Stop and frisk, also known as terry stop, refers to the practice of police officers whereby they stop pedestrians, question them and frisk them for weapons and contrabands. The name stop- question- and frisk is mainly used in reference to the New York police department. This policy is provided for in the state’s criminal procedure law in section 140. The stop, question and frisk policy was adopted after the decision of the United States supreme court during a case of Terry vs. Ohio. In 2011, the number of the people who had been stopped and frisked was approximately 685,724; this number was too high and led to a public outburst. Due to the public concerns, the number of stop and frisk incidents have decreased significantly to approximately 22,939 people in 2015.
African- Americans and Latinos comprised of the highest percentage of all the people that are frisked in the country. More than half of the targets were aged between 14 and 24 years. During most incidents of stopping, questioning and frisking, very little is recovered and the people end up feeling like victims. For example, in 2011, out of 46,784 women who were stopped, 16,000 were frisked. Out of the total number of the women frisked, only 59 of them were found to be carrying firearms (Ruderman, 2012). This paper will discuss the stop, question and frisk policy, deliberate on the key issues concerning the policy, its goals and give recommendations for future improvements on the policy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Overview, Purpose andDesign of the Stop and Frisk policy
The policy of stop and frisk was espoused from the English law in several courts in America. In the English common law, a police officer has the mandate to stop, question and frisk defendants without statutory provisions as long as the circumstances are reasonable and show potential crimes. This power to law enforcers isonly granted when there is standard reasonable suspicion as established on the standard that holds less than probable cause. The validation of reasonable detention and investigation is determined by individual circumstances of each suspect.
Before 1968, stop and frisk was debatably illegal and the police officers were only allowed to frisk a suspect after arrest or after attaining a search warrant. However, during the case of Terry vs. Ohio, the legislation of constitutional requirements to stop and frisk individuals was brought forth to the Supreme Court as an area of concern. After the case, the Supreme Court allowed the police limited authority to frisk an individual for weapons even before arrest or issuance of a search warrant (without probable cause) as long as the police officer believes that the suspect is dangerous. Through this decision, the court made the notion of danger to a member of the police force a fundamental basis for reasonable search.
In the ‘80s, police officers would only stop and question a suspect without necessarily frisking them. When the answering of the questions did not escalate the police’s suspicion of danger, the individual was released immediately. Frisking was only conducted in two situations that is; first, when the officer suspected the individual of possessing a dangerous firearm and secondly, when there was judicious suspicion of a probable crime that heightened to probable cause leading to the actual arrest of a criminal as founded on the facts established on the preliminary stop and question incidence. However, in 1990, all of this changed as Comp Stat (computer and statistics- a tool for management of police departments) was recognized under the leadership of police commissioner William Bratton. After its development, the stop, question and frisk policy was adopted and incorporated in the system by most high ranking police officials. With his contributions to the development of the ‘broken windows theory’, William Bratton, the then head of New York Transit Police developed and executed a zero tolerance policy. When he was hired as the police commissioner by the Mayor of the city, Ruby Giuliani, he widely adopted the zero tolerance policy in New York City. As the New York police department (NYPD) expanded, he used this policy to crash down crimes including fare evasion, public urination, public drinking, and graffiti artistry and wiping windshields then belligerently claiming for a fee (squeegee man) ( Ernie, 2012).
Goal of the Stop and Frisk Policy in the Criminal Justice World
According to the police commissioner, the stop and frisk policy main goal is to reduce the rate of violent crime exponentially in the streets. The rate of crimes can be reduced tremendously by stopping and questioning suspicious individuals who police officers believe may be dangerous to the rest of the community with les probable cause. The second goal of the stop and frisk policy is to reduce the number of firearms on the streets. Individuals suspected of being armed and/ or dangerous are frisked before release. This helps members of the police force to capture and detain potential criminals even before they commit a crime or harm other citizens. As a result of preventing potential crime, the stop and frisk policy improves the quality of life of people. InNew York City, the rate of crime has reduced considerably within the last 20years with reduction in crime; people are able to live without suspicion and therefore running their daily lives with ease. Reduction in crime has secondarily promoted business growth in the city, booming the economy and promoting the quality of life for the city residents. Therefore, with all the controversy going on about the stop and frisk policy, it is a vital crime fighting strategy when carried out within the limits of the law (New York City Bar Association, 2013).
