Stop and Frisk
Nicolas Franco
Professor Covert
Sociology of Urban Poverty
12-20-13
As a child I was taught that a police officer were necessary to serve and protect sort of like a modern day hero minus the cape so that there wouldn’t be chaos or anarchy. As I began to get older I realized there’s more to the police that meets the eye. I remember in the 1990s while I was in grade school and middle school the big controversy was police brutality. People of color getting unnecessary battered and assaulted just because they were being arrested or stopped by the police and were subject to these racist consequences. The new controversy surrounding the police in this current age is stop and frisk. Is it fair, effective and a long-term solution to our hit crime rates?
In the State Legislature a law was amended in 1964 that police officers can stop and search an individual who he suspects will commence in a act of a crime. “The New York State Legislature amended the code of criminal Procedure in 1964 to include a new section entitled “Temporary questioning of persons in public places, search for weapons. “Which authorizes the stopping and questioning of persons whom the police reasonably suspect of the commission of crime.” The bill became effective on July 1, 1964.” Stop and frisk is a procedure in which a police officer is suspicious of an individual’s whereabouts or criminal status. In there eyes they must stop this person to prevent a crime that is going to happen. In stopping the person and searching them the hope is to find, guns, drugs, or anything that might be incriminating. The difference that the stop and frisk has in comparison to a full search the officer is limited in only being about to touch along patting down the outer clothing. If when a officer feels a foreign object that’s when there allowed to then reach into the persons pocket to retrieve what might be inside.
I
s this procedure fair to the general public? Technically and in my opinion it is not. The main reason as to why is because it goes against two of our amendments and rights as United States citizens and as people in general. In the 4th amendment which is Searches and Seizures, when the word secure is used its meant to represent that the persons house, paper, and themselves. A warrant has to be authorized only if there is probable cause. No warrant can be authorized to a law enforcement officer without him writing very specific details as to “the place to be searched, and the persons or things being seized.” In stop and frisk this amendment is being broken because people which is 9 out of 10 cases African American or Latino are being stopped at all places and times without any warrants being issued.
Another amendment that is being broken is the 14 Amendment, which is classified as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. In this Amendment there’s a equal protection clause. It is shown that 52 percent of 4.4 million people that were stopped by police were then frisk for weapons. In those frisk only 1.5 percent were successful in finding a weapon. Fifty two percent of the people who were stopped where Blacks. Hispanics made up thirty one percent and whites were ten percent. Weapons that where then seized 1 percent belonged to people who were black. Hispanics where accountable for 1.1 percent and whites had the highest rate of 1.4 percent. When one compares these statistics the amendment is being broken because there should have been the same percentage of all races being stopped, this in conclusion is the opposite of what equal and why this amendment came to be.   Who do the minority groups turn to for help with the racial stop & frisks, racial profiling. If the police are not protecting and serving the communities but are taking their civil liberties from them. Christine Quinn is an active Politian against the stop & frisk racial profiling of minorities and low income areas. She and other community leaders help to better inform the public when the police have are wrong, and groups like churches activist against this discriminatory arrests against minorities in low income areas of the black and Latino communities stand with injustice have been wrongly stop and frisk.
The theory behind stop and frisk states that it is a method of maintaining and monitoring urban communities in a manner that will stop vandalism and halt serious crimes from progressing. For example there’s a abandoned building that has been reported as someone breaking a few windows. Doesn’t cause much attention but then lets say a week later it is reported that now the front door has been broken down and there’s recent graffiti that has been done to the building now this becomes a bigger issue in the police point of view. They now feel the need to stop a manor crime that they feel will escalate to something much bigger. One might ask “like what”?. In my opinion I truly don’t know what the person would do but again were looking at this situation in a police officers point of view. They now think that there must be “thugs” or “criminals” that are from the neighborhood and hang around this building that must have weapons. In return are looking to conduct in much serious crimes since they already took the first step of breaking the law.  The theory is that minor crimes left unnoticed will in the long run escalate into something much more serious. The programs states they want to get guns off the street before there used in criminal activity.
