Omar Bennett
The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, is a New York City Police Department (NYPD) practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and searching civilians and suspects on the street for weapons and contraband. In 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk tactics violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The ruling stated that the program was used as a method of racially profiling and harassing Black and Latino citizens. Despite this, the practice of stop-and-frisk is not inherently unconstitutional if carried out properly.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of ruling | August 12, 2013 |
| Judge | Shira A. Scheindlin |
| Court | US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Case | Floyd v. City of New York |
| Violations | Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause |
| Reasoning | Racial profiling, unreasonable suspicion |
| Number of stops | 4.4 million between 2004 and 2012 |
| Percentage of stops of Black and Latino people | 83%-84% |
| Percentage of Black and Latino people in NYC | 50%-54.1% |
| Percentage of stops without any convictions | 87.6% (2002-2013 average) |
| Weapons found | 2% |
| Contraband found | 2% |
| NYPD Commissioner | Ray Kelly |
| Mayor of NYC | Michael Bloomberg |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 'reasonable suspicion' rule
The "reasonable suspicion" rule is a key component of the stop-and-frisk policy in New York City. This rule allows police officers to temporarily detain, question, and search individuals based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or if the person is believed to be armed and dangerous. The rule has been contentious, with critics arguing that it has been used as a method of racial profiling and disproportionately targets Black and Latino communities.
The "reasonable suspicion" rule, as it pertains to stop-and-frisk, was first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968 in the case of Terry v. Ohio, also known as a "Terry stop." This ruling set a precedent for investigative stops by law enforcement, allowing officers to briefly detain and question individuals based on reasonable suspicion, without necessarily having probable cause. The Court held that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
The application of the "reasonable suspicion" rule in New York City has been controversial. In 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in Floyd v. City of New York that the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The decision highlighted the racial disparities in the program, with a disproportionate number of stops involving African Americans and Latinos. Judge Scheindlin's ruling directed the NYPD to adopt a written policy specifying where such stops are authorized and to appoint an independent monitor to oversee the program.
The "reasonable suspicion" rule has been the subject of debate among legal scholars and practitioners. Some argue that the standard of "reasonable suspicion" is too permissive and allows for potential abuse or discriminatory application. Others, like Professor Lawrence Rosenthal, defend the practice, arguing that Judge Scheindlin failed to consider evidence of the policy's efficacy and that stops are based on reasonable suspicion rather than preponderance of evidence.
It's important to note that the "reasonable suspicion" rule is not without limitations. Police officers must be able to articulate specific and factual reasons for their suspicion, and they cannot detain individuals based solely on vague or biased reasons. Individuals who are stopped have certain rights, such as the right to refuse to answer questions, the right to ask if they are free to leave, and the right to deny consent to a search beyond a frisk.
Understanding COBRA Coverage and Qualifying Events
You may want to see also
Racial profiling
The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City has been a contentious policing policy since it was first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968. The practice allows police officers to temporarily detain, question, and search civilians and suspects on the street based on "'reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity and if the person is suspected of being armed and dangerous.
In 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program was carried out in a manner that violated the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fourteenth Amendment. The judge's ruling described the practice as "a form of racial profiling" of young Black and Hispanic men, with 83% of the 4.4 million stops made between 2004 and 2012 targeting these racial groups, despite them only making up 52% of the city's population in 2010. The court's opinion also noted that the NYPD had an unwritten policy of targeting "the right people", which in practice meant targeting Black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints.
The ruling was met with opposition from the NYPD and the city's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who indicated that the city would appeal the decision. Despite this, the stop-and-frisk program has faced widespread criticism and has been the subject of racial profiling controversy. Research has shown that between 2002 and 2013, 90% of those stopped were African-American or Latino, mostly aged 14-24, while on average, 87.6% of individuals stopped were not convicted of any crime. Further analysis of the program found that the likelihood of a stop of an African-American New Yorker yielding a weapon was half that of White New Yorkers, and the likelihood of finding contraband on an African-American was one-third that of White New Yorkers.
The racial profiling aspect of the stop-and-frisk program has been a significant concern for civil rights organizations and minorities. In 1999, Black and Latino people made up 50% of New York's population but accounted for 84% of the city's stops, and these statistics have changed little over time. Opponents of the program argue that it constitutes harassment of Black and Latino communities and that it has failed to effectively reduce crime.
While some proponents of the stop-and-frisk program argue that it is necessary for finding weapons and drugs, the reality is that these stops have low "hit rates" and are rarely fruitful. In New York City in 2008, only 0.2% of stops resulted in the seizure of a gun, and weapons and contraband were recovered less than 2% of the time. Additionally, people who have experienced stop-and-frisk have frequently reported police violence, with 45% reporting an officer threatening them and 46% experiencing physical force.
Constitution's Role in Federal Regulations
You may want to see also
Effectiveness of the program
The effectiveness of the stop-and-frisk program in New York City has been a subject of debate and controversy. The program, also known as the Terry stop, allows police officers to temporarily detain, question, and search civilians and suspects on the street based on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity and the belief that the person may be armed and dangerous.
Supporters of the program argue that it is an important crime prevention tactic that helps keep weapons and contraband off the streets. They contend that the program has led to a decline in New York City's crime rate. For instance, a 2016 study by David Weisburd and others found that stop-and-frisk lowered crime, with a "significant yet modest" effect. Another study in the same year reported a modest association between the program and crime reduction, although it cautioned against attributing the reduction solely to stop-and-frisk. Robert Apel also noted a deterrent effect, suggesting that each additional stop reduces the probability of crime.
