Sample Case Study Of Stop And Frisk V.

In case one, the police believed that the man was in possession of drugs and as a result of this, they searched him. Based on my understanding for the Fourth Amendment, in the case of Stop and Frisk, I believe that the officer should have questioned the man then frisk him before he continued to search him by putting his hand into the man’s pocket. I say this because there was reasonable suspicion.

In Philadelphia we are exposed to violence, grief and experience things that people in other cities wouldn’t from a young age. With that being said our police force can be more aggressive in certain circumstances especially towards young black men. Prob cause changes on case to case basis, there are many lives that could have been saved if the police had exercised their vow to serve and protect. It seems as if now suspicious activity is being black in a neighborhood where you supposedly “don’t belong”, having a nice car or even something as small as having a hoodie on.

Video two was a new report on the Stop-and-Frisk to determine if it was is a form or racial profiling or proactive policing. The video is debating the pros and cons of the Stop-and-Frisk in New York City. According the video the Commissioner Raymond Kelly says that major crime is down by 25% since he took office in 2002, and he feels that it is due to the availability of the stop-and-frisk tool that officers use over thousands of times a day. The controversy is that out of the thousands of times that it is used a day only 6$ lead to an arrest and only 1.2% of those lead to gun being confiscated. More controversy is that 84% of people stopped are young black men. This is leading to community that does not trust the police, one young man felt

In reading an article upon the idealism of “stop and frisk” it said that “An analysis by the NYCLU revealed that innocent New Yorkers have been subjected to police stops and street interrogations more than 4 million times since 2002, and that black and Latino communities continue to be the overwhelming target of these tactics.” Showing how not only is it a waste of time but it brings fear upon people. I am here writing this letter to inform you upon your actions of ‘Stop and Frisk’ which gives the right to police officers to stop someone who they feel like is suspicious or looks suspicious. Which I think is just absurd, New York Polices forces should discard the injustice and distrust objective of “stop and frisk” to end the inflicting of people’s

Stop, Question, and Frisk is when police temporarily arrest a person and pat down his or her outer clothing base on a specific articulable facts which push a reasonable police officer to believe that this person might be armed or dangerous.

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights report, stop and frisk is “the practice by which a police officer initiates a stop of an individual…allegedly based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” (2012). This practice dates back to the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968 where the police “are authorized to stop a person…without a warrant” if the law enforcement officials have a reasonable suspicion that an individual is about to commit a crime (“Terry vs. Ohio,” 1968). Mcfadden, a detective, was patrolling his downtown beat when he discovered Terry as well as his two male accomplices roaming the same area more than 24 times, while stopping to look in the same store window. Their actions stimulated suspicion and Mcfadden approached the men and identified himself as a policeman. Mcfadden frisked Terry and found a revolver in his overcoat pocket and was then charged with carrying a concealed weapon (“Terry vs. Ohio,” 1968). The Supreme Court’s decision though, rejected the argument that the stop and frisk of Terry did not trigger the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court

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.

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 root of the stop and Frisk law was dated back to 1960’s when it was implemented. Astoundingly Harris (2007), this examination can work in the clarifications that NYPD law use strengths usage power when a stop and frisk is begun. (15) The NYPD's persuading stop and frisk approach has been a broken subject among the city's voters and course of action makers, the NYPD saw to oneself out for this issue in 2007 by commission the RAND Corporation to lead an examination of its stop and frisk plan. In their report, the RAND encouraged effort gathered data from the NYPD's minding Uf250 so investigated the race of the suspects United Nations alliance were subjected to a stop and frisk by a NYPD officer. The Uf250 may be a worksheet that is pressed

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.

The “Stop and Frisk” program is a program established in several large cities that gives the right to law enforcement officials to stop and frisk any person on the street with reasonable cause. This program has taken over 6,000 guns off the street in New York since 2004. If it were to be stopped crime rates would go up, simply because people would now be able to carry weapons or any other illegal items and cops cannot stop and search/frisk them without a warrant or without seeing the item. As for violent crime falling with the stop of “Stop and Frisk” I do not really see that happening. Criminals are going to feel like they can walk the streets without worrying that they could get randomly stopped.

New York City is one of the most popular cities in the United States. It is home to Times Square, Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building and known to be the most culturally diverse part of the world. New York is one of the most visited cities in the country. New York City consists of five boroughs; Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island. According to The Wall Street Journal’s website, there have been over 53 million visitors in just 2013. With it’s vast popularity comes a high crime rate. New York City is also a popular target amongst terrorism groups with a recorded 17 terrorist related crimes. As a society, we are continuously faced with the difficulty of surrendering our freedom to increase our safety. The Stop-and-Frisk law allowed New York City police offers to stop and search people for the suspicion of weapons, drugs and other illegal imports. This program that was started by the previous New York Major Bloomberg with the help of the police chief, sparked a lot of controversy because New Yorker’s believed this new law was going against their rights protected by the 4th Amendment.

My research topic will focus on the stopping and frisking of minorities. My research questions is, How do minorities (Blacks and Hispanics) perceive the New York City Police Department (NYPD) after they have been stopped and frisked? I believe this is a good research topic because minorities are often stopped and frisked in New York City. I want to know what bad views people have of the NYPD because of these stop and frisks.

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.

The ordinariness of the scene, in which people are shopping in a store, does not seem to fit the theme of “stop and frisk”, which should be a case of extremeness. Maybe the only explanation, implied by the video, for this strange combination of ordinariness and extremeness is that all the people involved are African Americans. It should be a shame to notice and acknowledge that the ordinariness of one group can be the extremeness of another. The narrative of the speaker is lack of emotion, indicating that African Americans have been used to such extremeness frequently happening in their daily lives: they are not willing to be involved in stop and frisk, but they have no other choice. The sentences such as “get on the ground” and “I just knew” are repeated in the video. Those people do not want to get on the ground or even get naked during stop and frisk, situations that are actually humiliation, but they know that they have to do so without other choices. Those repeated words, with the feeling of despair, are like ghosts that keep haunting those African Americans, making stop and frisk an unescapable nightmare in their lives they are supposed to enjoy freely and happily.