Stop And Frisk: A Nationwide Law?

Stop and frisk, also known as a Terry stop, is a police practice that has been the subject of much controversy and legal debate in the United States. It refers to the temporary detention, questioning, and searching of individuals by law enforcement officers based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. While proponents argue that it is a necessary tool for combating crime, critics contend that it violates constitutional rights and has been used to disproportionately target racial minorities. The discussion surrounding stop and frisk has gained prominence in recent years, with some calling for its implementation on a national scale, while others advocate for its restriction or abolition. Given the complex legal and ethical implications, the question of whether stop and frisk will become a nationwide law remains a highly contested issue.

The Fourth Amendment and the legality of stop and frisk

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures". In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that 'stop and frisk' fell under the Fourth Amendment, in that citizens have the right to walk freely without being stopped by the police. The Court recognised that stops and frisks are significantly less intrusive than full-blown searches and seizures and that standards must be developed for stops and frisks.

The Court held that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, meaning that the stop-and-frisk cannot be unreasonable. A reasonable stop-and-frisk is one "in which a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous."

The Fourth Amendment requires that before stopping a suspect, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the suspect. If the police reasonably believe that the individual is armed and dangerous, they may frisk them, meaning they will give a quick pat-down of the suspect's outer clothing.

In the case of Rodriguez v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures. The Court held that a sniff search by a police dog violated the Fourth Amendment as it was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the stop.

In Utah v. Strieff, the Supreme Court held that when a police officer finds there is a "valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant" for an individual, then any evidence obtained from a stop of that individual will be admissible in court, even if the stop would otherwise violate the Fourth Amendment.

In Floyd v. City of New York, a federal judge ruled that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy was unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The policy allowed police officers to stop, interrogate and search New York City citizens on the sole basis of "reasonable suspicion". The ruling noted that the policy was used as a method of racially profiling and harassing Black and Latino citizens.

Racial profiling and the disproportionate targeting of minorities

Stop-and-frisk policies have been a source of controversy in the United States, particularly due to concerns about racial profiling and the disproportionate targeting of minorities. This issue has been especially prominent in New York City, where the practice has been associated with "broken windows" policing, which assumes that low-level crime and disorder create an environment that encourages more serious crimes.

Evidence of Racial Disparities

Overwhelming evidence suggests that stop-and-frisk policies have been used as a method of racially profiling and harassing Black and Latino citizens. In New York City, for example, Blacks and Latinos made up 50% of the population in 1999 but accounted for 84% of the city's stops during that year. This disparity has persisted over time, with more than 80% of those stopped between 2004 and 2012 belonging to these racial groups.

Research further supports these racial disparities, indicating that "persons of African and Hispanic descent were stopped more frequently than whites, even after controlling for precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation." This means that even when taking into account the racial makeup of the precinct and the rates of crime participation by race, people of color were still stopped more frequently.

Impact on Minority Communities

The disproportionate targeting of minorities through stop-and-frisk policies has had significant impacts on minority communities, particularly in terms of trust in law enforcement and perceptions of police conduct. Polling data reveals a stark contrast between White and Black individuals' views on police conduct. For instance, 75% of Whites believe the police use the right amount of force, while only 33% of Blacks share this belief. Additionally, 75% of Whites feel that the police treat racial and ethnic groups equally, compared to only 35% of Blacks.

The use of stop-and-frisk policies has also been linked to negative mental health outcomes in minority communities. Studies have shown that police interactions, including stop-and-frisk encounters, can be a source of stress and disempowerment and can escalate to violence, leading to physical injury and even mortality. The repeated experience of being stopped and frisked can thus have a detrimental impact on the well-being of individuals from minority groups.

Legal Challenges and Reforms

The racial profiling and disproportionate targeting of minorities through stop-and-frisk policies have led to legal challenges and reforms. In New York City, for instance, a federal judge ruled that the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy was unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. This ruling directed the police to adopt a written policy specifying when such stops are authorized.

Additionally, advocacy organizations have been pushing for legislation like the End Racial Profiling Act to address discriminatory racial profiling policies. These efforts reflect a growing recognition of the need to eliminate practices that disproportionately target and harm minority communities.

In conclusion, stop-and-frisk policies have been associated with racial profiling and the disproportionate targeting of minorities, particularly in New York City. This has resulted in negative impacts on minority communities, including decreased trust in law enforcement and adverse mental health outcomes. Legal challenges and reforms have been undertaken to address these issues, but the fight for equitable and just policing practices continues.

The effectiveness of stop and frisk in reducing crime

History of Stop and Frisk

The use of stop and frisk was legitimised by the US Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, where the court held that stop and frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Effectiveness in Reducing Crime

Research on the NYPD's Operation Impact found that extra police officers in high-crime areas resulted in a 12% to 15% reduction in crime. In contrast, the use of stop and frisk made almost no difference in reducing crime. The stops only had a detectable impact on crime when based on probable cause, which was very rare.

Another study by Weisburd et al. found a small association between stop and frisk practices and crime reduction, estimating the effect to be around 2%. However, this study did not measure the effects of stops beyond the increased police presence.