However, critics of the program argue that it is ineffective in reducing crime and has primarily served as a tool for racial profiling and harassment of Black and Latino communities. Research has shown that despite comprising 54.1% of New York City's population in 2010, African Americans and Latinos accounted for 74.4% of overall arrests. Additionally, 90% of those stopped in 2017 were African Americans or Latinos, mostly aged 14–24. Studies have also found that the stops have not led to a significant number of arrests or weapons seizures. A 2007 study in the Journal of the American Statistical Association concluded that even after controlling for race-specific crime participation rates, persons of African and Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than whites. Similarly, a 2012 study by Richard Rosenfeld and Robert Fornango found minimal impact on robbery and burglary rates between 2003 and 2010.
The controversy surrounding the effectiveness and constitutionality of the stop-and-frisk program led to legal challenges. In 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the program had been used in an unconstitutional manner, violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling directed the NYPD to adopt written policies specifying when such stops are authorized.
Intent Letters: Contract or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 4th and 14th Amendment rights
The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the case of stop and frisk in New York, this right was violated when police officers conducted searches without a reasonable suspicion that the person was armed and dangerous. The Fourth Amendment requires that police have a warrant or probable cause to conduct a search. In the case of stop and frisk, officers were searching individuals based on broad suspicions of criminal wrongdoing, which is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racially discriminatory policing and guarantees equal protection under the law. The New York stop and frisk policy was found to be in violation of this amendment because it disproportionately targeted minorities, specifically Black and Latino individuals. Evidence showed that the NYPD's policy of targeting “the right people” was a form of racial profiling, with 84% of those stopped in 2011 being Black or Latino, and this percentage changed little over the next decade. The court found that the NYPD was intentionally discriminating against these racial groups, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as protected by the Fourth Amendment, applies to all people in the United States, including New Yorkers. This right was violated by the NYPD's stop and frisk practices, which often involved searching individuals without a warrant or probable cause. The right to equal protection under the law, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, was also infringed upon, as the policy disproportionately targeted people of colour.
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is a fundamental right that safeguards individuals' privacy and freedom from arbitrary government intrusion. In the context of stop and frisk, this right was violated when individuals were searched without a reasonable suspicion that they were carrying weapons or contraband. The Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition of racially discriminatory policing and guarantee of equal protection under the law further emphasize the unconstitutional nature of the stop and frisk policy. This amendment ensures that all people, regardless of race, are treated equally by the law and are protected from discriminatory practices.
Exploring Pakistan's Constitution: The Power of Writs
You may want to see also
Police violence
The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City has been a contentious policing practice since it was first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968. The policy allows police officers to temporarily detain, question, and search civilians and suspects on the street based on "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity and weapons possession.
The NYPD has conducted millions of stop-and-frisks in New York City over the last two decades, with a disproportionate number targeting Black and Latino people. Between 2003 and 2013, nearly 90% of stops did not lead to a summons or arrest, indicating that the overwhelming majority of those stopped were innocent. The practice has been criticized for its failure to reduce crime and for its discriminatory nature, with 90% of those stopped in 2017 being African-American or Latino, despite these groups comprising 54.1% of the city's population.
The NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk has resulted in violent police misconduct and unlawful stops. In Floyd v. City of New York, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the practice violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling highlighted the racial profiling and harassment of Black and Latino citizens, with evidence suggesting that the policy was applied disproportionately to these communities.
The controversy surrounding stop-and-frisk in New York City has led to debates about its constitutionality and effectiveness in preventing crime. While some argue that the practice is necessary for maintaining public safety, others contend that it violates civil rights and contributes to a hostile relationship between law enforcement and minority communities.
Impact of Stop-and-Frisk on Communities
The high rate of stops among Black and Latino individuals has had a significant impact on these communities. The practice has been associated with racial profiling and has contributed to a sense of discrimination and injustice. The use of stop-and-frisk has also led to the unlawful retention of records by the police, with personal information such as arrest reports and mugshots remaining in law enforcement databases even after cases have been dropped or declined by prosecutors. This further exacerbates the negative consequences for those who have been stopped, even if they are ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing.
Efforts to Address Unlawful Practices
In response to the controversies surrounding stop-and-frisk, the NYPD has made efforts to improve its practices. In 2017, the department transitioned to electronic forms for documenting stops, and it reports stop-and-frisk data through quarterly summary reports and an annual public database. However, some NYPD officers have criticized the use of stop-question-and-frisk paperwork as a performance metric, arguing that it encourages overuse of the practice and creates public hostility.
Despite these efforts, critics argue that the historical patterns of police stopping and searching people based on skin color persist. Community activists have accused the NYPD of encouraging stops through quotas, which the department has denied. Additionally, there have been reports of NYPD officials ordering the targeted searching and arresting of Black individuals in certain neighborhoods, further exacerbating the issues of racial profiling and discrimination.
Local Governments: Constitutional Constraints and Their Limits
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, it is not. In 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk tactics violate the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.
The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City, is an NYPD practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and searching civilians and suspects on the street for weapons and contraband.
Judge Scheindlin's ruling was based on the fact that the practice was used as a method of racially profiling and harassing Black and Latino citizens. Between 2004 and 2012, the NYPD made 4.4 million stops, 83% of which were of Black and Hispanic people, despite these groups representing 52% of the city's population.
To remedy the widespread constitutional violations, Judge Scheindlin ordered a court-appointed monitor to oversee a series of reforms to NYPD policing practices. The NYPD was also directed to adopt a written policy specifying where such stops are authorized.
![Hyperdrama[2 LP]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71iFNbV3vtL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