Holmes screened the film “The Hunted and the Haunted: An inside Look at the New York Police Department’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy,” which suggests the policy targets minorities. These policies give the police and the department to suspect the reasonable cause to stop and frisk suspects of a potential crime. That is why there are many arrests being tossed from the court system because not enough evidence to warrant the stop and frisk arrests and making the cops safe and protected when they walk and patrol the streets of NYC.
My question to the police department in this situation would be so are you stating that there are not white people that live in the urban communities. Is poverty racist and know color. If this isn’t a issue about race and just the urban community why aren’t there still equality as to whose being stopped? Stop And frisk is Also unfair in which the way that the suspects are being treated. I used the adjective suspect oppose to saying person because if there being stopped and frisk in my opinion there being stopped due to the fact that the police believe that there going to commit a crime. The suspects that are being stopped and frisk which in the majority of the cases blacks and Hispanics are being mistreated. There has been many cases reported and also actual video circulating the Internet, which shows police. Abusing people physically, verbally, and emotionally with this unnecessary tactic to protect the community. In a YouTube video in which a young man from Harlem was constantly getting stopped and frisk on a consistent basis the police are being highly aggressive with him. What really captivated my attention in the video was when a police officer that no longer in the force talked about something in the department called a 250. A 250 represents the action to question and pat down anyone that is thought to be reasonably suspicious. What happens if you don’t have a substantial amount of 250s to report to your commander of chief at your present? In the video the officer states that if they didn’t comply with achieving the amount given to them there was consequences. Some where that the offer would be put in a high crime rate area alone or even be demoted from there rank. So even though the studies show that hundreds of thousands of Blacks and Hispanics are being stopped each year only 1.2 percent turn up a weapon. This is unfair to the people as well as the taxpayers.
How effective is Stop and Frisk? Numbers don’t lie and all the data that has to do with this situation states that no this program isn’t effective. Stop and frisk is a based on racial profiling and chance. The chance that you might find someone with incriminating evidence but in reality it’s a gamble that the police loss every year. Data from the New York Civil Liberties Union shows that annually from the year of 2002 to the first three quarters of 2013 the numbers of people innocent ranged from 86-90% innocent. With 90 plus percentage of people stopped being Black and Latino. Some people promote this program in the hopes of the Mayor Bloombergs Stop and Frisk policies cutting down the number of murders in half. The New York City Spokesperson Paul Browne states, “ Over the past 10 years, there were 5,430 murders in New York City, compared with 11,058 in the decade before Mayor Bloomberg took office. That’s a remarkable achievement- 5,628 lives saved- attributed to proactive strategies that include stops. In reality this statement is false. In reality the murder rate in New York City had dropped before Bloomberg was appointed in office and before he implied Stop and Frisk. The year prior to taking office there were 649 murders in NEW York City. Then in 2011 there were 526. The 19 percent difference we see is important but to suggest that this happened due to stop and frisk is completely false.
.          This policy has many people that are against and support the stop and frisk policy, it targets groups that are not fluent in the legal justice system. Mayor Bloomberg is a supporter of the stop and frisk as well as the Police Commissioner Ray Kelly wants to continue this illegal practice of stop and frisk against minorities groups, crime. City council Speaker Christine Quinn and other supporters against racial profiling and policing policies of stop and frisk, but doesn’t want to stop the policy of stop and frisk policy because she hasn’t taken a stand on stopping this  racial profiling that is targeting the poor, disadvantage communities of low social economic class the black & Latino families. Mayor Bloomberg plans to spend a large amount of the city money to continue this illegal practice of stop and frisk on the Black and Latino communities. City officials in the DA and the City attorney office see that even the policy to up hold trespassing cases of poor communities and another form of illegal arrest. They wonder why this group fears the police and their tactics to of policing. It’s one thing want to prevent crime but to arrest innocent young black and Latino men from just sitting or walking down streets, or for being in the wrong neighborhoods. Bloomberg is going to continue to ashtray nominal amounts of tax payer dollars into keeping the stop and frisk policy. He and the DA office will continue to get Lawsuits against the stop and frisk and trespassing summonses targeting this community for its illegal practices. This law is meant to target this population and is making them suffer with life auctorial imagines that will never be replace with good of the police helping and protecting the communities they are to protect . There so many factors that make this policy to be mended not ended in the Mayors view point to stop his policy will hurt law enforcement. This policy should be mended and officers should be retrained to police these communities and the people they service. They have different forces that make points that see this out come to a policy that does harm to low income and poor communities of the NYC area. Millions of dollars taxpayers are being used to continue this and many other budgets cuts to support this policy then helping.