Administration of the Stop and Frisk Policy
When a member of the police force stops, questions or frisks an individual, they fill the incident in a form explaining the details of the situation. When their duty ends, the forms they field while on duty are keyed in into a database. Later on, two reports on the stop and frisk data are released and they comprise of a paper report released every three months and electronic reports distributed annually. Through the reports’ release, the information is processed by critics and policy makers to determine the efficiency of the policy. However, writing of the reports has been met with varying levels of acceptance among the officers in the police departments. Some officers have publicly protested the use of the reports on stop, question and frisk as a performance metrics. When officers levels of performance is measured by the number of stops made, some of the law enforcers tend to overuse the procedure, producing a high number of stopped individuals with a lower percentage convicted of wrongdoing thus generating public antagonism towards the police ( Eterno, 2012) .
For instance, using the reports, it was deducible that out of the 97,296 individuals who were stopped and frisked, approximately 82.4% were neither fined nor convicted. In addition, the number of stop and frisk incidents increased radically to over half a million in 2008. Out of all the people frisked, only 12% were fined or convicted. The number of individuals stopped and frisked was at its peak in 2011 when more than 685,000 people were stopped. Other than stopping and frisking individuals on the streets, officers have the power to execute the policy under the Operation Clean Halls. In this program, an officer can be granted prior permission by private property owners to get into a property in order to implement against criminal activity ( Eterno, 2012) .
Key Issues with the Application of the Stop and Frisk Policy
Over the years, the stop and frisk has been faced with controversial reactions and the policy has raised several significant concerns. First, of all the stops made, only 6% result in arrests and only 2% ensued in the recovery of weapons. These statistics show that the highest percentage of all stops made lead to no discovery of transgressions. Therefore, the application of the policy has raised concerns among the public since the police officers are only allowed to stop and question an individual when they have reasonable suspicion that the individual could be dangerous. Additionally, the police are only allowed to frisk a person has already been stopped legally and they have reasonable doubt that the person could be armed. Therefore, with the statistics showing a low recovery of firearms and convictions and the presence of a wide range of circumstantial evidence, it is deducible that most of the stops made are unlawful and are unjustified in the federal and state statutory protection from irrational searches and confiscations. Furthermore, most of the arrests occurring from the stop and frisk practice were made in uncertain circumstances, for example, when a suspect is enquired to remove his or her marijuana from the pocket then being arrested for ownership of marijuana in public view.
Secondly, the stop and frisk practice has in several incidents been blamed for its biasness. Out of the total number of people stooped, more than 85% are either black Americans or Latinos,particularly the males. This claim has been counteracted by the NYPD who claim that the statistics occur as such because most of the criminal activities occur in neighborhoods that are predominantly inhabited by the Blacks and Latinos. However, the data collected reveals that even with regards to the neighborhood demographics, the Blacks and Latinos are still the most often stopped individuals. The opposition of the policy claims that the practice violates several rights of the victims and leads to a considerable level of stigmatization for a significant segment of the population by further estranging and ostracizing the young Black and Latino men who already face many challenging hurdles while they try to progress in the community. The policy stimulates caginess amongst the people of the affected communities while at the same time widening the gap between the police and the younger generations in the said societies. The mistrust and disrespect created between the police and the youthful groups weakens the level of confidence in police vital work.
According to a report by the center for constitutional rights, 2012, the victims of the unprecedented procedure of the policy have been affected deeply as their civil and human rights have been violated. These violations include illegal profiling to inappropriate touching, improper arrests, sexual harassments, violence and humiliations while in the hands of the law enforcers. All these transgressions on a person can be overwhelming and the victims have reported emotional, social, psychological and economic devastation. Other than the Blacks and Latinos in the country, other marginalized groups have also remained victims of police unscrupulous stop and frisk policy including the LGBT/GNC, non-citizens, religious minorities, the homeless, low income earners, youth and the residents of specific neighborhoods. Because of these negative outcomes of the policy, members of certain community do not appreciate the presence of policemen in their area like other Americans do. They regard the existence of police officers in their societies as invasive, ubiquitous and hostile making them feel like they are under siege.
