The New York Police Department’s Stop and Frisk Policy: A Time Series Analysis

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.

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 stop and frisk policy has evolved from the Terry v. Ohio court decision which permits an officer to detain a suspect under reasonable suspicion for a serious crime; however, it does not “allow such intrusion based on a police officer’s inarticulate hunch that a crime is about to occur or is in progress” (American Civil Liberties Union, 2015). In cities with high ratios of minorities and immigrants, the stop and frisk policy creates an air of distrust and can actually cause more harm than good. Statistics from Boers-Goi (2015) revealed that the NYPD stopped “2.4 million people between 2009 and 2014, of which 150,000 people 6% were arrested. 16% of these arrests were never prosecuted, and another 10% were dismissed. Only 0.1% of all stops led to a conviction for a crime of violence” (p. 1). Based on the aforementioned

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

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

(Rudy Giuliani, 2007) Quality of life and zero-tolerance policing took effect and with these new standards came a drastic drop in crime. One of the main policy changes was stop and frisk. The stop and frisk policy was adopted from English law in a number of American courts. In accordance with English common law, without statutory provisions, a police officer has the power to stop, question, and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. Based on a standard which holds less than probable cause, this power is granted upon the standard of reasonable suspicion. It is a question of circumstances of each individual case that determines whether reasonable detention and investigation is validated The NYPD's stop-and-search has raise genuine worries over racial profiling, unlawful stops and constitutional rights. The Department keeps records and reports on its stop-and-search actions, and it affirm what numerous individuals in groups of color over the city have long known: The police are searching a huge number of well-behaved New Yorkers consistently and most by far are dark and

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

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

Stop and frisk is a long established practice in policing. It happens when an officer stops a person in a public place or an automobile, asks questions about his or her identity and activities, and then frisks the person for weapons if the officer fears for his or her safety. Although now considered routine, there was a time when its constitutionality was assumed rather than based on court approval. Some states, by law, authorize officers to stop and frisk; other states and some federal courts have upheld the practice in judicial decisions even in the absence of statutory or agency authorization. Whether authorized by state law or validated through judicial decisions, however, stop and frisk has long been deemed essential and necessary part

The framework of Stop-and-Frisk started in 1968 in a case known as Terry v. Ohio. This was a landmark case that gave law enforcement the constitutional limitations by the United States Supreme Court to stop and search individuals in streets encounters for weapon or contraband (Rengifo & Slocum, 2016). In 1996, the Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer opened an investigation to assess the effectiveness of Stop-and-Frisk on the minority communities in New York City. The assessment involved looking at 175,000 stop-and-frisk forms from 1998 to 1999. During the assessment, a report indicated a disproportionate stop

Within the article, Police Stop and Frisk-Encounters Plunged in Second Quarter of 2013, Joseph Goldstein indicates how random stop searches by police officials have declined severely over the last few years. The purpose of stop and frisks are to determine if suspicious individuals are carrying any weapons, drugs or any other illegal objects. This topic is a very sensitive subject due to the nature of discrimination that many police offers are found to be in trouble with. Numerous individuals are against stop and frisks because they feel that this is a way that allows racists police officers to employ their racial ideologies towards the community, and enforce discrimination amongst minorities.

Since the beginning of the 1990s , police stop and search has come into the light of the public eye for various reasons. One of which that has been most debated and researched is racial discrimination. With liberation groups reaching higher up in the political agenda, police conducting stop and search based on ethnicity or religion has been a heatedly debated topic. Moreover, with events such as 9/11 and 7/7, it seemingly relates to “how general powers are used and whether they are used in a way that is more intrusive of liberty than justified by their effectiveness or as a means to discriminate against particular groups.”1 Considering the events that have led to the police employing a generous approach of general and anti-terrorist stop and

The idea of a stop and frisk is that a police officer can arrest a suspect only if they have enough suspicion that someone has committed a crime. A stop is only allowed when “a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot,” (Toobin, TNY 2013). Some believe that the search and frisk law itself is not the issue, but that the practice by police officers is what is at question. Constantly targeting minorities is what the basis of the controversy behind this law is. As the numbers will show in the rest of this essay, they are the ones who are being most frequently searched and this is resulting in a high number of people who are against this law. There have been countless trials in New York

Ever since the 1700’s, many diverse people have moved to the United States in search for a better life and to strive for the American Dream. As an outcome, racial discrimination has been affecting minorities in the United States and still is today. While America has developed as a nation, police officers still feel that it is justified to abuse their authority and use racial profiling as an excuse to discriminate. As a result of racial discrimination, many people from communities consisting of large amounts of minorities, feel unprotected and distrust the police. Although it is the responsibility of the police to identify potential suspects in order to prevent crime, solely using racial profiling as a means to apprehend a suspect is it ultimately an inaccurate representation of a person’s character; therefore, racial profiling should not be used by officers.

“Racism isn’t about how you look, it’s about people assigning meaning to how you look.” -Robin D.G. Kelley. Racial profiling has been used for centuries around the world. From the Mongols in 300 B.C.E., to modern day soccer moms, this method of discrimination is widespread. Racial discrimination dates back a long time, but has deep roots in Western culture. Modern racial profiling began in the 1970’s when law enforcement wanted to identify drug dealers, and was implemented in the 80’s by the DEA (drug enforcement agency) to intercept drug couriers on highways. This procedure led to shortcuts such as stopping people of a certain race, often a certain age group of black or Hispanic males. Officers would inspect the car, and search for more incriminating evidence. By the 90’s, these stops became routine for law enforcement officers. Racial profiling should be filtered out of law enforcement practices for three key reasons: it harms trust of law enforcement within communities, it increases unwarranted targets on minorities, and finally it increases civilian use of racial profiling.