-Submitted by Christian, Fatema, Julia & Sara

The stop and frisk policy has been a controversial issue throughout years in New York City.  It was established in 1968, when the Supreme Court case Terry vs. Ohio set the Legal Basis for justifiable pedestrian searches.  In this case, a New York City police officer approached two men who he believed to be casing a convenience store for a potential robbery. After observing them for a considerable period of time, the officer approached the pedestrians for questioning, after which he frisked them. The frisk of one of the men, John W. Terry, produced a concealed weapon. This provoked the question of whether a search without probable cause for arrest is in violation to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that a search is legal if there is reasonable belief that there is probable cause for arrest.

The 1976 case of People vs. de Bour further upheld this ruling, by stating that if  “an intrusion on the security and privacy of the individual is undertaken with intent to harass… the spirit of the Constitution has been violated” but, “we cannot say that the defendant’s right to be free from an official interference by way of inquiry is absolute.” This case, in essence, established rules for the stop-and-frisk policy.

Despite these precedent-setting cases, controversy regarding the policy did not begin until the 1990’s, when an unarmed African immigrant, Amadou Diallo was shot by an NYPD officer. For the first time, a class action lawsuit was filed about New York City for unlawful stop-and-frisk practices and racial profiling. Only days later, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced an inquiry into the policy, which concluded that stop-and-frisk disproportionately targeted black and Latino men.

This, of course, has been the primary issue with stop-and-frisk ever since. Despite Spitzer’s study, NYPD and the city of New York has worked hard to show evidence that the policy is effective and does not target any particular demographic. Primarily, the NYPD has come under attack for withholding stop-and-frisk data, which provides evidence of racial profiling and searching without justifiable belief of arrest. Steps have been taken, as recently as 2010, to force the NYPD to publicly release all stop-and-frisk data.

Many of these steps have been ineffective due in large part to Mayor Bloomberg’s adamant support of the policy. Bloomberg cites a drop in the crime rate and decrease in the amount of guns on the street as evidence of the effectiveness of stop-and-frisk. Bloomberg went further to justify the racial profiling of those who were stopped by police officers, claiming that 90 percent of crimes committed were committed by black and Hispanic men. Therefore, in order to truly protect the city, that demographic must be under the most suspicion.

Stop-and-frisk is an improperly implemented policy that has created a division between the communities and the law enforcement. Stop-and-frisk does not work well in  New York City where there is a large population of people of color. Racial profiling has continuously been a substantial matter, but it gained more attention ever since the case of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17 year old African American who was fatally shot by a police officer. Racial profiling is entwined with the NYPD’s policy of stop-and-frisk; data gathered from the NYPD’s annual report, which was compiled by the New York Civil Liberties Union showed how the percentage of people stopped were mostly Blacks and Latino. This policy is unjust and is being ruled by racial profiling, which needs to be stopped. New Yorkers should address the stop-and-frisk policy in order for everyone within the community to have equal footing. New York City has an approximate population of 8.3 million, predominantly filled with ethnic minorities. A multitude of individuals have been affected by the stop-and-frisk policy implemented by the NYC law enforcement.

In 2011, an estimated 686,000 people were stopped, the majority of them being African American or Latino.  The New York Civil Liberties Union compiled stop-and-frisk data based on the NYPD’s periodic public report of its stop-and-frisk activity. From the 685,724 people stopped, 53 percent were African American, 32 percent were Latino, 9 percent were white, and 51 percent were between the ages of 14 and 24. Out of the 686,000 people halted, 89 percent were not convicted of any crimes and according to NYPD’s reports, 9 out of the 10 who were stopped and frisked were innocent. This demonstrates that the stop-and-frisk policy is based on racial profiling and how the stop-and-frisk policy may not be as beneficial as most people presume it to be. [6]

Proponents of the  policy argue that stop-and-frisk reduces crime rates and protects individuals. However, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union this is a myth. “No research has ever proven the effectiveness of New York City’s stop-and-frisk regime, and the small number of arrests, summonses, and gun recovered demonstrates that the practice is ineffective,” it says. Although crime rates fell 29 percent in New York City from 2001 to 2012, other large cities experienced larger crime drops: 59 percent in Los Angeles, 56 percent in New Orleans, and 49 percent in Dallas without having to rely on the stop-and-frisk method. Another justification for the stop-and-frisk policy is that it helped the law enforcement get guns off the streets. That is also a misconception; The New York Times reported in August 2012 that 1 out of every 879 police stops found guns, and the NYCLU accounted that guns are found in less than 0.2 percent of stops. From the data shown, stop-and-frisk policy is not as effective as the population of New Yorkers seem to believe. [7]

