Critically Discussion of the Issue of Stop and Search

“The police have a number of powers of stop and search. When using any power they must always have regards to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice.” The effectiveness of the police stop and search procedures being used as a valuable tool in the detection of crime can be measured by looking at the role that stop and searches play in policing and the arrests they lead to. However their impact on the community and the negative image it has given the police force outweigh the results generated from stop and searches. It has been found through various reports such as one by The Equality and Human Rights Commission, arrests for serious offenses are less likely to follow from stop and searches however they do play

The term stop and search is used to refer to the power of the police to search a person or a vehicle they believe, is likely to be involved in a crime. ‘Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows a police officer to stop and search a person without suspicion. Section 60 stops and searches can take place in an area which has been authorised by a senior police officer based on their reasonable belief that violence has or is about to occur, and where it is expedient to prevent it or search people for a weapon if one was involved in the incident.’ (Liberty, 1934)[3]. This power that police officers possess has been effective in catching criminals, likely drug dealers and people carrying Illegal weapons, and has succeeded in making Britain’s streets safer in many cases. London’s Metropolitan police conducting 155,489 stop and searches between April

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

Subsequently, it leads to their over-policing. This concept revolves around the notion that police do their jobs ‘too well’ and uses excessive force in confrontations with certain groups (Porat, 2008:416). It is ultimately the personification of racial profiling. Wortley and Bempah’s study (2011:397) shows that racial profiling is a grave problem that black Torontonians face, as 57% respondents believed that it is a major problem. This statistic is reinforced in the same study as 47% of blacks perceived their encounters with police as unfair, in contrast to just 12% of Whites (Wortley & Bempah, 2011:400). They were not given a thorough or specific reason for their stops, as they reported that they faced hostility and disrespect in their encounters.

"Relations between the police and minority groups are a continuing problem in many multiracial societies. Surveys consistently document racial differences in perceptions of the police, with minorities more likely than whites to harbor negative views." (Weitzer and Tuch, Race and Perceptions of Police Misconduct, 2004)

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 district court’s holding that allowing ambiguity to defeat apparent authority would unreasonably burden police officers by forcing them to clarify the consenter’s authority over every container within the area they were permitted to search should be upheld as it is one that is supported by persuasive precedent from a sister circuit of this Court. See United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 2000). In Melgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to support the position on ambiguous apparent authority stated above. See id. (citing Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)). The Seventh Circuit states the Supreme

Safety is a fundamental right that we all deserve. Most of us rely on the government to provide this security. We pay for this through taxes, but the question that we must ask ourselves is are we getting what we are paying for? By paying our taxes to the government we are giving it the authority to choose the service we are getting back. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative

On August 12, 2002 Judge Schira Scheindlin ruled that the stop, question and frisk program is unlawful. She agreed with The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that the program has clearly and wrongfully targeted racial minorities. This explains on how from 2002-2013 the New York Police Department has ignored the law and has gone its own to make its own rules ignoring the real laws. Scheindlin said in one of her articles “The city officials’ have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops I n a racially discriminatory manner,” Scheindlin wrote in her opinion. “In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting the right of people is racially discriminatory.” What she is trying to tell even though sometimes you think you are doing the right thing it’s the wrong thing to do.

There are three reasons for the disproportionate use of stop and search against members of minority ethnic groups. Firstly Police Racism; the Macpherson Report (1999), on the investigation of the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence, concluded that there was institutional racism within the Met.Police. Other people have also found there to be excessive racist attitudes among officers. Also Phillips and Bowling suggested that officers hold negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities. Such stereotypes are endorsed and upheld by the canteen culture.

The law of the land, stop and frisk law is now questionable. It is some cases where the law is acceptable but also considered excessive. Officers are seen taking the stop and frisk law to far. They are just routinely stopping and frisking individuals with no belief that a crime is being committed. Stop and frisk is seen as racial profiling. “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump brought stop and frisk policies back into the spotlight at Monday night's debate, calling for a national stop and frisk policy to help curb gun violence in cities.”

As a visible representative of the nation, individuals often draw crucial conclusions about their social status within this social group from their encounters with the police. Such identity relevant information may be derived from instrumental judgements of the police. An instrumental perspective suggests that when the police do effectively protect particular communities, and when outcomes (e.g. quality of service, availability of aid) are not equally distributed, these communities may come to feel isolated from the wider social group that the police represent (Fagan & Davies, 2000). Aggressive police practices such as ‘stop-and-frisk’ (as well as physical abuse have frequently targeted Black individuals concentrated in areas of poverty, high

However, when actual students were interviewed about their personal experiences with police, majority understood the need for the stop and search policy. Russell, Boakye and Hackett (2013) found that most students were comfortable with the policy being put into practice in certain areas as this form of overt surveillance reduced the levels of crime in rogue neighbourhoods. Students welcomed the police presence as it made them feel safer and they admitted that the stop and

It is pertinent to believe that one in four police stop and search have been deemed unlawful by the police watchdog; such as, the case of Mark Duggan (the guardian.com, Jan 2014) who was wrongfully killed in the police stop and search

On October 31, 1963, a veteran detective of 39 years in downtown Cleveland noticed two men (one being the petitioner Terry) walking back in forth in front of the same store numerous times each. When they returned they would talk between each other for a few moments. Then, the men met with a third man and stood outside “suspiciously” chatting before the third man left (Terry v. Ohio). The officer suspected that the men were casing the stores for a stick-up or robbery and began to follow the two men (Oyez). Again, the two men met with the third man around the block in front of another store and again conversed. That is when the detective approached the three men, announcing himself as a police officer and asking the names of the men (Terry v. Ohio). The men replied with a low mumble, upon which the officer grabbed Terry, spun him around and patted him down (ACLU Ohio). Upon patting down his overcoat, he found a pistol on Terry, and then another pistol on the other man that was originally with Terry, before patting down and arresting the three men on concealed weapon charges. This type of stop and frisk technique is now known as the “Terry frisk” because of this (Argiriou).