Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places, Search for Weapons
Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places; Search for Weapons
In the City of New York, it is not unusual to feel uncomfortable or petrified when approached by an officer of the law. It is not uncommon to notice the disrespect that individuals have towards the New York Police Department. It is not strange to see the misconduct that police officers use on the public. It is not unusual to see the corrupt in the New York Police Department. However, it is uncommon to see police officers who enforce the laws of New York with their unbiased discretion. Temporary questioning of persons in public places and search for weapons has been a major controversial topic for years. Many have sought it to be a legal way to racially profile an individual.
It was not until recently this past summer, August 2013, which the Supreme Court of New York City; on the case of Floyd v. New York City, 813 F.Supp.2d 457. The Supreme Court of New York City ruled that it was unconstitutional of the way it was being implicated, which ended the long term practice of Stop, Question and Frisk.
The Fourth Amendment is to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. The Fourteenth Amendment also includes the Equal Protection issue that provides citizens the right to be protected from being discriminated against an improper manner because of race or class.
History
Stop, Question and Frisk or Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places became a law in New York after a police incident that occurred in Ohio. In 1968, in the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), “The officer descried the Petitioner verbalizing...
... middle of paper ...
..., Hamper, K., Paragas, B., . . . Nessel, J. (2009). Racial Disparity in NYPD Stops-and-Frisks: The Center For Constitutional Rights Preliminary Report on UF-250 Data From 2005 to June 2008. Retrieved from Center for Constitutional Rights website: https://ccrjustice.org/files/Report-CCR-NYPD-Stop-and-Frisk.pdf
Stop And Frisk Facts | New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) - American Civil Liberties Union of New York State. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://nyclu.org/node/1598
Ridgeway, G. (2007). Analysis of racial disparities in the New York Police Department's stop, question, and frisk practices. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp.
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S. Ct. 2040, 48 L. Ed. 2d 597, 1976 U.S. 154
Floyd v. City of New York City, 813 F.Supp.2d 457
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
Lester, etal V Percadani, etal. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieve October 31, 200 http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/conner/01v1182a.pdf
Wagner, F. D. (2010). McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.. Supreme Court of the United States, 1, 1-214. Retrieved May 4, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
The judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.
That did not seem to be sufficient in wanting the power to search people of color arbitrarily, hence the advent of stop and frisk. With the power of full discretion granted to law enforcement and no effort to stop the targeting of people of color, stop and frisk quickly became an implicit measure to spike up incarceration rates within the black community. Officially, stop and frisk can apply to anyone and is not exclusive to black men. Unofficially, it is commonly known that black men are the primary sought out target of stop and frisk procedures. Evidence of this is clearly shown in how stop and frisk is predominantly practiced in areas with a larger population of people of color. To demonstrate, a simple thought experiment can clearly show that even with full discretion, it would be imprudent and irreverent of any police officer to round up all the white women in an Orange County mall for a mass stop and frisk (Madva lecture 11/14/17), but the same would not apply for a group of young black men in a public
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
While the stop and frisk program ultimately seems like a great idea and that it will help residents of New York City feel safer while on the streets, there has been much controversy with this program. The issue of racial profiling is largely discussed when talking about NYPD’s stop and frisk program. Besides police officers targeting lower income neighborhoods, more stops are of African Americans or Latinos than of whites. These stops often end up with a higher arrest rate. Of the 685,784 stopped last year, 92% were male and 87% were African American or Latino (Devereaux, 2012).
Racial profiling is the tactic of stopping someone because of the color of his or her skin and a fleeting suspicion that the person is engaging in criminal behavior (Meeks, p. 4-5). This practice can be conducted with routine traffic stops, or can be completely random based on the car that is driven, the number of people in the car and the race of the driver and passengers. The practice of racial profiling may seem more prevalent in today’s society, but in reality has been a part of American culture since the days of slavery. According to Tracey Maclin, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, racial profiling is an old concept. The historical roots “can be traced to a time in early American society when court officials permitted constables and ordinary citizens the right to ‘take up’ all black persons seen ‘gadding abroad’ without their master’s permission” (Meeks, p. 5). Although slavery is long since gone, the frequency in which racial profiling takes place remains the same. However, because of our advanced electronic media, this issue has been brought to the American public’s attention.
“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...
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
· “Plyler v. Doe” Online source. U.S. Supreme Court. Gov. 1982. 15 June. 2005 < http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Plyler/>
Sheppard v. Maxwell - 1966. (n.d.). Justia US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/333/
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently executed by the New York Police Department and it grant police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them question and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fell under assault and irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identify himself as a police officer, and make reasonable inquires.
Walker, S., & Katz, C. (2012). Police in America: An Introduction (8th Edition ed.). New York: