Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ENG 102
Dr. Wynne
17 March 2017
Stop-and-Frisk Policy
The practice of stop-and-frisk has been implemented and used for years now,
at times searching civilians on the street for weapons and other illegal action or
objects. Although this practice may seem beneficial to some, to others, especially
those of who it affects, this policy has often been questioned as whether it is a form
1. What was the purpose of the stop-and-frisk policy? What was it intended to
do?
2. Why do some consider it racial profiling?
3. Why do some consider it unconstitutional?
The following review on literature will discuss the background and history of the
stop-and-frisk policy, the purpose for it, who it tends to affect more, and the issue
`What was the purpose of the stop-and-frisk policy? What was it intended
to do?
First being introduced in 1968, the term stop-and-frisk, or also known as the
Terry stop, came about based on the decision of the U.S Supreme Court in the case
of Terry v. Ohio case. This law allows, that if a police officer is suspicious of an
individual, he can detain the person and run his hands lightly over the suspect's
accommodate with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, police can only
justify a stop based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Meaning, the
with observable facts. Stop-and-frisk is different from an arrest. When stopped, its
only a temporary interference with a persons liberty which can lead to a frisk. Now
during the frisk if any evidence is uncovered, then it could lead to an arrest.
The purpose of this law was to be an effort to prevent or catch a crime from
taking place before it can occur. Going back to the Terry v. Ohio case, when the
officer suspected Terry and gained reasonable suspicion, the officer then decided to
approach the men for questioning. Due to the nature of the behavior, the officer
concealed weapon and Terry was charged with carrying such concealed weapon.
Due to this, the stop-and-frisk practice was created intending to be some sort of
way to conduct surveillance of suspicious people. Beginning in the 1990s, the use of
protection against racial and ethnic discrimination. But to say if stop-and-frisk leads
to racial profiling, you must understand what it is first. Racial profiling is the
origin (American Civil Liberties Union). The reason many may connect racial
profiling to the stop-and-frisk practice is officers tend to stop mainly the minorities
of the community which are those of African American and Hispanic descent.
Statistics such as the one in Figure 1 are used for legalistic debates.
Figure 1
stopped. In other data conducted from actual stops occurred in 2010-2012, 85%
were either African-American or Hispanic, while under 10% were white and 7% were
listed as other (see Figure 2). Per the NYPD, more than half of the people stopped by
these police officers are considered minorities (New York Civil Liberties Union). While
many minorities claim, this stop-and-frisk policy is a new form of racial profiling.
consider it
unconstitutional?
believed it should. Victims and those who oppose this practice believe it violates the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled in 2013 that
New York Citys stop-and-frisk program was carried out in a manner that violated
the U.S. Constitution (). She found the citys stop-and-frisk policy to be
Shira A. Scheindlin stated, that these stops have enacted a human toll for they are
District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that city police violated the U.S.
Constitution in the way that it carried out its stop-and-frisk program, calling it a form
The City of New York. This case challenged the New York Police Departments
practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop and frisks of New York City
residents. The ruling was held on August 12, 2013, following a nine-week trial in
which a federal judge found the New York City Police Department liable for a
pattern and practice of racial profiling and unconstitutional stops. (Center for
Constitutional Rights)
New York citizens rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. As for
the Fourteenth Amendment, the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of this
amendment since these practices are often racially discriminating. As the statistics
seem like a race problem and which leads people to feel this policy is
unconstitutional.
Conclusion
York City. This practice has and will always be a main controversial argument for the
citizens in New York City. Some may say since this practice has been implemented
crime rates have went down. But, others and even showing in statistics, this policy
is targeted towards young black, and Hispanic men. The purpose of this practice
was to keep the streets safe in these communities but since it does violate citizens
Fourth Amendment, its hard to say if this policy is beneficial or harmful. Until ruled
otherwise, this policy will remain and because that it important to educate people
the pros and cons of this policy and how it can affect them.
References
Braman, Donald. "Stop-and-Frisk Didn't Make New York Safer." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media
Busby, John C. "Stop and Frisk." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., 17 Sept. 2009. Web.
19 Mar. 2017.
"Floyd, Et Al. v. City of New York, Et Al." Center for Constitutional Rights. N.p., n.d. Web. 19
Mar. 2017.
Goldstein, Joseph. "Judge Rejects New Yorks Stop-and-Frisk Policy." The New York Times.
"Racial Profiling: Definition." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
"Sign In: Registered Users." Criminal Justice Policy Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
"Stop & Frisk." Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. N.p., n.d. Web. 19
Mar. 2017.
"Stop-and-Frisk Data." New York Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 19 Mar.
2017.
Sweeten, Gary. "What Works, What Doesn't, What's Constitutional?: The Problem With
Practices." Criminology and Public Policy. Wiley-Blackwell, 21 Mar. 2016. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.