What are Stop-and-Frisk Policies?
Stop-and-frisk practices are a controversial police tactic in which officers may stop individuals they reasonably suspect of being connected to or about to commit criminal activity1. Proponents of the practice argue it as necessary, seeing it as an important measure in preventing crime or apprehending criminals. However, those opposing stop-and-frisk interactions observe it as a tool exacerbating racial profiling and targeting. This paper explores the history, concerns, issues, and proposed solutions for stop-and-frisk policies, as well as examples of the practice in action.
Background Analysis and Discussion
Stop-and-frisk is by no means a new practice. Also referred to as a Terry Stop, the practice received this moniker due to a 1963 incident involving Police Detective Martin McFadden and John Terry of Ohio2. On October 31, 1963, Detective McFadden observed John Terry and his friend and codefendant, Richard Chilton, “peering in” a store window, and walking back and forth multiple times. Believing the pair were planning a stick-up, Detective McFadden stopped and search them, ultimately finding a concealed weapon on John Terry. In 1968, the United States Supreme Court oversaw Terry v. Ohio, deeming the practice constitutional within certain parameters. While maintaining that each situation is unique, the Supreme Court upheld the governmental requirement to prevent crime, believing that anything violating the Terry standard would be reviewed and addressed by courts when necessary3. However, the United States Supreme Court ruling did not put this matter to bed.
The topic of stop-and-frisk practices would come up again in the 2013 Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al, case. Unlike the Terry case, the Floyd case contested the stop-and-frisk activities on those who had done nothing wrong 4. One specific example from the Floyd case depicts Floyd helping a tenant of his grandmother’s apartment building who had locked himself out of his apartment5. The pair were accused of robbery during the incident, heavily indicating bias, profiling, or both. The Federal judge handed down the ruling on August 13, 2013, finding in favor of Floyd and his co-defendants; confirming unfair racial profiling practices. Ultimately, this judgment required the City of New York to implement changes to its practices as well as provide status monitor reports to ensure improvement to the court.
Concerns and Issues
While in theory, stop-and-frisk policies could prevent crime or catch criminals, concerns still remain. First, opponents of stop-and-frisk believe that racial profiling may occur in the execution of a stop-and-frisk event. This concern does not go unfounded. In 2011, the NYPD reported carrying out nearly 700,000 stops; 87% of individuals stopped and frisked were people of color, being Black or Latino. When coupling that concern with the ruling handled down from Floyd, it is not just recognized, but confirmed that issues exist within the establishment. In fact, even during an independent 2016 review of UF250 forms, the Stop, Question, and Frisk Report worksheet required of officers, evidence of “unequal treatment” still exists, but could be easily addressed through “effective supervision, monitoring of police activity, and effective intervention when problems are identified.”
Issues at hand include racial profiling and targeting in police suspects not just in New York, but across America. Additionally, a stop-and-frisk incident may cause “emotional and psychological harm” from the intrusion of privacy, contributing to difficulties in law enforcement carrying out their duties accordingly. This concern is also nothing new. In the 1968 Terry ruling, Chief Justice Warren recognized the psychological impacts of such searches citing the indignity and resentment coming as a result of this treatment6. For individuals with mental disorders or disabilities, or those who suffered sexual trauma, the stop-and-frisk tactic may also prove detrimental . Finally, this tactic raises the issue of how the aforementioned perception of injustice alone, whether real or imagined, may fracture trust between officers and the communities they serve. It introduces a feeling of “high alert” into a community, wondering whether they can truly trust the people who are meant to serve their community. In the event that racial profiling and targeting does occur to an individual or community, the biggest issue then becomes how to remedy the rift.
Proposed Solutions
In spite of its problems, stop-and-frisk is worth saving. Evidence from a 1973 study examining a break in stop-and-frisk activities compared to that of reconvening prove to drive down crime. Judge Scheindlen, who handed down the verdict in the Floyd case, stated the heart of the matter was not about ending stop-and-frisk practices, but instead to improve the “constitutionality of police behavior.” One solution to the problem is already embraced by the NYPD: body cameras. Body cameras provide not only provide more insight to what occurred during the event but may also require jurors to consider reasonableness of an officer’s actions7. Officers should also walk the walk; ensuring true all officer interactions comply with department standards. Police departments may weigh benefits of implementing stronger diversity training, different hiring practices, new administrative policies, or more oversight and accountability in preventing unwarranted stop-and-frisk events8. Community-policing may also prove helpful, in creating relationships with the community they serve. For example, officers are interpreted as being “safer” if they are known and respected9. Therefore, it stands to reason that officers more familiar with their community members are less likely to mistake someone as a suspect and in the event that conditions prevent an officer from recognizing a citizen’s identity, it is more likely that officer will be quickly recognized and the situation subsequently deescalated. In terms of recruitment, a force should mirror a diverse community, therefore building yet another bond with citizens10.
In Conclusion
Stop-and-frisk can be a useful tool when placed in trained, capable hands, and employed by a skilled officer with solid diversity training. With the proper training and relationship built, officers are likely to experience better outcomes and ensure that stop-and-frisk actions are carried out on individuals who are truly suspect. Understanding the perspective of another is a valuable asset in an officer’s toolkit and may lead to better outcomes in stressful situations. Taking this fragile ecosystem into play, is what will heal community relationships as well as allow stop-and-frisk events to be more impactful.
Credibility of Sources
All reference with the exception of three were obtained from the Purdue University Global library as a peer-reviewed source. I found the NYCLU stop-and-frisk data from within a peer-reviewed source, but also reviewed the genesis of the data to ensure it was credible. The Legal Information Institute is associated with the highly praised Cornell Law School and also deemed credible. Another source was taken from the Department of Justice website and written by an acting chief of police. Finally, the Center for Constitutional rights oversaw the class action lawsuit for plaintiffs and as a primary source due to their direct involvement with the case.
References
1 Ridgeway, G. (2017). Stop-and-frisk is essential … and requires restraint. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 36(3), 683–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21990
2 Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). John W. Terry, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1.
3 Bandes, S. A., Pryor, M., Kerrison, E. M., & Goff, P. A. (2019). The mismeasure of Terry stops: Assessing the psychological and emotional harms of stop and frisk to individuals and communities. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(2), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2401
4 Stop-and-frisk practices. New York Civil Liberties Union. (2020, February 20). https://www.nyclu.org/en/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices.
5 Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. Center for Constitutional Rights. (n.d.). https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/floyd-et-al-v-city-new-york-et-al.
6 Simmons, K.C. (2014). The legacy of stop and frisk: Addressing the vestiges of a violent police culture. Wake Forest Law Review, 49(3), 849-872.
7 Saulnier, A., Burke, K. C., & Bottoms, B. L. (2019). The effects of body-worn camera footage and eyewitness race on jurors’ perceptions of police use of force. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(6), 732–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2443
8 Fradella, H. F., & White, M. D. (2017). Reforming stop-and-frisk. Scholastica. https://scholasticahq.com/criminology-criminal-justice-law-society/.
9 Johnson, W. (2018, May). Community policing: Much more than walking a beat. https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/05-2018/walking_a_beat.html.
10 White, M., & Escobar, G. (2008). Making good cops in the twenty-first century: Emerging issues for the effective recruitment, selection and training of police in the United States and abroad. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 22(1/2), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600860801925045
