Police Law Enforcement Protection And Citizen 's Civil Liberties

Racial disparity in the Criminal Justice system has been a issue of discussion in our law enforcement for years. Statistics say the likelihood of imprisonment in a lifetime is 1 in 3 black men, 1 in 6 Latino men and 1 in 17 white men. (Bonczar2003) The search and seizure 4th amendment was passed in 1789 which was supposed to protect all persons of unreasonable searches, etc. In 1944 Gunner Myrdal wrote “it’s part of a policeman’s philosophy that Negro criminals or suspects that show any sign of insubordination should be punished bodily, to keep the negro in his place.” In the late 1960’s early 70’s there were many riot commissions that recommended changes in police practices, especially aggressive stop-and-risk procedures.(Skolnick1969) Racial disparities have been an issue for years, especially in traffic stops. There are a couple different approaches to help reduce or end racial profiling. The ACLU’s 5 part battle plan to end racial profiling (Harris2003), and The Racial Justice Improvement project (ABA2010). Racial profiling is an issue in many aspects of the Criminal Justice system. This paper will mainly be based on traffic stops and in sentencing.

In the 1990s, the growth of violent crime reached its all-time high. In reply to the number of high murder rates in 1990, the New York City Police Department realized that whatever they are doing to reduce violent was not working. The local news reported that New Yorkers were afraid to wear their jewelry in public. Some New Yorkers reported that they sprint to the subway exit to avoid victimization when the door opened. The New York City Police Department decided to implement a practice of Stop, Question, and Frisk. This law became to know as the Stop -and- Frisk (Bellin, 2014). Stop-and Frisk” was a method that was implemented by the New York City Police Department in which an officer stops a pedestrian and asked them a question, and then frisks them for any weapon or contraband (Rengifo & Slocum, 2016). By the last 1990, Stop-and Frisk became a common practice implemented by New York City Police Department (Bellin, 2014).

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

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.

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 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

Supreme Court's verdict on pretext traffic stops in Whren v. United States, racial hostility between white law enforcement and African American citizens is as insidious as ever. Statistics of unarmed African American men killed by police officers are seemingly alarmingly universally. In spite of the national quarrel against discrimination by police officers, the U.S. Supreme Court has lately made a choice that will expand police judgment. The fickle political background that sets the matter of “racial profiling” has directed local and state police agencies across the nation to start collecting information about traffic and pedestrian stops (Engel et al., Vol. 19, 2002). The disagreement over this topic is plagued by the uncorroborated notion that all race-based judgment by law enforcement is motivated by the type of person the police officers' are. Potential profiling would further show the role of how the agency has an influence on how the police officers distribute traffic violations as pretext. To further show the connection among civilians and police

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

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

Crime is on a rise, and police are trying their hardest to keep it under control. It is difficult when you are constantly accused of being racist even though you are just doing your job. The use of stop-and-frisk has created controversy between police officers and minorities. They feel as though the police are targeting them because of their race. To some it may seem that stop-and-frisk has started to turn into a type of racial profiling, but others, including me, believe that there are many advantages that out weight this concern.

The policy of New York Police Department‘s (NYPD) stop question and frisk for some time been a highly controversial situation of policing under Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner Raymond Kelly administration. This administration praised the stop and frisk policy as a valuable resource to the City‘s successful mitigation in reducing violent crime. A resource to removing guns from the streets as well improving the quality of life for the communities that are most affected by those

Stop and frisk is the police practice of stopping people on the street, questioning them, and if needed also frisking(searching)them. Frisking someone is permitted by law when officer thinks that the person could be armed. A stop may result in an arrest if officer thinks that the person could be armed and there is even a slight evidence of criminal activity. Stop and frisk illustrates the conflict between controlling crime and maintaining the civil rights granted in the US constitution. It is a common, but a reduced problem in urban areas. The former mayor of the NYC, Michael Bloomberg has taken many measures to reduce crime. Stop and frisk is just one of the measures, but it is perhaps the most controversial. This practice is already stopped

In discussions of racial discrimination, one controversial issue has been whether stop and frisk is unconstitutional or not. On the one hand, proponents of stop and frisk argue that this policy was a terrible idea, not only because of the racial profiling it would cause, but also the harassment police officers would subdue to innocent civilians. On the other hand, critics of stop and frisk contend that by doing this, the city’s crime rate decreased because of this policy. In my own view I believe that yes, it did decrease a little bit of crime in the city, but at what cost? The cost of humiliating innocent people because cops thought their race or skin color raised a “suspicion of crime.”