The Laws Enforced By Police Have Multiple Effects On The Citizens

Although most studies on police officer discretion is focused on racial profiling, it has also been shown that officers patrol hot spots. Hot spots are areas known to have a high rate of criminal activity. Focusing on hot spots is an officer’s discretion, because they are ignoring other areas that could potential produce criminal activities. All surveillance and enforcement efforts are focused on the “hot” area. Not only are officers ignoring other areas, but they have determined those areas are not as important as the hot spot. Hot spots can prove to be problematic if the criminal activity located in the hot spot before it was being patrolled is moved to a new location. The new location is prone to no police surveillance because all resources are focused on the old hot spot (Mastrofski, 2011).

Quote 1: “Others deny the existence of racial profiling and suggest that in specific instances, targeting groups, neighborhoods, or organizations is simply good investigative technique, and that race is one of many possible criteria that police and security officers can use to narrow down a pool of suspects” (Quezzaire).

Racial profiling in law enforcement is referenced when a law enforcement officer targets an individual for suspicion of a crime. A broader definition of racial profiling in law enforcements is when a law enforcement officer, uses an individual’s race or ethnicity, age , time of the day (usually later in the day), dress code and also location to accuse a person of a crime. In today’s world the term racial profiling can be viewed in various view points, because of people having different opinions on the term, many disagreements occur. Some people believe that specific incidents are not cases of racial profiling and others think otherwise, needless to say an argument occurs.

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.

New York City has a policy in place known as the Stop and Frisk policy. According to New York Criminal Procedure (2012), if a police officer, “suspects that (a) person is

Racial profiling isn’t something new to today’s society. Most recently there were incidents in which the officers were accused of mistreating blacks such as Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. “Racism versus professionalism: claims and counter-claims about racial profiling” written by Vic Satzewich and William Shaffir discusses racism versus professionalism with officers. Their argument is more biased towards the police force and they argue that it’s part of their job. “

Have you ever thought about what happens if a person breaks a law? What if this individual breaks a minor law and creates a larger problem? A strong topic is upon our society when it comes to law enforcement and the tough physical and verbal oppression that they have the potential to put on people when it comes to breaking the law. Police officers are supposed to be society 's saviors, guardians, and our friends. However, when things do not go quite right, and when someone breaks the law, there will always be that chance that things could escalate. These officers are supposed to deescalate situations and solve problems. That is what society relies on them at any given moment. Sometimes it takes an escalation of force to deescalate a criminal situation. This is why society sees the men and women in uniform with weapons capable of hindering life to the fullest. However, when this force is used and abused, it creates problems. The public eye becomes weary of the police in many different ways for using excessive force to deescalate a situation. Excessive force and police brutality are often caused by depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, as well as other mental disorders; due to the way they are portrayed by the media, excessive force and police brutality have a direct effect on the American society as well as fellow officers in all branches 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

Stop and frisk is about the study of different factors in a particular instance, not racial profiling. The Fourth Amendment guarantees all individuals the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrantless searches and seizures are deemed unreasonable unless the given circumstances of the search fall under the exceptions to a warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, as stated in Katz v. United States. Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause needed for a search warrant, but is more than an inchoate suspicion or hunch but less than probable cause where, an officer my approach a person with the intent of investigating possible criminal behavior even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest, U.S. v. Sokolow. To determine whether an officer had an objective basis for stopping a person suspected of criminal activity, courts look at the totality of the circumstances, as

Law enforcement officers anywhere should be motivated to improve their knowledge learned daily, stay true to themselves, master the tool belt, and just to have integrity in everyday life. One type of practice that is mentioned in the article used by police officers in “Is Racial Profiling a Necessary Police Practice?” is “stop-and-frisk” What this policy allows law enforcement officers to do is “stop, question, and physically search anyone whom they deem suspicious”. The law enforcement officers that use the stop-and-frisk policy are just trying to do their job effectively without causing any harm or violence to citizens who they think are up to no good; just like George Zimmerman caught Trayvon Martin in the act of doing for no reason. In particular, critics assert that “blacks and Latinos have been so disproportionately targeted by stop-and-frisk policing”. It’s all about the location of where these stop-and-frisk searches happen. If a law enforcement officer catches some black/Latino male or female in a particular area where he or she may not belong, the officer has a right to approach the black/Latino male or female and ask questions with no harm or violence done. Another aspect of this is the suspicion. Law enforcement officer love to stir the pot and want to know what is going on

