from the Terry v. Ohio court decision which permits an officer to detain a suspect under reasonable suspicion for a serious crime; however, it does not “allow such intrusion based on a police officer’s inarticulate hunch that a crime is about to occur or is in progress” (American Civil Liberties Union, 2015). In cities with high ratios of minorities and immigrants, the stop and frisk policy creates an air of distrust and can actually cause more harm than good. Statistics from Boers-Goi (2015) revealed that the NYPD stopped “2.4 million people between 2009 and 2014, of which 150,000 people 6% were arrested. 16% of these arrests were never prosecuted, and another 10% were dismissed. Only 0.1% of all stops led to a conviction for a crime of violence” (p. 1). Based on the aforementioned

The idea of a stop and frisk is that a police officer can arrest a suspect only if they have enough suspicion that someone has committed a crime. A stop is only allowed when “a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot,” (Toobin, TNY 2013). Some believe that the search and frisk law itself is not the issue, but that the practice by police officers is what is at question. Constantly targeting minorities is what the basis of the controversy behind this law is. As the numbers will show in the rest of this essay, they are the ones who are being most frequently searched and this is resulting in a high number of people who are against this law. There have been countless trials in New York

Since the beginning of the 1990s , police stop and search has come into the light of the public eye for various reasons. One of which that has been most debated and researched is racial discrimination. With liberation groups reaching higher up in the political agenda, police conducting stop and search based on ethnicity or religion has been a heatedly debated topic. Moreover, with events such as 9/11 and 7/7, it seemingly relates to “how general powers are used and whether they are used in a way that is more intrusive of liberty than justified by their effectiveness or as a means to discriminate against particular groups.”1 Considering the events that have led to the police employing a generous approach of general and anti-terrorist stop and

“Racism isn’t about how you look, it’s about people assigning meaning to how you look.” -Robin D.G. Kelley. Racial profiling has been used for centuries around the world. From the Mongols in 300 B.C.E., to modern day soccer moms, this method of discrimination is widespread. Racial discrimination dates back a long time, but has deep roots in Western culture. Modern racial profiling began in the 1970’s when law enforcement wanted to identify drug dealers, and was implemented in the 80’s by the DEA (drug enforcement agency) to intercept drug couriers on highways. This procedure led to shortcuts such as stopping people of a certain race, often a certain age group of black or Hispanic males. Officers would inspect the car, and search for more incriminating evidence. By the 90’s, these stops became routine for law enforcement officers. Racial profiling should be filtered out of law enforcement practices for three key reasons: it harms trust of law enforcement within communities, it increases unwarranted targets on minorities, and finally it increases civilian use of racial profiling.