Police Stop And Search: Diversified Or Justified?

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

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

This assessment will focus on Section 1 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Stop and Search powers). I will look at the use of stop and search before the Macpherson report and after the Macpherson report and compare how it has changed. The use of stop and search powers allow the police to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, and to prevent more serious crimes occurring generally in public places like a Football match. A police officer can ask what you are doing, why you’re in an area and/or where you’re going. They also have the power to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying; illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen

The issue of stop and search is considered to be an extremely controversial area. There is significant debate on the legitimacy and the accountability of police powers when conducting stop and search, which has led to concerns about the effectiveness of policing. Reiner (2000: 80) has stated that policing is ‘beyond legitimation’ as a result of consistent complaints concerning the abuse of police powers within stop and search. The cause for concern is not only raised by the public, or other agencies, but is now recognised by senior British police officers (Ainsworth, 2002: 28). The cause of concern has been raised through complaints that police target ethnic minorities through stop and search and public opinion, that stop and search is a

At the core of the stop and frisk policy as utilized by the New York Police Department is racial profiling. Racial profiling has a significant and often controversial place in the history of policing in the United States. Racial profiling can be loosely defined as the use of race as a key determinant in law enforcement decisions to stop, interrogate, and/or detain citizens (Weitzer & Tuch, 2002). Laws in the United States have helped to procure and ensure race based decisions in law enforcement. Historically, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions which increase the scope of discretion of a law enforcement officer. For example, traffic stops can be used to look for evidence even though the officer has not observed

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.

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.

Back than and up until now we still see an abundance of crime rate on the streets from illegal possession to murder. Ex mayor Michael Bloomberg has implemented a policy called Stop and Frisk in 2002. Some say it worked some say it doesn’t, from a ten-year period data shows that more then 5 million stops were made on young African American men who just made 1.9 percent of the city’s population according to New York Civil Liberties Union. Many politicians say it was a racial policy but it took weapons and drugs off the street. Stop and frisk was more proactive instead of reactive which means Acting before a situation becomes a source of confrontation. Research shows that crime has dropped drastically in 2002-Present since stop and frisk was implemented. Did it work? Many say no and blame the lead in our drinking water, which we will get into later. I believe Stop and Frisk didn’t lower crime to the effectiveness that we all would want it to work.

It has been known that members of ethnic minority groups are more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. Police are able to use this “power” if they have “reasonable

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 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.

Racial profiling is simply, “the unlawful police practice of using race, color, or ethnic background, as the reason for conducting a traffic stop on an individual.” (Michigan Civil Rights Commission) This definition can be extended to any kind of discrimination mainly based on myths and stereotypes towards a certain race or ethnicity. However, the term racial profiling is commonly used when a police officer or any other law enforcer stops, questions, searches or arrests an individual purely on the basis of their race. African Americans or simply blacks have been the major racial group that has suffered much of racial profiling. Much of this is based on the stereotypes against the blacks are perceived as more likely to engage in criminal activities. For instance, in a 2013 Racial Profiling Data from Ferguson Police Department, out of 5384 police stops, 4632 were against blacks. (Ferguson Police Dept. 1) Despite the low population of blacks in U.S. compared to other races, the former continues being subjected to more racial profiling. Racial profiling against African Americans continues to expose the blacks to humiliation and racial injustices, as this paper will expose, thereby calling for the responsible authorities to address and find solutions for the problem.

One of the most imminent threats looming within American society is race relations. America is a melting pot of different races, cultures, and religions, yet the matter of racial profiling still remains prominent today. By definition it is considered “an activity carried out by enforcers of the law wherein they investigate or stop any individual in traffic or round up people of the same race or ethnicity for crime suspicion” (NYLN.org ). This profiling has become a significant catalyst in the tension that has been ensuing between minorities and the government. Hostility has grown due to the apparent and intentional targeting of “brown people”, and

The concern about racial profiling is erupting throughout the nation. Many cities and states have decided to study racial profiling, or how race and ethnicity may play a part in traffic stops by law enforcement in their jurisdictions. There seems to be a generally accepted understanding of what profiling is. Profiling is the law-enforcement practice of scrutinizing certain individuals based on characteristics thought to indicate a likelihood of criminal behavior. Yet there are two variations concerning the application of racial profiling. Profiling either utilizes race as a sole means of directing police attention, or uses race as a part of a larger set of characteristics and behaviors that lead to police involvement (Chan, 2011, pg. 75). Regardless of the definition of racial profiling, the debate over racial profiling centers on two questions. Does racial profiling actually occur? and Is racial profiling being used and is profiling a legitimate tool of law enforcement?

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