In the reading “Stop-and-Frisk The Policing of Latinos in New York” by Andres Garcia, he writes about how Latinos/as are major targets for police. He mentions the interview with the police officers, a member of Operation impact, which is the procedure that aims high crime areas and hot spots. In the text he mentions, “His patrolling consisted mostly of what the NYPD calls the Roosevelt Corridor, which at the time consisted mostly of the impact zone in the multi-ethnic, heavily Latino Queens neighborhood of Jackson Heights” (Garcia 37) meaning, police officers were sent to the places were higher crime rates would happen. The procedure was created for police officers to be able to gather information but also target different suspects, such …show more content…
Alvin was physically and verbally abused by the police officer. When Alvin asked the police officer why they stopped him, police officers replied that they stopped him because he looked suspicious with his hoodie on and they asked him why he was walking outside with his empty bag, Alvin tried to explain that he was wearing hoodie because it was cold outside and he was going at home, but police officer did not listen to Alvin, they physically and verbally harassed Alvin. According to the information it shows that, police officers are using their powers on people, this proves that most of the police officers are violating the law, especially when it comes to the person with no gun and no reason to stop them. Like the story of 48 years old man Dan Richardson, who lives in Brownsville, Brooklyn, he was stopped by police officers, because he walked out rom the store with cop of water and police officers thought that he had Alcohol in his cup, one of the officers sniff the cup to check if it was a real water. This type of stories happens a lot of time; this is another type of prof that police violate the people’s right. Many people said that they are scared of going outside, because police is always up there to stop and frisked them; people became indigent …show more content…
City of New York: The difficulty of proving fourteenth amendment violation” by David Clark, he writes about how the stop and frisk violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment by providing statistics. In this reading he mentions, “Although, these Fourth Amendment holdings are important, the most controversial holdings relate to the discriminatory intent behind the policy and the Fourteenth Amendment violation by the New York Police Department (N.Y.P.D.) in the way they carried out their stop and frisk program.” (Clark 342) which is true, because according to the fourth amendment no person should be searched or seized without warrant, unless it’s an reasonable suspicions and under the fourteenth amendment which protects individuals life, property and liberty which should not be violated by any governmental officials. However during stop and frisk police officers not just violating a person fourth amendment, but they also discriminating and abusing the humans rights. No person should receive a physical and verbal abuse, first and foremost it’s not just a discrimination, but also emotional and mental breakdown of the individual who is stopped and frisk even if the person is innocent. Clark also mentions “police departments can and should be better incentivized to follow protections offered by the Constitution with a Fourteenth Amendment exclusionary rule for unlawful, racially selective stops.” (Clark 343) meaning that
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
They find the stops "show few significant effects of several SQF [stop, question, and frisk] measures on precinct robbery and burglary rates."
These stops included “harsh encounters in which physical violence, racial/ethnic degradation, and homophobia are commonplace”. What this does is create physical and emotional harm to those who are being violently frisked and searched even if they have no reason to be, especially Black or Latino males. The article had done a population based survey specifically in New York about young men's encounter with police officers. The results were that those who had higher levels of anxiety, trauma symptoms, and signs of PTSD were the ones who had been stopped by police multiple times. However, the article also mentions that it could also be because they may be exaggerating the experience they had. The individuals could also have “attracted greater reasonable suspicion or responded to police questioning in ways that escalated their situations”. Even though these could be factors as to why they had such a high negative experience we also need to remember not all of them could be the same and should still be taken
Stop and frisk is a brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspicious individual. The Fourth Amendment entails that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is in progress before stopping a suspect. If the officer realistically is certain that the person is carrying a weapon and is dangerous, the officers can conduct a search, a rapid pat down of the suspect’s exterior clothing. A law enforcement officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of impending criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is less demanding than probable cause, less quantity of evidence or information is needed. Reasonable suspicion can come from information less reliable than needed for probable cause.
