Police Pretextual Stop

A police officer’s abuse of power comes from the amounts of stop and frisks towards people of color and the actions taken for the arrest. A police officer will use pre-textual stops to justify stopping a black person. If an officer deems a black person to be suspicious based on appearance, then that black person has committed a crime. John Clemons, writer of a journal article, “Blind injustice: The

Data shows the racial profiling and illegal pullovers and search of cars driven by Black, and Hispanic males are a police action performed throughout the nation. “Even Famous Black celebrities and prominent African Americans say police have victimized them. They say they have been pulled over and subjected to a vehicle and physical search by police without probable cause, based on none other than the fact they are the black men driving an expensive car. Thus, the Police assumed they must be a drug dealer or involved in some criminal behavior to afford such an expensive car. “DWB” protocols by police and their departments according to the ACLU is also a violation of a person’s civil rights that are illegal, invasive as well as intrusive (8).”

This paper outlines the studies, incidents, facts and statistics that have found evidence of racial profiling which causes distrust in the law enforcements (police, government etc0. Studies of racial profiling shows that blacks, Hispanics, Middle Eastern and other racial minorities are more likely to be stopped than those who are white. They are more likely to be stopped and searches, traffic stops, license and registration checks. In addition they are more likely to be ticketed or arrested after being stopped and search. Some scholars and studies believes that minorities being that are frequently stopped and searched has nothing to do with them being racially profiled. According to Roh and Robinson,” studies raise the possibility that minorities may be more involved in criminality (Gaines, 2006), some drug crimes (Lichtenberg, 2006), and speeding offenses (Lange, Johnson, & Voas, 2005), thereby justifying higher stop and arrest rates by police of some groups.” (Roh, S., & Robinson, M.)

The practice of targeting individuals for police investigation based on their race alone in the last few years has been an increasingly prominent issue in American society. Numerous magazines, newspapers, and journals have explored the issue of race-motivated police actions. Recently, the ABA Journal did a study of New Jersey and Pennsylvania traffic stops from 1998 to 2001, concluding that black drivers were more likely to be pulled over and arrested than whites. The study also delves into the legal ramifications of the 1996 United States Supreme Court ruling in the Whren v. United States case, which held that police officers subjective motivation for stopping a motorist on the

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.

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 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.

The criminal justice system of America is deeply scarred with racial bias. Crimes are being committed and, in turn, are resulting with innocent people doing hard-time. Thankfully, newfound methods of appealing court rulings are finding justice for these minorities; however, the results are as shocking as the crimes being committed. When it was found that the majority of successful appeals were of minorities, the true defects of the system was apparent. The minority community is being critically judged for things they’re not doing.

In New York City’s police department report in December 1999, the stop and frisk practices showed to be greatly based on race. In NYC, blacks make up 25.6% of the city’s population, Hispanics 23.7% and whites are 43.4% of NYC population. However, according to the report, 50.6% of all persons stopped were black, 33% were Hispanic, and only 12.9% were white. As you can see, more than half of the individuals who were stopped were black, 62.7% to be exact (ACLU, 2013). In Orange County, California Latinos, Asians and African Americans were more than 90% of the 20,221 men and women in the Gang Reporting Evaluation and Tracking System (ACLU, 2013). Clearly this database record shows racial profiling occurred when the total population in the database made up less than half of Orange County’s population. This is when the California Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the ACLU stepped in. One other instance of racial profiling I’d like to discuss occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona. A court ruled in May 2013 that “sheriff Joe Arpaio’s routine handling of people of Latino descent amounted to racial and ethnic profiling”; according to CNN, the sheriff’s office had a history of targeting vehicles with those having darker skin, examining them more strictly and taking them into custody more often than others (CNN, 2014). Judge Murray Snow ordered a monitor to oversee retraining in this

Law enforcement officials often confront situations where it’s an almost certainty that illegal activities are taking place despite not having sufficient resources to investigate every possible perpetrator. Research on race and vehicle stops by police show that African American drivers are disproportionately stopped in traffic by police for driving violations (Kowalski & Lundman, 2007). The reason is because law enforcement officials use characterizations or

There is the implication that the police 's unreasonable stops are illegal and unconstitutional. In compliance with the above claims, racial profiling is a public concern which requires authorities to intervene and make changes.

Racial profiling and traffic stops are always a hot debate in our country. Recently, race issues with the police have gotten even hotter with the situations in Ferguson and New York. No matter where a person stands on the issue, the numbers that suggest racial profiling and traffic stops are difficult to justify. Racial profiling is described as the use of race as a key factor in police decisions to stop and interrogate citizens (Weitzer & Tuch, p. 435, 2006). A study was done in Baltimore, Maryland where 533 drivers were stopped on I-95, and more than half of the people stopped were minorities. Likewise, 63% of people that were asked to step out of their

Racial profiling is a tool used to target a certain group, majority blacks, by pulling him/her over for reasons other than what the traffic stop should be or not. To the average person who does not experience this will view as a non-issue or not a big deal. But having an experience as a victim of racial profiling can leave a psychological scar for many years, depending on the severity of the traffic stop. The statistics show that these incidents are not random, but shows a systematic pattern of law enforcement misconduct rather it’s coming from the individual officer or the police department, it’s clear that racial profiling has a disparate and degrading impact on blacks. Driving while black (DWB) demonstrates, reflects, and exacerbates important issues we face today when talking or debating problems within that involves the police, criminal justice, the courts and the law.

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

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an