The whole idea of limiting stop-and-frisk comes from the notion that it is unconstitutional. People believe that police officers are targeting suspects based on unjustifiable suspicions, which leads to the idea of racial profiling. Opponents to stop-and-frisk argue that furtive movements cannot be justification alone for stopping and questioning someone. But if that is seen as unconstitutional, then an unfair and biased judge should also be determined unconstitutional.

Before reading this article, I heard much criticism from people that Judge Shira Scheindlin was running an unfair trial, and had her verdict made before the trail even started. The Constitution allows citizens the right to a fair trial, and Scheindlin was unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York, as well as previous trials. I agree with her statement when she kept telling the defense to stop talking about the effectiveness of the policy, because a policy can be very effective but if it is unconstitutional then it doesn’t matter how good it works. She just needs to follow her own statements and stay fair and constitutional in her trials.

Her past record shows that there is some type of resentment towards police officers, and I think that skews the truth of the situation. Of course no one will no the reality of the situation, except the people present, but when you have a cop arresting the leader of the Latin Kings I think his actions are justifiable. I know that every situation is not perfect, and some police officers have it in their mind that they want to arrest someone, even if they are completely innocent. But that obviously does not happen enough if the statistics show such a small amount of arrests. There still should not be any unjustifiable arrests, but the decisions by Scheindlin to be anti-public safety and authorities can be even more detrimental to New Yorkers’ safety.

Now that doesn’t mean stop-and-frisk is the sole reason crime and murders have decreased exponentially. Obviously there needs to be some sort of warranted search if there is a feeling a threat, but it should not be done so often just to complete quotas and show good statistics. And if the NYPD is decreasing stop-and-frisks greatly and creating more detailed reports during a court trial on the issue, it only further proves that many of the stops are unnecessary.

One thing I did not agree with in the article was the way it defined stop-and-frisks. “Police officers may arrest a suspect only if they have probable cause to believe that he committed a crime.” I do not think stop-and-frisks simply allow police officers to arrest suspects if they believe to have committed a crime. Suspects need to have a weapon or some illegal item on them to warrant an arrest. The occurrences when police officers arrest them without any reason show that there are faults in the system, which prove the practice to be somewhat unconstitutional. But the only way to really fix the system is by having a fair trial and sticking to the constitutional rights of all parties.

Does Scheindlin have some sort of vendetta against police officers that every time there is a trial she is in favor of the opposing side?

The whole idea of limiting stop-and-frisk comes from the notion that it is unconstitutional. People believe that police officers are targeting suspects based on unjustifiable suspicions, which leads to the idea of racial profiling. Opponents to stop-and-frisk argue that furtive movements cannot be justification alone for stopping and questioning someone. But if that is seen as unconstitutional, then an unfair and biased judge should also be determined unconstitutional.

Before reading this article, I heard much criticism from people that Judge Shira Scheindlin was running an unfair trial, and had her verdict made before the trail even started. The Constitution allows citizens the right to a fair trial, and Scheindlin was unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York, as well as previous trials. I agree with her statement when she kept telling the defense to stop talking about the effectiveness of the policy, because a policy can be very effective but if it is unconstitutional then it doesn’t matter how good it works. She just needs to follow her own statements and stay fair and constitutional in her trials.

Her past record shows that there is some type of resentment towards police officers, and I think that skews the truth of the situation. Of course no one will no the reality of the situation, except the people present, but when you have a cop arresting the leader of the Latin Kings I think his actions are justifiable. I know that every situation is not perfect, and some police officers have it in their mind that they want to arrest someone, even if they are completely innocent. But that obviously does not happen enough if the statistics show such a small amount of arrests. There still should not be any unjustifiable arrests, but the decisions by Scheindlin to be anti-public safety and authorities can be even more detrimental to New Yorkers’ safety.

Now that doesn’t mean stop-and-frisk is the sole reason crime and murders have decreased exponentially. Obviously there needs to be some sort of warranted search if there is a feeling a threat, but it should not be done so often just to complete quotas and show good statistics. And if the NYPD is decreasing stop-and-frisks greatly and creating more detailed reports during a court trial on the issue, it only further proves that many of the stops are unnecessary.

