Keith Mack
The legality of stop and frisk has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades, with the practice being associated with broken windows policing and racial profiling. The landmark 1968 Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, formalized the practice, ruling that police could stop and frisk citizens based on 'reasonable suspicion', a departure from the previous standard of 'probable cause'. Despite this, the history of stop and frisk in the US dates back much further, with cities like Detroit passing laws authorizing its use prior to the 1968 ruling. The practice has faced intense scrutiny, particularly in New York City, where it has been deemed unconstitutional due to its disproportionate impact on Black and Latino communities.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of creation | The practice of stop and frisk has been utilized by American law enforcement since before 1968, when the Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court decision formalized the practice. |
| Location of creation | The practice was formalized nationally, but some cities, including Detroit, had passed laws authorizing police departments to conduct stop and frisk operations prior to 1968. |
| Key figures | The Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court decision was made in 1968, and the practice was employed by the New York Police Department (NYPD) under Mayors Rudy Giuliani (1994-2001) and Michael Bloomberg (2002-2013). |
| Affected demographics | Black and Latino communities, with 84% of New York's stops in 1999 comprising Black and Latino individuals, despite making up 50% of the population. |
| Controversy | Accusations of racial profiling, with the practice ruled unconstitutional in 2013 due to indirect racial profiling. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The 1968 Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court decision
In 1966, the US Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that the Fifth Amendment requires courts to suppress confessions obtained by law enforcement without certain legal warnings being provided to the arrestee. This brought the topic of 'stop and frisk' into the limelight, with several cases forcing state supreme courts to address the practice more directly.
One such case was Terry v. Ohio, which took place on June 10, 1968, when the US Supreme Court issued an 8–1 decision against John W. Terry, upholding the constitutionality of the "stop-and-frisk" procedure. The case revolved around a Cleveland detective, McFadden, who observed Terry and another man, Chilton, acting suspiciously on a downtown street. McFadden suspected them of "casing a job, a stick-up" and, after approaching them and asking for their names, he spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and discovered a pistol in his overcoat pocket.
Terry's lawyer appealed to suppress the pistol as evidence, arguing that the frisk violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial judge denied the motion, and Terry was convicted and sentenced to one to three years in prison. Terry then appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Ohio, both of which affirmed his conviction. Finally, he appealed to the US Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "stop-and-frisk" procedure, ruling that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when questioning someone without probable cause to arrest, as long as there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be "armed and presently dangerous." This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts,” not just an officer's hunch.
The Court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of outer clothing for weapons and a full search for evidence. The "frisk", it held, was essential to an officer's safety, as without it, "the answer to the police officer may be a bullet". This decision set a precedent for police powers and has been referred to as the “Terry standard”, with the term “Terry stop” becoming shorthand for the permitted police action.
The Evolution of the Periodic Law: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 'broken windows' policing theory
The "broken windows" theory is a criminological concept that suggests that low-level crime and disorder create an environment that fosters more serious crimes. It was first introduced in a 1982 article by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, and popularised in the 1990s by New York City police commissioner William Bratton.
According to the theory, visible signs of crime, antisocial behaviour, and civil disorder indicate a lack of order and law enforcement, encouraging further criminal activity. This includes physical and social disorder, such as vacant buildings, broken windows, aggressive panhandlers, and groups of youths congregating on street corners. The theory suggests that by targeting minor crimes and disorder, the police can create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness that prevents more serious crimes.
The broken windows theory has been influential in policing, particularly in New York City during the 1990s under Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton. They implemented a "quality of life initiative" that cracked down on low-level crimes such as fare evasion, public drinking, and graffiti. During this period, felonies and the homicide rate in New York City significantly decreased.
However, the broken windows theory and its associated policing practices, such as stop-and-frisk, have faced criticism and controversy. Some scholars argue that there is little empirical evidence that disorder, when left unchallenged, causes crime. The theory has also been criticised for potentially enabling racial and class bias in policing, as seen in the case of stop-and-frisk practices in New York City, which have been ruled unconstitutional due to their discriminatory impact on Black and Latino communities.
Despite the criticisms, the broken windows theory continues to hold sway in policing circles and has been applied in various cities worldwide. It represents a shift in law enforcement's focus from solely addressing serious crimes to also targeting minor crimes and disorder to create a safer and more orderly urban environment.
DUI Laws: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Accusations of racial profiling
The "stop and frisk" law was first formally codified in 1968 by the liberal Cavanagh administration in Detroit, Michigan. The law allowed police officers to stop, interrogate and search citizens based on 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime had been committed.
Despite the stated intention of the law, "stop and frisk" has been accused of being used as a method of racial profiling and harassing people of colour. In Detroit, African American civil rights leaders argued that the law would target and harass law-abiding members of the Black community. A city survey found that 80% of white residents favoured the stop and frisk law, while only 35% of African Americans agreed and 55% were opposed.
