The phrase ‘stop-and-frisk’ sounds simple, but in the real situation, it is not as clear-cut as it looks. Stop-and-frisk magnets another big term, ‘racial discrimination.’ Blacks and Hispanics who are mainly targeted by the police think that the color of their complexion is the reason police stop them. Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. filed a federal class action lawsuit against the New York Police Department because they believe that police engage suspicion-less stop-and-frisks and that violates the Constitution. According to New York Times article: “Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy,” Judge Scheindlin is also on Floyd’s side and wants to change police’s practices. However, I don’t really think that the color is the reason for being stopped.
As a result of the settlement of Daniels, et al. v. City of New York, et al, police have to write the reasons for their stop-and-frisks. What I don’t understand is that if a person looks less suspicious, why would police spend their time stopping-and-frisking that person and writing a report? I don’t think that police are unreasonably targeting the colored people. They mainly stop minorities (blacks and Hispanics) because they commit more crimes than other races. I don’t know the exact numbers and statistics, but every morning when I watch the news on television, mostly blacks rob and commit rape, and shooting. In the New York Times article, Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Kelly also said that the stops mirrored the disproportionate percentage of crimes committed by young minority men. If the crimes were committed mostly by Asians, then, I believe, police would stop more Asians than blacks and Hispanics.
Under Bloomberg’s administration, murders and major crimes decline to historic low. However, Judge Scheindlin does not very much appreciate this. She says that it violates the Fourth Amendment and wants to reform the police’s practices. I agree with her pilot program in which police officers have to wear cameras on their bodies to record “street encounters.” That will show whether the stops are reasonable or not and whether it falls under “certain conditions” defined by a 1968 Terry v. Ohio ruling by the Supreme Court that permits the stop-and-frisk.
According to the New York Times article, Judge Scheindlin wrote, “No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life.” I can understand it is embarrassing and humiliating to be stopped in front of other people, but if one is innocent, he/she should not care and should not be scared. Police have the responsibility to protect the innocent people so that they have to search bulge pockets for weapons or illegal materials.
The police’s job is to protect the lives of people and to arrest the criminals. They have to target the community that commits more crimes; otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense. If minorities do not want to be targeted, they should try to improve their own communities by finding ways to decrease the crime rates and emphasizing in education to increase the standard of living.