Racial Profiling Concerns

Stop and frisk has also been the subject of racial profiling controversies. In New York City, 90% of those stopped in 2017 were African-American or Latino, while these groups made up 54.1% of the city's population. Research has consistently shown that people of African and Hispanic descent are stopped more frequently than whites, even when controlling for variables such as precinct variability and race-specific estimates of crime participation.

Impact on Community Perceptions

Critics of stop and frisk argue that it negatively affects community attitudes towards the police by increasing involuntary and potentially unfair contact with law enforcement. This is particularly true for minority communities, as the disproportionate application of stop and frisk to these groups may reduce feelings of police legitimacy.

Additionally, the manner in which stops are conducted can impact community perceptions. Stops conducted in a procedurally just manner, with respect and neutrality, may increase positive police-citizen contact and improve perceptions of police legitimacy.

While some argue that stop and frisk is an effective tool for reducing crime, research suggests that its impact is limited and may be outweighed by negative effects on community perceptions of the police, especially in minority communities.

The impact of stop and frisk on community trust in the police

Stop and frisk is a police practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and searching civilians and suspects on the street for weapons and contraband. The legality of the practice is based on the US Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, which ruled that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, meaning that the police must have a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the suspect.

• Reduction in trust and negative perceptions of the police: Several studies have found that stop and frisk practices can negatively impact trust and perceptions of the police, particularly in communities that are frequently targeted by these tactics. The Vera Institute of Justice's study revealed that 88% of young people surveyed believed that residents in their neighborhood did not trust the police. Other studies have also reported more negative attitudes towards the police among individuals who have been subjected to stop and frisk.
• Racial profiling and discrimination: Stop and frisk has been widely criticized for its disproportionate impact on minority communities, especially Black and Latino individuals. Studies and data have shown that these communities are stopped and searched at higher rates, even when controlling for crime rates and other factors. This has led to perceptions of racial profiling and discrimination, further eroding trust in the police.
• Mental and physical health impacts: There is growing evidence that stop and frisk practices can have negative consequences for the mental and physical health of individuals who are frequently subjected to these tactics. Studies have found associations between stop and frisk experiences and increased odds of mental health issues, trauma, anxiety, and physical health problems.
• Increased delinquency and criminal behavior: Some research suggests that stop and frisk practices may contribute to increased delinquency and criminal behavior among individuals who are targeted. The theory of labeling and self-fulfilling prophecy suggests that being repeatedly stopped and treated as a suspect can shape individuals' self-perception and push them towards criminal behavior.
• Community-level impacts: While stop and frisk practices can have detrimental effects on individuals, the impact on community-level trust in the police is more complex. Some studies suggest that when stop and frisk is perceived as unfair and racially biased, it can damage community trust and cooperation with the police. However, other studies, particularly those examining community surveys, indicate that stop and frisk may not negatively affect community-level attitudes towards the police, especially when it is seen as effective in reducing crime.
• Crime reduction: Proponents of stop and frisk argue that it is an effective tool for crime reduction, particularly in high-crime areas. Some studies have found a correlation between increased stop and frisk practices and a decrease in crime rates, suggesting a potential deterrent effect. However, the strength of this correlation and the causal relationship are debated.

The history of stop and frisk and its evolution over time

The practice of stop and frisk has been used by law enforcement in the United States for many decades, but it was formally codified and expanded by the 1968 Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio. This ruling held that police officers could stop and search a citizen if they had a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime had been, was being, or was about to be committed, lowering the threshold from "probable cause".

The case in question involved a police officer, Martin McFadden, who stopped and searched three men outside a jewellery store in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1963. The men were acting suspiciously, pacing back and forth and repeatedly stopping to look inside the store. After identifying himself, McFadden asked the men for their names, and after receiving a mumbled response, he performed an exterior search (a pat down) of the men to ensure his safety. During the pat down, he discovered that two of the men were carrying illegal concealed firearms.

The subsequent trial and appeals process led to the landmark 1968 Supreme Court decision. The Court ruled that McFadden had reasonable suspicion that a crime was about to take place and that it was reasonable to think the defendants could be armed and dangerous. This set a precedent for police officers to be able to conduct stop and frisk procedures based on their own discretionary sense of what is reasonable, rather than needing probable cause.

The stop and frisk practice has been particularly associated with policing in New York City and has been the subject of significant controversy and litigation due to its disproportionate impact on African-American and Latino communities. Between 2003 and 2013, over 100,000 stops were made per year, with 685,724 people being stopped at the height of the program in 2011. In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy was unconstitutional, violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. This decision was based on overwhelming evidence that the policy was used as a method of racially profiling and harassing Black and Latino citizens.

Despite the efforts to curtail the practice, stop and frisk continues to be a contentious issue. In the 2020 presidential election cycle, both Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg, who had previously supported the tactic, backpedaled from their positions. However, the practice persists and continues to disproportionately affect minority communities, as evidenced by a 2019 class-action lawsuit brought by The Bronx Defenders, which revealed that records of individuals who underwent stop and frisk were retained by police, despite the law requiring that those records be sealed.

Frequently asked questions