In New York City, the NYPD's use of "stop and frisk" has been the subject of similar accusations. In 2007, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) expressed concern that the NYPD was stopping and frisking Black people at a rate five times higher than that of white people. Data from 2006 showed that Blacks and Latinos comprised more than 80% of those searched. These disparities have been attributed to racial profiling by the NYPD, with the NYCLU arguing that the department must provide transparent information to allow for a full and fair assessment of the role of race in policing.
In 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the NYPD's use of "stop and frisk" was unconstitutional, violating the 4th Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling was based on evidence suggesting that the policy disproportionately targeted Black and Latino citizens, who made up 50% of New York's population but accounted for 84% of the city's stops.
The use of "stop and frisk" in New York City has also been associated with "broken windows" policing, which targets low-level crimes and disorder. This approach has been criticised for causing tension with ethnic communities and contributing to a major setback for the civil rights movement. NYPD officers have also objected to the use of stop-question-and-frisk paperwork as a performance metric, claiming that it encourages the overuse of the practice and creates public hostility.
In 2019, a New York judge granted class-action status to a case brought by The Bronx Defenders, alleging that the NYPD retained records of individuals who underwent "stop and frisk", even in cases that were non-criminal or thrown out by the court. This has raised further concerns about the use of personal information in law enforcement databases and the potential for racial profiling.
At the federal level, advocacy organisations continue to push for the End Racial Profiling Act to address discriminatory policies and practices, such as "stop and frisk", that disproportionately impact communities of colour.
The Ex Post Facto Law: When Was It Created?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 2013 Floyd v. City of New York case
The case addressed the controversial "stop-and-frisk" policy of the New York City Police Department (NYPD), which allowed police officers to stop, interrogate, and search citizens based on "reasonable suspicion." This policy had been associated with "broken windows" policing, which posits that low-level crime and disorder encourage more serious crimes. However, critics argued that the policy resulted in racial profiling and the harassment of Black and Latino citizens, who accounted for 84% of the city's stops in 1999, despite only making up 50% of the population.
On August 12, 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" policy 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 a written policy specifying where such stops are authorized and appointed Peter L. Zimroth as an independent monitor to oversee the police department's reform efforts.
The City of New York initially indicated that it would appeal the ruling, and on October 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked the order requiring immediate changes to the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" program. However, under a new administration, the City later agreed to drop its appeal and begin the joint remedial process ordered by the court. The Floyd v. City of New York case was a significant moment in the ongoing debate around "stop-and-frisk" policies and their impact on communities of color.
The Justinian Code: A Historical Law Legacy
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The impact on communities of colour
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that police could stop and frisk a citizen based on 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime had been committed. This ruling departed from the previous standard of 'probable cause'.
The stop-and-frisk policy has had a significant impact on communities of colour, particularly Black and Latino individuals. Evidence suggests that the policy has been used as a method of racial profiling and harassment, with police disproportionately targeting people of colour. In 1999, Blacks and Latinos made up 50% of New York's population but accounted for 84% of the city's stops. This disparity has continued over the years, with similar patterns observed in 2011, where police stopped Black and Latino people 574,483 times and used physical force in almost 130,000 of those cases. The police reported using force in 23% of stops of Blacks and Latinos, compared to 16% of stops of Whites.
The racial disparities inherent in stop-and-frisk policies have contributed to a lack of trust in law enforcement among communities of colour. A Pew study from September 2016 found that only 35% of Blacks believe the police treat racial and ethnic groups equally, compared to 75% of Whites. Additionally, only 14% of Blacks reported having a lot of confidence in their local police department, compared to 42% of Whites.
The enforcement of low-level, non-violent crimes through stop-and-frisk has also been criticised as a mechanism for criminalising poverty and targeting communities of colour. For example, misdemeanour marijuana possession, which is often targeted through stop-and-frisk, has resulted in alarmingly high arrest numbers in less affluent communities of colour, despite a lack of evidence that marijuana use is substantially higher in these communities.
The impact of stop-and-frisk on communities of colour has led to strong opposition from civil rights organisations and activists, who have advocated for reforms to enhance police transparency and accountability and end discriminatory policies. In 2013, US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that stop-and-frisk had been used in an unconstitutional manner, violating the 4th Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Despite this ruling, concerns about the discriminatory impact of stop-and-frisk on communities of colour persist, and the policy continues to be a controversial and divisive issue.
The Law of Triads: When Was It Created?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The practice of stop and frisk was formalized by the landmark Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court decision of 1968.
Stop and frisk is a policing practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and searching individuals based on 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime has been committed.
The use of stop and frisk in New York City has been controversial, with the NYPD accused of encouraging stops through quotas and engaging in racial profiling. In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the NYPD's use of stop and frisk violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city.
The impact of stop and frisk has been heavily criticized, particularly for its disproportionate impact on Black and Latino communities and its failure to effectively reduce crime. In New York City, at the height of the policy in 2011, over 685,000 people were stopped, with nearly 88% found to be innocent.