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
“From 2005 to mid-2008, approximately eighty percent of total stops made were of Blacks and Latinos, who comprise twenty-five percent and twenty-eight percent of New York City’s total population, respectively. During this same time period, only about ten percent of stops were of Whites, who comprise forty-four percent of the city’s population” (“Restoring a National Consensus”). Ray Kelly, appointed Police Commissioner by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York in 2013, has not only accepted stop-and-frisk, a program that allows law enforcers to stop individuals and search them, but has multiplied its use. Kelly argued that New Yorkers of color, who have been unevenly targeted un...
The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.
Reasonable suspicion constitutes a stop by police. According to our textbook, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is why is it important for police to justly stop a person (p. 17). The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained from improper police work, like an unwarranted stop, is not allowed in court.
Over the past centuries, Black community in Toronto have encountered and persisted violence and discriminations in many different ways. Racial profiling and carding are the two major roots of police brutality. Police officers often have biased perceptions and negative feelings about certain races. Carding can be defined as random police checks that target young African-Canadian men. Police might detain a driver for driving a specific type of vehicle or driving in certain areas that they have assumptions about. “This practice was a systematic violation of the rights of people in our communities, especially of racialized youth” (CBC ABC National, June 1, 2015). Carding results in police abusing their power which leads to assaults, shootings and death. However, police have said
Angelie Ortiz Ms. Matlen ERWC Period: 1 Racial Profiling In the United States of America today, racial profiling is a deeply troubling national problem. Many people, usually minorities, experience it every day, as they suffer the humiliation of being stopped by police while driving, flying, or even walking for no other reason than their color, religion, or ethnicity. Racial profiling is a law enforcement practice steeped in racial stereotypes and different assumptions about the inclination of African-American, Latino, Asian, Native American or Arab people to commit particular types of crimes. The idea that people stay silent because they live in fear of being judged based on their race, allows racial profiling to live on.
The Fourth Amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Despite this right, multiple minorities across the country suffer at the hands of police officers through racial profiling; the singling out of a person or persons as the main suspect of a crime based on their race. Many people have also suffered the loss of a loved one because police believed the suspect to be a threat based on their races therefore the officers use their authority to take out the “threat”. Although racial profiling may make sense to police officers in the line of duty, through the eyes of the public and those affected by police actions, it is a form a racism that is not being confronted and is allowing unjust convictions and deaths.
As it states in “Growing Up With Stop-and-Frisk,” “In his early teens, Jamal was stopped four or five times a week” (Glanowski). Similarly, Jamal had been pointlessly stopped when he went to visit the teachers at his former high school with his friend, Nijhawan. Jamal and Naujawan were asked for their IDs by a NYPD school security officer then had to send their belongings through an X-Ray even though one teacher told the cop that they were good students (Glanowski). Glanowski explains that “It took three phone calls to the security office before Jamal and Naujawan were finally allowed to go through the metal detector.” These examples prove the injustice of Broken Windows Policing. Law enforcement agencies racial profile when they utilize Broken Windows Policing strategies. Racial profiling is wrong because it causes law enforcement agencies to target minorities without a valid reason. Additionally, it goes against the Fourth Amendment which declares that people have the right to be safe and secure as well as free from unreasonable search and seizure (US Const. amend. IV). The job of the cops is to protect citizens and work for the community. Instead, the
Law Enforcement policy is designed to help law enforcement agencies cut down on the amount of crime in communities and give structure to the agency. It also helps lessen the number of certain cases in certain areas, as well as from a certain group of people. There are several policies that I disagree with, but there is one policy I will be discussing. Law enforcement officers sometimes stop and frisk people based on gender, race, financial status, and social ranking. It is a very controversial issue because anything dealing with race and ethnicity can cause a lot of disagreement and discord. According to a New York judge on dealing with the stop and frisk laws, "If you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related . . . . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress. I know because I have been through this several times.
Some issues with stop and frisk in some parts of New York they have to have practice of stop and frisk and there are some people have issues about it because they are ignoring the people's right of the