The policy of stop and frisk and gun control targets low income communities and the poor, instead of funding programs that help youth centers stay open and other programs to help the community funding is being cut to support the policy of stop and frisk. “Since social and cultural prejudice guide this NYPD policy you have a situation where the NYPD unfairly targets young men from minority groups, and Christine Quinn is an enabler for Mayor Bloomberg policy and policing the NYPD. Claims supporters of the Bloomberg administration, “City council speaker Christine Quinn and Bill de Blasio will be unveiling City Council Legislation aimed at reducing the total number of stop-and- frisk.” Christine Quinn wants changes to officer training, monitoring, supervision, transparency and accountability she and others Gracie Mansion, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringers take stands on abolishing this practice of targeting minorities. They want the same transparency since they are to run for office and are running on the same plat form as Christine Quinn a change of policing and policy of stop and frisk.
During my research for literature and information on this topic Stop and Frisk of young Black and Latino population, over 600,785 arrests have been made and a class action suit is being wage against this illegal action of the NYPD and its policy of Stop and Frisk. The changes that Christine Quinn has imposed that the police have more training sensitivity in policing the communities they serve, monitoring, supervisions, transparency and accountability when servicing the community. Christine Quinn has been the supporter and advocate of this policy and the injustice of its citizens these changes brings lite to the illegal practices since the policy was enacted and reformed in1964.The changes imposed by these legislative government has been brought forth with many other community groups and leaders to fight for change and the right of those who don’t have the ability to express the injustice held on this population the illegal torment of the police the judicial system and how it works. The legal rights of minority and how cases of unlawful arrest because of stop and frisk policies and the harm it is doing to thousands of minority groups in NYC. The Council Speaker and others have bring lite to the many case of illegal stop and frisk cases by bringing a Class action suit against the NYPD and practices of unlawful stop and frisk by the police. It brings light on the police department but they have to bring about more change when dealing with the community and get more change with sensitivity training and maybe police that may live and work in the community they service.
The education with the community and the struggles they face can be better tackle with more police officers that have come from these areas of low income, social economic backgrounds and the daily struggles they face on a daily basis. Many of the police officers think that just because a child wears baggie jeans and sweat hood is a suspect and is deemed suspicious that treating an is thought to fit the racial profiling policy of stop and frisk. There are other communities that young men are dressing wearing and acting suspicious but are not stop because they don’t fit the profile, they look over this group because the color of their skin doesn’t match. I believe that there is no right color for these unlawful acts of racial profiling and that even though there is more transparency that we cannot remove the stereotype of the police department because a stigma is attached to being Black and Latino in this Country less in NYC.
In analyzing this policy I came to the conclusion that even though it was created for a good purpose it is a violation of our basic rights as humans. In stating this I feel as if this policy is unacceptable and unjustified. Research found that Stop and Frist has not reduced murders in New York City but instead has created a greater gap or tension between the police and civilians. Lets Stop, Stop and Frisk!
Â
Bibliography
Knickerbocker, B. (2013, December 5). William Bratton: why new mayor chose him to lead NYPD — again. Christian Science Monitor. p. N.PAG
Richardson, L. (2012). Police Efficiency and the Fourth Amendment. Indiana Law Journal, 87(3), 1143-1182.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – CLASS ACTIONS – SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CERTIFIES CLASS ACTION AGAINST CITY POLICE FOR SUSPICIONLESS STOPS AND FRISKS OF BLACKS AND LATINOS. — Floyd v. City of New York, 82 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (West) 833 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). (2013). Harvard Law Review, 126(3), 826-833.
Stop-and-Frisk Is Fair. (2013). National Review, 65(16), 14.
Bruinius, H. (2013, November 14). Stop-and-frisk: New York AG report questions its effectiveness. Christian Science Monitor. p. N.PAG.
