Background: A Practice With a Long History
Stop-and-frisk is by no means a new practice. Also referred to as a Terry Stop, it received this name due to a 1963 incident involving Police Detective Martin McFadden and John Terry of Ohio.2 On October 31, 1963, Detective McFadden observed John Terry and his codefendant Richard Chilton peering into a store window and walking back and forth multiple times. Believing the pair were planning a robbery, McFadden stopped and searched them, ultimately finding a concealed weapon on Terry.
In 1968, the United States Supreme Court reviewed Terry v. Ohio, deeming the practice constitutional within certain parameters. While maintaining that each situation is unique, the Court upheld the government’s interest in crime prevention, believing that anything violating the Terry standard would be reviewed by courts as necessary.3 That ruling, however, did not put the matter to rest.
Ruled stop-and-frisk constitutional within certain parameters. Officers may stop and pat down individuals based on reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Chief Justice Warren also acknowledged the psychological harm and indignity such stops can cause.6
Constitutional baseline establishedUnlike Terry, Floyd contested stop-and-frisk as applied to people who had done nothing wrong.4 One plaintiff, Floyd, was stopped while helping a locked-out tenant in his grandmother’s building. He and the tenant were accused of robbery, heavily indicating bias or profiling or both. On August 13, 2013, the court ruled in favor of Floyd, confirming unconstitutional racial profiling and requiring the City of New York to implement monitored reforms.
Racial profiling confirmedThe Data: What the Numbers Show
The concerns raised in Floyd are not without broader statistical foundation. In 2011, the NYPD reported carrying out nearly 700,000 stops. The demographic breakdown of who was stopped tells the story clearly.4
When coupling that data with the ruling handed down in Floyd, the issue is not just recognized. It is confirmed. Even an independent 2016 review of UF-250 forms, the Stop, Question, and Frisk Report worksheet required of officers, still found evidence of “unequal treatment” but noted it could be addressed through “effective supervision, monitoring of police activity, and effective intervention when problems are identified.”
Concerns and Issues
While stop-and-frisk policies could theoretically prevent crime or apprehend criminals, significant concerns remain. These are not abstract worries. They are documented, peer-reviewed findings.
The data from New York and findings in Floyd confirm that stop-and-frisk, as applied in practice, disproportionately targets Black and Latino individuals not based on individualized suspicion but on race and neighborhood.
Research finds that stop-and-frisk incidents cause “emotional and psychological harm” from the intrusion of privacy.3 Chief Justice Warren acknowledged this harm in the original 1968 ruling, citing the indignity and resentment resulting from such treatment.
For individuals with mental health disorders, disabilities, or histories of sexual trauma, stop-and-frisk encounters can prove especially detrimental, creating situations that may escalate unpredictably or cause lasting harm.
The perception of unjust enforcement, whether or not any individual stop is lawful, fractures the trust between officers and the communities they serve. It introduces a feeling of high alert and erodes the cooperation that effective policing depends on.
Proposed Solutions
In spite of its documented problems, stop-and-frisk is worth saving when properly applied. Evidence from a 1973 study examining a break in stop-and-frisk activities compared to their resumption shows the practice can drive down crime. Judge Scheindlin, who handed down the verdict in Floyd, stated that the heart of the matter was not about ending stop-and-frisk but about improving the “constitutionality of police behavior.”
Body cameras are already embraced by the NYPD. They provide insight into what occurred during an encounter and may require jurors to consider the reasonableness of officer actions when evaluating use of force.7
Officers should ensure all interactions genuinely comply with department standards. Accountability begins with consistent enforcement of existing policy, not new rules alone.8
Police departments should weigh the benefits of stronger diversity training, different hiring practices, and new administrative policies in preventing unwarranted stops. A force should mirror the community it serves.10
Officers are perceived as safer when they are known and respected in their communities.9 Officers familiar with community members are less likely to mistake someone as a suspect. When they do encounter uncertain situations, familiarity increases the likelihood of swift de-escalation.
Conclusion
Stop-and-frisk can be a useful tool when placed in trained, capable hands, employed by a skilled officer with solid diversity training. With the proper relationships built, officers are more likely to experience better outcomes and ensure that stops 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.
All references with the exception of three were obtained from the Purdue University Global library as peer-reviewed sources. The NYCLU stop-and-frisk data was verified against its primary source for credibility. The Legal Information Institute is associated with Cornell Law School. One source was drawn from the Department of Justice, authored by an acting chief of police. The Center for Constitutional Rights oversaw the class action lawsuit in Floyd and is included as a primary source due to direct case involvement.
Ridgeway, G. (2017). Stop-and-frisk is essential…and requires restraint. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 36(3), 683–689. doi.org →
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). John W. Terry, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio. Cornell Law School. law.cornell.edu →
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. doi.org →
New York Civil Liberties Union. (2020, February 20). Stop-and-frisk practices. nyclu.org →
Center for Constitutional Rights. (n.d.). Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. ccrjustice.org →
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.
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. doi.org →
Fradella, H. F., & White, M. D. (2017). Reforming stop-and-frisk. Scholastica. scholasticahq.com →
Johnson, W. (2018, May). Community policing: Much more than walking a beat. U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office. cops.usdoj.gov →
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. doi.org →
