Stop and frisk is a very controversial issue in my mind, due to the fact that its legality can be examined from more than one angle. Firstly, the practice of stopping and searching individuals may break the rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment. The other, and perhaps more complicated, issue that is raised by the practice of stop and frisk deals with racial profiling. Yet to determine whether or not this practice of the NYPD is wrong and should consequently be curtailed is not an easy task.
First, lets examine how stop and frisk may be breaking the fourth amendment. According to the United States Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” Judge Shira Scheindlin, in the Floyd v City of New York case, decided that stop and frisk undermines this amendment exactly. Mayor Bloomberg, however, argued with the ruling of the judge and claimed that she had misinterpreted the document. Without a doubt, it all comes down to how the words of the founding fathers are read within the modern context. My guess is that Bloomberg and Scheindlin disagreed over the meaning of “unreasonable search”, a criteria that is very subjective. The practice of stop and frisk compromises personal liberties, but whether it is done on a reasonable basis is much more difficult to decide.
The other part of the Constitution that is implicitly referenced in the articles that we have read is the fourteenth amendment. In the words of the Constitution, no state will “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Added during the civil rights era, this amendment ensured that all citizens, regardless of race or color, are equally protected by the law of the land. However, if ninety percent of all people to be stopped are minorities, then it is possible to say that the fourth amendment, as mentioned above, does not apply equally to people of all races within New York City.
As of now, I cannot say whether the stop and frisk practice is either good or bad. Instead, I would like to raise a question with everything that I have stated in mind. When a case such as this is brought before a judge, must he only consider the legal aspect of the issue or can he look at other things too? Putting all the negative attributes of this practice of the NYPD aside, we must ponder if compromising the rights of certain individuals is worse than putting the safety of others at risk. In essence, do the ends justify the means? From the point of view of the New York Times article that we have read, the answer seems to be a definite no. However, Bloomberg and certain other city officials would have a different answer.
I want to take the time to look at this issue from the perspective of a New York City police officer. The article “Judge Rejects New York’s Stop and Frisk Policy” suggests that police officers are much too quick to categorize the activity of blacks and Hispanics as suspicious. Though that may be true, I cannot as easily dismiss the police force as this article did. I would like to think that each officer acts according to his experience in the field, and not according to an arbitrary bias.
The practice of stop and frisk, per se, is not a bad one in my mind. There has to be, after all, some way of catching criminals before they strike. However, this practice has taken an unpleasant direction in the eyes of many people. At this point in time, it is difficult for me to strongly agree with it or to vehemently back up the previously mentioned article. Still, there is one thing that seems to rise above all this ambiguity. In the case of Floyd v City of New York, Judge Scheindlin has decided that some of New York City’s police officers must wear cameras on their bodies to record the stop and frisks (for lack of a better phrase) with which they are involved. I agree with her ruling, because the practice has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. I want to be able to see exactly what the police officer sees, if and how the stop and frisk takes place, and the consequent reaction of the suspect. Without this kind of concrete evidence, we cannot condemn nor support this controversial practice.
