We must start in the research of the NYPD Frisk Program: Noble Cause Corruption situation with the Fourth Amendment‘s which protects a person against unreasonable searches and seizures of the U.S. Constitutional 4th Amendment. Further review of the 4th Amendment law provides guidelines for the search and seizure between police
“There’s no evidence that the stop-and-frisk is lowering or suppressing homicide rates in NYC. Murders have dropped steadily in 1990,” says Chris Dunn, spokesperson for the NYCLU. He’s saying that stop and frisks have nothing to do with the drop in homicides, statistics show that in 2002 97,296 people were stopped and there were 587 homicides, the numbers in 2012 were 685,724 and 532. With almost a 600% increase in stops there is no reason that we should only have 55 less homicides. There is a reason though; police are stopping people simply because they’re a minority. Or perhaps it’s because they are wearing a hoodie in the summer or shorts in the winter, which is cause for reasonable suspicion. This leads to distrust for law
The New York Police Department's stop and frisk has been around for several years and people recently have been taking action about it but this is a very important and useful practice that officer conduct on a daily base, police officer are doing the right thing especially if neighborhoods are known for criminal or violent activities then these people should be stopped, questioned and frisked, from January to June of 2013 the NYPD's report shows that African American and Hispanics are more active to commit crimes like robbery, rape, murder and manslaughter, felonious assault, grand larceny, misdemeanor sex crime, misdemeanor assault, petit larceny, criminal mischief, shootings, procession of drugs, firearms, and other illegal substance overall blacks and latinos being targeted not only because what they are wearing or how they but also cause of what the numbers show us. The new soon to be Major of New York Bill de Blasio has said that he is against the stop and frisk but many officers say that taking away the stop and frisk will increase crime tremendously, people are going to start to walk around with weapons, the whole point about the stop and frisk and why police officers conduct it many times is because they want the public to see that anyone can be patted down meaning that if they carry weapons with them then they will get arrested. Bill de Blasio has also said
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).
Is Stop-and-Frisk racial profiling? Yes, Stop-and-Frisk is racial profiling because it mostly targets NYC’s African American and Latino citizens. According to United States Census Bureau in NYC about 50 percent of the population is Black and Latino, 44 percent is White, and the other 6 percent are other minor races. Therefore, it would be assumed that the Stop and Frisk policy if applied equally would target Black, Latinos, and Whites the most since they are the largest race populations in the city. However, this is not the case because 90 percent of Stop and Frisk searches were conducted on Black and Latino men which clearly shows that out all the races in the city that Black and Latino citizens are clearly being targeted because of the way they look. Some would argue that because most violent crimes are committed by Black and Latinos it is necessary to search them more over any other race. However, out of Stop and Frisk searches done on Black and Latinos 88 percent were found to be innocent. Therefore, most Black and Latino Citizens are not breaking any laws and such not involved in any crimes. The Stop and Frisk policy clearly racial profiles Black and Latinos because of stereotypes of these races being more violent and dangerous when statistics clearly show that is false.
The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino. In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times. 605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740
The stop, question, and frisk policy was implemented in the NYPD in an effort to make the city a safer place. With weapons becoming more easily accessible than ever, they are becoming more of a problem, and officers and the general public are now in more danger than ever of being killed by a firearm, knife, or a weapon. Although the policy is intended to prevent harm and protect society, it has been under major scrutiny in not only the past few years, but also the past few decades as well. Due to the fact that minorities are believed to be the main target of this policing tactic, many people have argued it is inherently corrupt should be abolished. On the other hand, it has shown to provide some positive outcomes and as a result, it is a necessary
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.
One of the most controversial of the New York Police Department procedures is the stop, question and frisk. It is a pro-active method of the NYPD because it reduce crime, even though the crime rate increase this year. However, the primary target of stop, question and frisk is in the minority communities, in which it lead as a racial
Racial profiling is when someone’s race is used by law enforcement to assume criminal suspicions (Spagnoli, Filip). Law enforcement has used racial profiling to “help” prevent criminal activity. For instance, a survey done by the department of justice when officers focused more on African-American and Latino drivers they found that less of them had drugs the when they least focused on white drivers (The Truth About Racial Profiling: FIVE FACTS). Some officers assume that Hispanics and African-Americans are carrying around illegal substances and weapons. This is not always true! As the survey revealed, most of the people who did have prohibited items were white Americans. Law enforcement should begin stopping drivers by suspicion not by their race. In another survey done by Ian Ayres and Jonathan Borowsky they had found very similar information. “We also found that, once people were stopped, officers were more likely to frisk, search, or arrest African-Americans and Latinos than whites…when these frisks and searches are substantially less likely to uncover weapons, drugs, or other types of contraband” (Borowsky, Ayres). Officers are spending more time on race than focusing on real criminals who are ousting the reasons why this country is remarkable. Other cases like these have been confirmed as well. “Relative to stopped whites, stopped blacks is 127% more likely and
Good post. I completely agree with you about the probable cause. I do not agree with racial profiling. However, when minorities in certain areas with African American community such as Harlem are being stopped, it is hard to determine whether it is racial profiling or not. If the crime rate is high and majority of the residents are minorities, of course they are the ones to be searched! Stopping the search and frisk would put the residents at higher risk of being victimized. Many people complain about the officers simply talking to them which I think is ridiculous. If you have done nothing wrong, why be
What is stop and frisk? Who uses stop and frisk? According to Haq stop and frisk is a “program that enables a police officer to stop, question, and frisk a person for weapons”(1). This means that a police officer can only search someone if they possess reasonable suspicion and follow their guidelines. People should have open ideas of ways of reducing gun violence and not closing before hearing the proposals. People say that stop and frisk promote racial profiling and that it invades one’s privacy rights. Police officer are human being and make mistakes because no one is perfect in this Earth. Gun violence has been a main subject now a day, where you hear it on the news about a school shooting. Stop and frisk are an effective way to bring down crime rates in one’s city yet some people may think otherwise and think it’s not acceptable. The practice of stop and frisk is necessary to protect the people and to be capable to reduce crime off the streets; without it crime rates like gun violence would increase drastically.
“One. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites. In New York City, where people of color make up about half of the population, 80% of the NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. When whites were stopped, only 8% were frisked (Quigley, 2010).” Police stops are a very common effect on society. It isn’t fair that police don’t hold everyone accountable the same way. Not every cop is that way but there are that selected few who still have that racist mindset and hold it against innocent people. It’s no secret that in New York especially, there is a lot of crime and gang activity produced by different minority groups in the city. However, The facts does not provide a good reason that in routine stops are people of color targeted and frisked down compared to
Stop and frisk is the police practice of stopping people on the street, questioning them, and if needed also frisking(searching)them. Frisking someone is permitted by law when officer thinks that the person could be armed. A stop may result in an arrest if officer thinks that the person could be armed and there is even a slight evidence of criminal activity. Stop and frisk illustrates the conflict between controlling crime and maintaining the civil rights granted in the US constitution. It is a common, but a reduced problem in urban areas. The former mayor of the NYC, Michael Bloomberg has taken many measures to reduce crime. Stop and frisk is just one of the measures, but it is perhaps the most controversial. This practice is already stopped