One thing I did not agree with in the article was the way it defined stop-and-frisks. “Police officers may arrest a suspect only if they have probable cause to believe that he committed a crime.” I do not think stop-and-frisks simply allow police officers to arrest suspects if they believe to have committed a crime. Suspects need to have a weapon or some illegal item on them to warrant an arrest. The occurrences when police officers arrest them without any reason show that there are faults in the system, which prove the practice to be somewhat unconstitutional. But the only way to really fix the system is by having a fair trial and sticking to the constitutional rights of all parties.

Does Scheindlin have some sort of vendetta against police officers that every time there is a trial she is in favor of the opposing side?

I was very pleased at the outset of this article as Toobin was describing Scheindlin’s work ethic as a judge. There are very few people that put in that amount of work and it’s nice to see that one of them holds the position of a Federal Judge. The fact that Scheindlin goes the extra mile to ensure that the she rules correctly shows that she truly cares about the American legal system and that it’s carried out properly. I also appreciate her courtroom manner in that she doesn’t allow herself to be swayed or her authority questioned.
It seems that Scheindlin is carefully reviewing the element of the Floyd case as well as the US law to ensure that the correct decision is made on her end. At the same time, there is the possibility that her decision will impact the policy of stop and frisk so greatly that it may be abolished by De Blasio, a stop and frisk critic. That could prove to be an issue for NYC, especially if stop and frisk has had a greater impact on reducing crime than people think.
I don’t agree with Scheindlin’s ruling in the case of Antonio Fernandez. I understand the reason for why the case was thrown out, but I see a problem with letting the leader of a dangerous street gang walk just because there was a slight breach in etiquette. The fact that he was brought up on charges for cocaine and heroin three years later is testament that he should’ve been tried the first time he was arrested.
In the section that discusses the situation of Charles Bradley I lost some respect for the NYPD. Reading about his experience bothers me because of the fact that these men and women are supposed to “protect and serve,” not harass innocent citizens. I truly hope that these instances of Charles Bradley and also Amadou Diallo are the actions of a select few within the NYPD.
While I applaud the judge’s actions, I don’t necessarily agree with the fact that she is the only one being given this type of case. I don’t think the fact that she has control over making all rulings in this area is the best way to go about finding the best solution. With things of this nature I believe the best outcome will result from getting multiple opinions and interpretations from various judges.

Question: Will an issue arise from Scheindlin’s comments about basing the Ligon decision on the outcome of the Floyd case?

As the granddaughter of a retired New York City cop, who was stationed in Harlem in the late hours of the night, I have heard many stories of the types of people my grandfather would encounter on the job; young men attacking him with guns or knives, women asking him to walk them home because they felt they were in danger, and there were much worse incidents he would tell me he experienced. It’s stories like those that make me realize why stop-and-frisk was put into place. I know that many opponents of the law argue that police officers are rude and disrespectful to the citizens they are stopping-and-frisking. But I know from my grandfather that he was a good-natured person who was always looking out for the best for society.

Now that does not mean my grandpa was perfect, and he has also told me stories of some bad officers who were corrupt in their actions, but I know his actions were not out of vendetta or hatred of any person. He was harsh to the criminals he was arresting because they were causing harm to innocent New Yorkers. Police officers are put in place to keep citizens safe, and stop-and-frisk is one of those initiatives taken that is supposed to help.

But stop-and-frisk can easily become corrupt and police officers can abuse the power of the system, which is happening right now in New York. The statistics show that blacks and Hispanics have been stopped exponentially more than whites and other races, and according to The New York Times 83 percent of blacks and Hispanics were stopped yet their demographics make up only slightly more than 50 percent of the city’s residents. The tactics of stop-and-frisk has caused racial profiling and an atmosphere of fear for potential targets of the practice. There is a difference between being suspicious because you have something to hide and walking on the sidewalk, worrying that the cops will stop you just because you are black or Hispanic.

I know not every police officer practices stop-and-frisk in a corrupt way, just as I think my grandfather would try his best to be as fair and honest in his tactics to stop a suspicious person. But the NYPD has made ridiculous quotas for police officers to fulfill each month for stop-and-frisk. Those extreme pressures have influenced officers to stop more people, particularly blacks and Hispanics as the statistics show, and that also causes them to feel more powerful. They then abuse this power to stop innocent bystanders, who might act defensive just for the fact that they have done nothing wrong and are being targeted.