There was also a case that declared the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy violated two clauses of the United States Constitution. In Floyd vs. City of New York, the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment were infringed by the NYPD. The Fourth Amendment prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures; the Fourteenth Amendment banned race based laws and policies. Even Mayor Bloomberg made remarks that the police should rely more on the racial background of murder suspects, not the city’s overall demographic makeup. The New York Times quoted the Mayor during his weekly radio program on WOR-radio, “I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little.”[8]

“Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal,” wrote the Kerner Commission, which was written in order to explain the riots that plagued cities in 1964 and to provide recommendations for the future. The commission concluded in 1968 that the nation was facing a system of apartheid in major cities across The United States. The report blamed “white society” for isolating and neglecting African American communities, along with urging the legislation to promote racial integration and to enrich slums, through the creation of jobs, job training programs, and decent housing. If the fear of crime rising prevents people from demanding reform of stop-and-frisk, then a look at the Kerner Commission will show another way to prevent crime.

During Bill de Blasio’s campaign, he stated that he hopes to reform the stop-and-frisk policy in New York City.  Since he became mayor, the number of stop and frisks carried out by police officers in New York City has dropped.  Mayor de Blasio has not done anything to stop the unequal numbers of stop and frisks in neighborhoods with high populations of minority groups as compared to other neighborhoods. Based on the percentages of people who were stopped in 2014, 55.4 percent were black, while 30.2 percent were Latino (Wofford, 2014).  Compared to 2013, there was a less than one percent difference in 2014.

Mayor de Blasio supports another policy of policing called “broken windows,” which focuses on making arrests for misdemeanors in order to prevent more serious crimes from occurring.  This policy has problems because it is also targeting those living in minority neighborhoods.  It also contributed to the death of Eric Garner, who was harassed by police for selling untaxed cigarettes on the street.  A police officer used an illegal chokehold, even while Garner protested that he could not breathe (Sneed, 2014).  This has caused a major division between communities and the police officers.  Policing in New York City needs to be greatly improved.  Of all the stop-and-frisks carried out, only three percent actually ended with conviction, according to the New York State Attorney General.

There have been many proposals to improve the ways that the police handle stop-and-frisk.  De Blasio and the NYPD have shot down many of these proposals.  One bill proposed by 22 city council members is the Right to Know Act, which would only apply to those who are stopped by an officer without any suspicions or reasons for being frisked.  The person would have to give his or her consent to being searched.  De Blasio did not approve of this bill, believing that it would hinder the way police do their jobs and put a greater risk on their lives (Mathias, 2014).   Others have also proposed body cameras for police officers to wear while they are stopping people on the street in order to determine how they interact.  This proposal stems from the complaints of the brutal force that officers have used on people.  One councilman who was frisked by police stated that the officer did not say who he was and only gave him orders to turn around and put his hands on the wall.  Another councilman said the officer grabbed his arm and did not give his name either (Mathias, 2014).  Bill de Blasio has only been mayor since November of 2013, so he still has time to focus on the issue of stop-and-frisk and the racial profiling that is still occurring.

East Harlem has a problematic past with the stop-and-frisk policy. Words such as abuse, harassment, and discrimination are often associated with it. In 2011, the year stop-and-frisk occasions peaked at 685,724 New Yorkers, the neighborhood was reported to have the most stop-and-frisks conducted in Manhattan. Not only has East Harlem showed a high incident report of over 17,000 stops for their 23rd precinct in 2011, this number rivals Harlem’s 32nd precinct by over 4,600. About half, 47.6 percent, of the stops in East Harlem that year were under suspicions of weapon possession.

The problem that arises from the Stop-and-Frisk policy is that there is a heavy root in racial profiling that occurs in neighborhoods like East Harlem. In 2011, when stops were at their highest, 350,743 of the 685,724 New Yorkers stopped were black; that’s 54 percent of stops in all of New York City. Even in 2014, where the number of stop-and-frisks have dropped to 46,235, just about half of those stopped were black as well. East Harlem itself reported a stronger concentration of stops with black residents as 61 percent of stopped people. Considering that black residents count as 25.5 percent of the population, this is where the problem of racial profiling comes out.