Racial profiling has no role in many of the police departments to prevent and stop crimes. Racial profiling provides no logical conclusion that a person of a different race and skin color subjected under stop and frisk is a criminal or deemed to be suspicious. A study conducted in New York by the New York Civil Liberties Union explains how many of the stop-and-frisks conducted by the New York police department depicts that racial profiling show no clear signs in reducing crimes. The NYCLU reveals, “Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent (Par 1). If nine out of ten bystanders are innocent, the police department portrays the ineffectiveness of racial profiling. It only shows how racial profiling is not a ground breaking instrument for the police department, and provides no merit in stopping crime. Therefore, there is no solid reason to why racial profiling should persist. Furthermore, data gathered by the NYPD further shows a large disparity in race from a 2006 annual report of stop-and-frisk by the New York police department. Of the 506,491 stopped, 457,163 made up 90% who were innocent. The data table reflects that 53% made up blacks, 29% were Latinos, 11% were white, and 50% were between the ages of 14-24 are products of stop and frisks (Par 5). The data clearly suggests that most targeted group were blacks, only to further exhibit that the police department is indiscriminately subjugating minorities under stop-and-frisks on the basis of their race. To be targeted on the basis of race, but then released upon innocent, causes uncertainty towards the public of whether the police are merely profiling with

There are circumstances where the police use too much force; whether it is being frightened by the situation or too much adrenaline they make mistakes when it comes to addressing the situation safely for others. Civilians are defensive with approaching policeman now, always being ready for a confrontation. The people are more afraid of the police now than ever, taking drastic measures as not wearing a specific color, or raising arms at first contact. Interactions between police and civilians should not have friction; police were once viewed as the protectors of the people. Now the police are seen as the enemy with too much power.

Much of the targeting claims comes from data and statistical analysis was associated with racial/ethnic differences in police/civilian contact data. The concept of “stop and frisk” is unconstitutional, however, in the state of New York, it is law. This allows cops to enter vehicles and cause arrests without viable reasons, only by doubt. In the city of New York, where blacks comprised 25.6% of the population, account for 50.6% of NYPD “stop and frisks”; while the whites, which populate 43.4% of the city, only account for 12.9% of stops (Gumbhir,11).

“Racial Profiling? We don’t do that here. Now Let’s go get that brown fucker!” “Racial profiling at its core concerns the invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures. It is premised on the erroneous assumption that any particular individual of one race or ethnicity is more likely to engage in misconduct than any particular individual of another race or ethnicity. Racial profiling in law enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective. Race-based assumptions in law enforcement perpetuate negative racial stereotypes that are harmful to our rich and diverse democracy, and materially impair our efforts to maintain a fair and just

When given directions from a police officer, you must follow orders because it could end tragically bad for the both of you. Some of the public take Law Enforcement as a joke and would rather argue, lie, or fight instead of taking the situation you are put in seriously. Various cases of police misconduct have taken place with teenagers being the “victims”. Teenagers will act immature with the Law Enforcement because at that age they are rebellious and would like to prove who the bigger person is and sadly in some cases the situation will end tragically wrong. Many people view police brutality as excessive force towards “innocent citizens” when in some cases the culprits are responsible for causing this corruption. Various stubborn people when arrested will not follow directions when asked by an officer, which makes a cop’s job more difficult. “In tense situations, there are times when police are called on to make quick decisions in difficult circumstances in order to protect their own and that of innocent bystanders” (Dilascio). Officers as well get told what to do and it is in their training to handle a dangerous situation in the way they were taught. There have been many events where criminals are armed and or threatening the safety of the public, which creates a difficult problem for Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement then has to take matters into their own hands and try to fix the