Now I’m not trying to make generalizations and say that this is only a problem for blacks and Hispanics, but I can say that I have never been stopped. There have been times I was going on subways, carrying large bags or boxes, and police officers would be in the station in front of a table to search in people’s belongings. I have gone up to the table and asked if they needed to search through my belongings and they have always told me I was fine. But then I would see a black man walk towards the subway carrying a large bag and they would stop him. I have seen, first-hand, police officers determine if someone was suspicious based on their race. If I had the mind of a criminal, I would notice the actions of police officers and have a young white girl carry a bomb or a gun because they are less likely to be stopped, even if they are showing signs of suspicion.

People make the excuse that there are higher crime statistics for the black and Hispanic demographic, and while it is true that should not be the sole or primary reason why the statistics for stop-and-frisk for those races are so high. There needs to be more transparency in the system of stop-and-frisk, so that New Yorkers can understand why so many blacks and Hispanics are being targeted and also to see the necessity of stop-and-frisk. I want to feel safe living in the city, but I also want to know that our public authorities are not abusing the system. I do not think the city would be better off without the policy, but there needs to be more control of the practice by city officials.

I think the question that best addresses this issue is, how necessary is stop-and-frisk to the safety of New Yorkers?

Stop and Frisk is an ongoing issue for New York City that doesn’t necessarily have a quick fix. Supporters of the practice focus on the decreasing crime rates in New York City over the past decade.  On the other hand, challengers continually cite how the majority of people stopped are of African American and Hispanic descent.  This wouldn’t be an issue, except for the fact that the New York Times states that these demographic backgrounds only make up approximately half of the city.

What I found rather alarming was the percentage of stop and frisks that turn out to be false alarms.  According to the New York Times article, 90% of stops end up in disappointment for police officers.  I agree with the judge’s stance on how being stopped, frisked, and nothing happening is a rather humiliating experience.  To me, the process would be more justified if a higher percentage of frisks resulted in some sort of summons, or arrest.  However nine out of ten times, these people are doing nothing wrong and the police officers deemed their activity suspicious.

Deeming activity suspicious brings me to my next point.  Who determines what kind of activity really is considered “suspicious”?  According to the NY Times article, the judge declares that cops are too quick to jump the gun on suspicious activity.  She cites instances of cops stopping people for “walking in a certain way, grabbing at a pocket or looking over one’s shoulder.”  To most people, looking back behind you shouldn’t be a reason to be frisked.   This doesn’t seem to be an issue of suspicious activity, but rather of racial and physical appearance.

I recently watched a video clip of an African American adolescent, who took it upon himself to record himself being stopped and frisked.  After being previously stopped just a couple blocks back, this young man knew that the cops were looking to get him in trouble. The video contains an audio track of the two officers stopping the boy for suspiciously having an empty back.  After explaining to the officers that the backpack was for his sweatshirt, the two officers verbally assault him.  One even goes as far as threatening to break the boy’s arm.

Even with instances like the one previously mentioned, officers will continue this practice. In the video I watched, anonymous police officers told stories of how their bosses encouraged them to complete a certain number of frisks.  They even discussed the repercussions of not following orders, which could involve things relocating them to bad neighborhoods or making them work weekends.  With this being such a hot button issue, I’m curious to see how the city will ensure that this practice will not involve any form of racial profiling in the future.

Question for discussion: Do pilot programs (as mentioned by the judge) have any future in New York City?

After reading about the stop and frisk phenomenon in New York City, many different issues came to mind. Perhaps the most obvious is the question of violating basic American rights by searching individuals without sufficient cause. The other, more ambiguous issue is that of racial profiling, and its impact on national security.

As observed in the Floyd vs City of New York case, there is a clear discrepancy in how the issue of constitutional rights is defined. According to Bloomberg, many people would die if the stop and frisk policies in effect would be outlawed. Sometimes, suspicion is enough of a reason to search an individual and ensure national safety. And random searching is a sort of algorithm to test a sample of a larger population.

Racial profiling is an interesting topic in America, because America is the land of the free, where everyone is equal. If people were truly standing on equal ground, there would be no reason to search people belonging to one race more often that people belonging to another. The fact that certain races do seem to be “frisked” more often has lead to bitter resentment of the policy.

However, in other countries, like Israel, racial profiling is an extremely prominent form of homeland security. In the Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, Israeli soldiers look each visitor up and down before allowing them to pass through the airport, randomly pulling suspicious stragglers aside for questioning. At random checkpoints throughout the country, soldiers watch for any suspicious looking citizens. And they have had a tremendous success rate, stopping thousands of tragedies before they happen.

