Search And Police Legitimacy

“The police have a number of powers of stop and search. When using any power they must always have regards to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice.” The effectiveness of the police stop and search procedures being used as a valuable tool in the detection of crime can be measured by looking at the role that stop and searches play in policing and the arrests they lead to. However their impact on the community and the negative image it has given the police force outweigh the results generated from stop and searches. It has been found through various reports such as one by The Equality and Human Rights Commission, arrests for serious offenses are less likely to follow from stop and searches however they do play

The term stop and search is used to refer to the power of the police to search a person or a vehicle they believe, is likely to be involved in a crime. ‘Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows a police officer to stop and search a person without suspicion. Section 60 stops and searches can take place in an area which has been authorised by a senior police officer based on their reasonable belief that violence has or is about to occur, and where it is expedient to prevent it or search people for a weapon if one was involved in the incident.’ (Liberty, 1934)[3]. This power that police officers possess has been effective in catching criminals, likely drug dealers and people carrying Illegal weapons, and has succeeded in making Britain’s streets safer in many cases. London’s Metropolitan police conducting 155,489 stop and searches between April

The stop and frisk policy came about many years ago. The stop and frisk is used for protection for the officer or officers. An officer can stop a suspect and frisk him/her for weapons, contraband or any other items if the officer feels any other suspicion. A Stop and Frisk do not require a warrant. This practice is very common now days, but similar procedures to stop and frisk policy started in the 1980s. According to Clark (2015), the earliest origins of stop and frisk were used in 1994 by Street Crime Unit to prevent the carrying of illegal guns in well-known hot spots and areas with high crime rates. The crime rates decreased over time, but it caused another issue in the communities.

There is a substantial amount of support, suggesting an infringement of police powers within stop and search from

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the stop and search process. Previous studies have primarily concentrated on whether the stop and search power is used against an ethnic minority background. In this paper, I will be looking at other studies and resources and their views on the stop and search. I will be reviewing what other reliable sources have established based on statistics, facts and opinions and what they believe to be the contemporary modern day issues and benefits of the 'stop and search ' process. There has distinctly been an express of concern towards the police conduct of the stop and search strategy which gives distinctive social components the chance to scrutinise law enforcement. Likewise, I will be exploring the impartiality of various races as it is accepted to assume a basic part to why police complete strategies in the way they do. Criminological hypotheses have additionally profited law authorization in making judgments of what could conceivably be classed as a "criminal conduct ' '. In this way, the distinctive extreme methodologies they take to keep crime from occurring and expanding through collective data based on stop and search.

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

New York’s Stop and Frisk laws started in 2004, heightening racial profiling in the criminal justice system. Law enforcement supports these discriminatory acts by stating the population will benefit from New York’s Stop and Frisk, because the government will stop the crimes before they are committed. These stops are still denoted unconstitutional by the people. The government supports stop and frisk built on the fact that the new law stops crime however, it does not. Today, people are afraid of strolling along in their city due to the potential of unlawfully being searched based on the opinion of an officer assuming they look “suspicious”. Therefore, by comparing data presented by the NYPD with the notion of utter discrimination and

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.

Stop and Frisk laws have been a statistically proven means of crime prevention across America as a whole. Still, ever since their creation, Stop and Frisk laws have been a major source of controversy in America. The constitutionality of Stop and Frisk laws was confirmed in the 1968 case of Terry vs Ohio and since then, crime levels across America have been at historic lows. Yet, the 2013 verdict of the class action lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York has ruled otherwise. The court found the NYPD of violating both the fourth and fourteenth amendment mostly on the grounds of racial profiling. The court has as a result put in place a serious of complex changes to these laws making the job as a police officer even more dangerous than it already was. The topic of “racial profiling” is the fuel to the majority of the arguments opposing Stop and frisk. However, the subject of racial profiling is vastly misconstrued and deeply misunderstood. Stop and Frisk laws have flaws and are not perfect by any means, nevertheless they are an imperative source of preventing crime in America that needs to continue.

This is a violation of The Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Statistics suggest that implicit bias within the policy is also a violation of The Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the policy is not applied in a race-neutral manner when the majority of the victims under the policy 's enforcement are non-Hispanic black or Hispanic.

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

Safety is a fundamental right that we all deserve. Most of us rely on the government to provide this security. We pay for this through taxes, but the question that we must ask ourselves is are we getting what we are paying for? By paying our taxes to the government we are giving it the authority to choose the service we are getting back. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative

policing is a pivotal part of effective policing, this paper will examine 2 articles that will discuss

An opportunity to voice concerns with the protection of anonymity Police officers mainly deal with problems and conflict management, compounded by ‘broken Britain’ and the constant reports over their lack of effectiveness of the police and failings. Life on Mars comparison?? The perceived unjust nature of police work which can potentially undermine citizens’ rights and in the case of stop and search practices, demonstrably targets ethic minority communities have been evidenced to be counter-productive and can generate feelings of hostility and lack of trust towards police officers (Brunson and Miller 2006, Sharp and Atherton

This report shall examine the role of the police in the criminal justice system. For background it will detail a brief history of the development of the police then look at the later development of police powers of arrest, detention and of stop and search. Further to this it will examine the role of the police in miscarriages of justice and the effects of these miscarriages on the development of safeguards for people detained by the police. Also the measures taken to prevent further miscarriages of justice such as the development of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide if the evidence is there and a prosecution is likely to be successful.