A movement called “East Harlem Stand Up!” started in response to these statistics. On January 17, 2013 at the Taino Towers on 123rd street, a meeting was called to address Stop-and-Frisk and discriminatory policing. The program in this meeting included: an address by council member Melissa Mark-Viverito, the Community Safety act, and “cop watch”. The Community Safety Act is a collection of four bills that aimed to improve the relationship between the community and police by helping to end discriminatory policing and increase trust in officers. The bills themselves focused on protecting the citizens from discrimination and unlawful searches, requiring officers to identify themselves, and establishing an NYPD inspector general office. The discussion of this bill eventually led to its passing on January of 2014, leading to the significant drop from over 600,000 to under 50,000 cases of stop-and-frisk in New York City. The meeting also held a discussion on “Know Your Rights” and “Cop Watch” which were essentially ways for the public to stand up for themselves by knowing the information they need to respond to police officers.

The problem of racial profiling is still an issue, but at least with the rates of stops decreasing, there are less people being affected. Of course with the percentage of black residents being stopped at about 50 percent, there’s still work to be done to counter racial profiling. East Harlem council member Melissa Mark-Viverito mentions that Stop-and-Frisk makes the neighborhood less safe, especially for the youth, but considering there was a drop in crime rate accredited to the Stop-and-Frisk policy, it’s hard for the neighborhood to fight back against it.

1. “Timeline | The City’s Use of Stop-and-Frisk.” WNYC News. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. <http://www.wnyc.org/story/212932-timeline-citys-use-stop-and-frisk/>.
2. “Terry v. Ohio | Casebriefs.” Casebriefs. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-4/2/>.
3. “People v Ddebour.” People v Ddebour. Web. 27 Mar. 2015. <http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm>.
4. Leber, Rebecca. “NYC Police Said Stop-and-Frisks Reduce Violent Crime. This Chart Says Otherwise.” Web. 27 Mar. 2015. <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120461/nypd-stop-and-frisk-drops-79-percent-and-crime-drops-too>.
5. “Stop and Frisk Practices | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) – American Civil Liberties Union of New York State.” Stop and Frisk Practices | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) – American Civil Liberties Union of New York State. http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices (accessed May 15, 2014).
6. Ana, Joanes, “Does the New York City Police Department Deserve Credit for the Decline in New Yorks City’s Homicide Rates-A Cross-City Comparison of Policing Strategies and Homicide Rates.” Colum. JL & Soc. Probs. 33 (1999): 265.
7. “NYC ‘Stop and Frisk’ Found Unconstitutional.” American City & County [Online Exclusive] Aug. 2013. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 9 Apr. 2014.
8. “Residents of East Harlem – Manhattan’s Most Stopped-and-Frisked Neighborhood.” The Bronx Defenders. Web. 28 March. 2015.
   <http://www.bronxdefenders.org/residents-of-east-harlem-manhattans-most-stopped-and-frisked-neighborhood/>.
9. Mays, Jeff. “East Harlem’s 23rd Precinct Leads Manhattan in Stop-and-Frisks.” DNAinfo | New York. Web. 28 March.2015.
   <http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130206/east-harlem/east-harlems-23rd-precinct-leads-manhattan-stop-and-frisks>.
10. “Stop-and-Frisk Data.” New York Civil Liberties Union. Web. 28 March. 2015.
    <http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data>.
11. “The Community Safety Act.” Communities United for Police Reform. Web. 28 March. 2015.
    <http://changethenypd.org/community-safety-act>.
12. Wofford, Taylor. “Did Bill de Blasio Keep His Promise to Reform Stop-And-Frisk?” Web. August 25, 2014.  http://www.newsweek.com/did-bill-de-blasio-keep-his-promise-reform-stop-and-frisk-266310
13. Mathias, Christopher. “Mayor Bill De Blasio Breaks With Progressives Over Stop-And-Frisk Legislation.” Web. November 13, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/right-to-know-act_n_6154856.html
14. New York State Office of the Attorney General. “A Report on Arrests Arising From the New York City Police Department’s Stop-And-Frisk Practices.” Web. November 2013. http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/OAG_REPORT_ON_SQF_PRACTICES_NOV_2013.pdf
15. Sneed, Tierney. “From Ferguson to Staten Island, Questions About Broken Window Policing.” Web. August 14, 2014.