If stopping and frisking is really keeping New York City safer, does it matter that certain races are checked more often than others? As long as the suspicious Caucasians are checked as well, which they are, is pride and insecurity enough of a reason to allow dangerous individuals to roam freely?

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.

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.

Upon entering Macaulay Honors College on the upper west side, I didn’t really know what to expect. In all of my previous semesters taking these classes, I was never required to make an actual presentation, so this was an exciting moment. We had done a lot of practice in class, so I was a lot less nervous than I expected myself to be. Overall, I thought the event went really smoothly, and the other presentations done by my peers were interesting as well.

Our presentation in general went very smoothly, primarily because the audience was a small receptive group of students along with the moderator. In the two-hour time span we went towards the end, and I was impressed to see the room filled with students, many of whom had already presented. We were asked intellectual questions at the end, such as has eminent domain ever been abused by the government? There was also much interest in the funding of this project, and whether or not we thought the governments funds were being allocated in the right direction.

The reason behind that particular question, was that the majority of the other groups were from the College of Staten Island, and their professor had assigned them work to do their projects on Hurricane Sandy. Many of them took the project very personally, as they focused on how Hurricane Sandy affected Staten Island and destroyed the lives of so many people. It was difficult for them to understand why the government is funding a multi-million dollar project in Times Square, rather than allocating that money to Hurricane Sandy survivors. Even though these groups all covered Hurricane Sandy, they all took different approaches, which kept my interest.

My favorite group that presented was from Queens College. These two boys went into what the life of an actor really is like, and they delved into the SAG awards and the benefits of being a SAG member. As a business student at Baruch, I never really get any exposure to the liberal arts side of school, and I really appreciated what they did. One of them was actually a SAG member himself, and it was nice to see how passionate he was about this. An interesting fact that I learned, was that if an extra even pops onto the screen for one scene he or she is automatically part of the SAG community. One major benefit is free healthcare.

The reason why I like going to these Macaulay conferences is that I get to see what my other peers are doing, and I love how everyone’s projects are so diverse. People took so many different approaches to this project, and it was great to see the enthusiasm and passion they put behind their project. All of the presenters seemed very interested in what they were telling us. In general, it would be great if Macaulay could extend this event and organize it in a manner so that Macaulay students across the CUNY system could interact and network more. Perhaps splitting people up by their appropriate schools, and having interactive activities could be a way to break the ice. All in all, this was a well-organized event, that I was glad to be a part of.

Presenting at the Macaulay Conference was very different from our classroom presentations because the audience was not acquainted with the material we presented throughout the semester. Although we managed to explore some of the data from our research, the full content was not completely extracted because of time constraints. Nonetheless, the conference proved to be a good place to exchange ideas about solving the issues that plague our city.

The most frustrating part of the presentation was the time restriction. Since our audience was not familiar with our topic, we felt it was vital to explain the foundation of certain terms and ideas before presenting the problem. For example, before I spoke about how eminent domain has been abused in the acquisition of land for the development of the Atlantic Yards, I first had to brief our peers on what eminent domain meant. Furthermore, because our presentation was more quantitative than others, it was a bit difficult to give full context behind the numbers we presented. Nonetheless, the presentation went smoothly. We managed to complete it in the allotted time without any major mishaps. By the conclusion, I believe most of the audience realized that the Atlantic Yards project had a significant impact on both current and future housing.

One of the great benefits of cross campus events at Macaulay is that we have a chance to see the work of our peers. It seemed that many groups lacked the major aspect of a research project: a focus question. In addition, some presentations deviated from the typical trend of PowerPoint slides. Instead, they built a website which gave greater detail, but at the same time, made it difficult to follow their main points. Still, I acknowledge that the content on some of these websites were very scholarly. For example, the group who presented on Bushwick did a phenomenal job of exploring all facets of the neighborhood. They covered areas such as politics, business, community, education, transportation, health, and most importantly, the future. I was also intrigued by another presentation that focused on bike lane safety. This group made its own proposal for reducing bike-automobile accidents at intersections by requiring a safe zone where cars cannot block the view of bikes. Overall, I admired the creativity of some presentations and the detailed research done for others.

This conference marked our last formal presentation at Macaulay. Although I would have preferred to see a stronger or more organized structure to many presentations, I still believe the content proved interesting. In addition, I was pleased with the way our group managed to be detailed, yet focused, in the time given. Altogether, I hope Macaulay continues to foster an environment of research exploration that is focused on the future of our city.