Policing Practice And Operations Paper

Patrol officers spend numerous hours a day patrolling the streets; many of these hours are used executing the Stop and Frisk Policy. The Stop and Frisk Policy has caused a lot of controversy nationwide. Recently there have been many cases where the Stop and Frisk Policy has resulted in the death of an unarmed individual, typically an African American male. On July 17, 2014, Eric Gardner died while being arrested for selling individual cigarettes. The police used the Stop and Frisk Policy because they had reasonable suspicion. While police were arresting Garner an officer placed him in a choke hold, while three other man were attempting to take him down as well. The officer that had him in the choke hold ended his life. This incident was caught on camera and caused a lot of controversy because the officer that had him in the choke hold was found innocent by the grand jury (Mathias, 2014, p. 1). Although it has been proven that the Stop and Frisk Policy has prevented some crime, the communities’ reaction to it demonstrates that the policy creates a negative impact in communities where this policy is implemented. Many individuals feel that this policy is a violation of the Fourth Amendment right, is typically only used on minorities, and is very ineffective.

The famous and controversial police practice known as the stop and frisk started on the last sixties. It was known national wide when the case Terry v. Ohio was presented this case was argued on December 12, 1967 it all started when Cleveland detective McFadden was on patrol on a foot post where he noticed the petitioner John W. Terry and another men known as Chilton were acting suspiciously on a street corner the detective noticed both men looking into a store multiple times with an interest to do something, then another men known as Katz showed up to the scene all three men joined and where walking around the store, that's when detective McFadden approached and identified himself as a police officer he started to ask them simple

The NYPD’s stop and frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Departments own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in

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).

Imagine innocently walking down the street in a city you’ve lived in your whole life, when all of a sudden you hear the dreaded “woop woop” and see those flashing red and blue lights. The police. They interrogate you, ask your whereabouts, and finally, they “frisk” you. Of course, they find nothing; they rarely do when they search people. Although it’s wrong and demoralizing, you know it’s something you’ll have to get used to as an African American living in New York City.

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.

Stop and Frisk started in New York City in the early 1990’s as a combined response to the “Broken Windows” sociological theory and the ruling in the Terry v. Ohio case. The initial prompt for this policy came from the ruling in the 1968 Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio. The court decided that fourth amendment rights are not violated when the police stop, detain, and search a suspect on the street. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This theory alleges that by reducing petty crime you can also deter more major crime much in the same way as fixing broken windows (which are thought to invite potential thieves) will prevent future crime. Kelling’s theory combined with the Terry v. Ohio ruling eventually led to the implementation of full blown Stop and Frisk in the New York City area during the mayoral term of Rudi Giuliani. The idea behind stop and frisk initially was for police officers to patrol streets in order to stop those they suspected of carrying illegal goods and then frisk them to ascertain if they were indeed breaking any laws. This would serve duel purposes in that those found to be carrying illegal goods would be stopped while letting others in the area who may be participating in illegal activities know that there was an active police presence there, hopefully deterring

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

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 practice of ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ in New York, by the federal courts, has been found unconstitutional not because of the actual process once the person was stopped, but because of the way they were targeting based on race with little to no reason. When you look at the racial breakdown of Stop-and-Frisk targets in New York from 2003-2015, consistently fifty percent (50%) or more were black (Bump) yet blacks make up twenty-five percent (25%) of the population (Matthews). White was not even a category as it was comprised in ‘other’. Latino was the only other category which comprised about twenty-five percent (25%) (Bump). Blacks make up twenty-five percent (25%) of the population in New York. In Pittsburgh, a city similar to New York, it was found that in traffic stops, black men are eight percent (8%) more likely to be frisked and the grounds on being frisked are if the officer thinks there maybe be criminal activity (Ryan). Again, it is a hundred percent (100%) up to the officer whether a frisk in this case happens. The problem is how objective are police officers when stopping African Americans, specifically men, if statistically speaking they are stopped disproportionately.

Stop and Frisk has been a very controversial topic for quite some time, especially throughout the last election cycle. It is defined as the circumstance where a police officer will temporarily detain an individual, who they have reasonable suspicion that the individual could be armed and/or dangerous, and pat down their clothing. This issue has been of grand concern for a multitude of individuals due to the increased fear in the minority communities, who have been declared more likely to be stopped and frisked, or ‘suspect worthy,’ which points in the direction of the unconstitutional use of racial profiling. In addition, the data — as explained in class — implies that the increase in stops and frisks during the time stop and frisks were

The New York City Police Department stop-and-frisk impacts thousands of peoples lives everyday, and unfortunately most of the cases involve African American and Hispanic Males, which shows racism is still present in the world we live in today. Prior to speaking about a stop and frisk, one must have general knowledge about what it is and all of its supporting parts. A “Stop and frisk” occurs when an officer of the law temporarily detains an individual or group of people on the street to question them about the reason or reasons in which they were stopped, and possibly also frisking or searching them for the safety of the officers and the detainees as well. A stop may end with someone being arrested or given a ticket if evidence of a crime being committed comes to light. “A stop and frisk is a concise, non-invasive, police stop of a “suspect(Cornell University Law School, 2014).”

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 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

Police Agencies in modern society are a part of the American fabric to serve and protect the American public. The United States currently have more than 15,000 police agencies, (Walker & Katz, 2011). Police Departments across the United States face similar critical issues policing. All police officers face dangers in the job of policing the dangers can emanate from internal and external origins. Police officers have continued to evolve to serve communities by finding better less than lethal alternatives to weapons used. In addition, police departments have continued to keep up with