Given how the stop and frisk policy is implemented, people have lost faith in the implementation of the law together with losing faith in the police officers, specifically when the officers elude judicial scrutiny; this has led many people to believe that their detention, that resulted from the stop and frisk procedure, was illegal without any effective analysis. Due to these controversies, a lot of lawsuits against the city have been filed on behalf of the individuals who have undergone the procedure. These lawsuits are set to challenge the legality of the policy and its compliance with the law on a mass scale.
Areas of Improvement in the Policy
Since the implementation of the policy has more negative impact that it does positive, it would be prudent for the city officials to take action even before the lawsuits in court are resolved. They should make reasonable changes that will help them avoid any more destructive communal consequences related to the policy processes. Furthermore, it is evident that from the recent proceedings taken by the police commissioner that the police department has acknowledged that there are reasonable mistakes with the implementation of the policy and thus there is need for better administration methods of the said policy.
Conclusion
The stop, question and frisk policy is a policy that was enacted for the betterment of the community with an aim to curb the crimes in our cities. However, due to unlawful implementations, the policy has become a course for controversy among different members of the society. With allegations of racism and biasness, the policy has been seen as a policy that violates many human rights hurting individuals emotionally and creating mistrust among communities. In affected communities, the implementation of this policy has been met with hostility as policemen and women focus on single groups of the society thereby labeling the delinquents of the community. Because of this, young men, especially those of Black and Latin descents have been seen as nuisances and thereby hampering their progress in the society. With people rising to fight for the annulment of the law from the constitution, the police departments are doing nothing to ease the situation as thousands of Americans keep facing this injustice.
Recommendations to Improve the Policy
The police departments could change their performance enticements from merely counting the number of stops made by their officers to the repercussions of the stops. While using the number of stops made by a cop as a performance appraisal technique, the departments are encouraging the policemen and women to carry unlawful stops. Therefore, finding other measures of competency in the police departments and just checking the aftermath of the stop, the police department will be able to effectively implement the policy without harming the public.
The police department could also improve the knowledge of their police force with regards to the laws governing the stop and frisk policy and how the practice can be conducted within the constraint of the law through conducting regular trainings. Most critics complain of the implementation technique being unlawful. This implies the policemen and women carrying out the duty are either ignorant or unknowledgeable. Lack of knowledge can easily be corrected by conducting regular training of the police force to teach them how application of the policy with accordance of the law. If the members of the force are enforcing the law with ignorance, they can be held accountable for misconduct and they can be chastised.
Thirdly, since most police officers view the filling the UF-250 a liability rather than a gain, they can be better encouraged to fill the forms as it is required by the law. The police departments can be forced to fill the documents without as it is a requirement by the law. These forms can be used to improve the process of internal scrutiny of the police departments thus improving the quality of execution of the policy.
In addition, the penal law can be amended to make the possession of bhang in public a violation instead of a misdemeanor. As explained earlier, the police during stop and searches implicate people of holding the drug in public view wrongfully thus giving them a cause of conviction. As violations are not regarded as crimes, making ownership of the drug a violation will reduce the number of unjust convictions enormously.
An oversight monitor can be installed to watch over the progressions of the stop, question and frisk actions. A pilot program can be tested in the use of audio and visual recordings of every procedure that takes place. These recordings can be monitored and deliberated upon in order to see how, where and when the stop and frisk policy is implemented. For these recommendations to be effective, I believe that the officials who are responsible for implementing the policy and the community affected by it should have an extensive dialogue to establish ground rules and rules the level of mistrust between the law enforcers and the society.
References:
Ernie Naspretto. The Real History of Stop-And-Frisk ". New York Daily News . 2012. Print
Eterno, John A. "Policing By the Numbers". New York Times . 2012. P. A23.
New York City Bar. Report On The NYPD Stop And Frisk Policy. New York City bar Association: Civil Rights, Criminal Courts, Criminal Justice Operations and the Law. 2013. Print.
Wendy Ruderman (August 6, 2012). For Women in Street Stops, Deeper Humiliation . New York Times. Print
Center for Constitutional Rights. 2012. Stop and Frisk: The Human Impact, the Stories behind the Numbers, The Effects on Our Communities . Print.
