Generally, police officers are/were placed in society to supposedly protect and serve the public. However, as of recent, their idea of protection has been portrayed as a intrusion and violation of privacy to the public. For instance, frisking and searching is the act of thoroughly searching by patting down a person/civilian to extract hidden contraband or weapons off the person. This method has been primarily used by officers as a safety precaution to secure their own personal well-being. For decades, there has been plenty of incidents where these frisks and searches have gotten out of hand to the point where abuse and embarrassment is being included in the process. The Exceptive branch should cease frisking and searching because not only does …show more content…
The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the authority. The executive branch is controlled but The President of the united states. He should control the Department of Justice, and make changes in the police force. The police force has now come to a place where they are no longer protecting but violating citizens’ rights. While reflection is imperative after minutes, for example, this, we are currently entrusted with the commitment of making sense of how to push ahead, gain from these episodes, and transform a snapshot of outrage and dissatisfaction into a chance to roll out positive improvement in our criminal equity framework. Frisking and searching is a shocking arrangement; it introduces dread and doubt in guiltless onlookers, while the crooks run free. stop and search is a famous strategy, an arrangement that permits and even empowers unlawfulness, dangers, and brutality against decent residents, while in the meantime giving genuine lawbreakers supposed legitimate …show more content…
They are also the ones whom are taking those very rights back from the public. Woman aren’t the only ones who are affected by these searches, men are also affected. A man in Maryland was going to the store for some headache medication. He was pulled over by a police officer and he was made to do bizarre strip search in a brightly lit parking lot. He became the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit, because he was embarrassed in public, “He pulled my pants down,” Sergeant said. “I had on boxers. He pulled my boxers down. He exposed me to the public. Then he told me I could go.” It is horrible for a police officer to have so much authority where they could publicly embarrass someone. Generally, police are/were places in society to supposedly alto protect and serve the public. However, as of recent, their idea of protection has been portrayed as a intrusion and violation of privacy to the public. For instance, frisking and searching is the act of thoroughly searching by patting down a person/civilian to extract hidden contraband or weapons off the person. This method has been primarily used by officers as a safety precaution to secure their own personal well-being. For decades, there has been plenty of incidents where these frisks and searches have gotten out of hand to the point where abuse and embarrassment is being included
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.
In 1990, there was a total of 2,245 murders in New York, but over the past nine years, this total has been less than 600 (NYCLU). However, there has not been evident proof that the stop-and-frisk procedure is the reason of the declination of the crime rate. Indeed, stop-and-frisk contributes to some downturn of crime but the number is not high enough for the citizen and police to rely on. Specifically, only 3% of 2.4 million stops result in conviction. Some 2% of those arrests – or 0.1% of all stops – led to a conviction for a violent crime. Only 2% of arrests led to a conviction for possession of a weapon (Gabatt, A., 2013). In other words, the decrease in crime due to stop-and-frisk is mostly due to the discovery of possessed of weapons. Therefore, stop-and- frisk is not an effective procedure to use because it does not represent a huge impact in people’s safety (Gabatt, A., 2013). The author has done research about how police base their initiation towards the procedure of stop-and-frisk. Researchers have found that stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention strategy that gives a police officer the permission to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on “reasonable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. This controversy is mainly because of racial profiling. “Reasonable suspicion” was described by the court as “common sense” (Avdija, A., 2013). Although, the
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).
Is people going to forget what happen in Ferguson? How about George Zimmerman being proven not guilty? Or that Eric Garner was screaming “ I can’t breathe” before his death? There are lists of African Americans all over the world who were not given the justice that they deserved. In todays, news African Americans are being treated unfairly compared to any other demographic groups. America is the greatest country in the world, but it is difficult to believe that being in the 21st century racism still does exist. For instance, when it was time to remove the confederate flag, some demographic groups had a hard time letting go. People who argue that “blue lives matter,” which states that police are justified when using force and being unfair. These reasons are not justifiable enough to kill someone. Black Lives Matter alleges that police target and use
The issue of stop and search is considered to be an extremely controversial area. There is significant debate on the legitimacy and the accountability of police powers when conducting stop and search, which has led to concerns about the effectiveness of policing. Reiner (2000: 80) has stated that policing is ‘beyond legitimation’ as a result of consistent complaints concerning the abuse of police powers within stop and search. The cause for concern is not only raised by the public, or other agencies, but is now recognised by senior British police officers (Ainsworth, 2002: 28). The cause of concern has been raised through complaints that police target ethnic minorities through stop and search and public opinion, that stop and search is a form police harassment of black individuals (Home Office, 19897). It is said that this is a causal factor of the disproportionate in policing (Delsol and Shiner, 2006). Throughout this essay the effectiveness and legitimacy of stop and search and the negative relationship it has built with the public will be critically discussed.
Walker, S., & Katz, C. (2012). Police in America: An Introduction (8th Edition ed.). New York:
America as a people gloat when it comes to our freedoms we think we have it better than every other country out there but the protectors of our freedom are becoming fear and hated because of the injustices committed by certain officers. Some say life of an officer is hard because they do not know if they will ever see their family again after they drive out of their house in the morning, others might say every officer knows what they were signing up for so they should not be pitied. Police officers face dangers everyday but profiling and racially motivated brutality is not justifiable and officers should be severely punished for committing these crimes.
This era is where the shift from a centralized task force has gravitated to a decentralized task force, causing some friction from both the community and the officers that serve it. Police are told that they are needed to listen to the concerns for the community; however, law enforcement is still the primary goal. Police forces now have to defend the values for which the forces were built upon. The idea of problem solving has come into question with police discretion towards certain run-ins with the law. Williams and Murphy argue it is due to the lack of sensitivity from minorities and the concern on crime itself than the community. Kelling and Moore contradict Williams and Murphy, with Kelling/Moore suggesting the era is more about listening to concerns of the community and improving the citizen satisfaction. But both the article came to the conclusion of the silent underlying problems that are becoming more of a “quiet riot” with the police and the
The stop and frisk program is a concept that has been employed in the New York City for some few decades not. The program was conceptualized after a careful consideration of the crime rates increasing in the city. As such its core function has been to promote a crime-free society within and in the city. However, the program has had mixed feeling from various stakeholders especially the civilians who have filed complaints with Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) against NYPD police officers.
Within our police system in America, there are gaps and loopholes that give leeway to police officials who either abuse the authority given to them or do not represent the ethical standards that they are expected to live up to by society. Because of the nature of police work, there is a potential for deterioration of these ethical and moral standards through deviance, misconduct, corruption, and favoritism. Although these standards are set in place, many police officers are not held accountable for their actions and can easily get by with the mistreatment of others because of their career title. While not every police abuses his or her power, the increasingly large percentage that do present a problem that must be recognized by the public as well as those in charge of police departments throughout our country. Police officials are abusing their power and authority through three types of misconduct known as malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance and these types are being overlooked by management personnel who rarely intervene even though they know what is happening. Misconduct is wrong because it violates rights and causes people to be wrongly accused of crimes or be found not guilty and set free when they are still an endangerment to other people. The public needs to be educated on what is happening in the police system in hopes that someone will speak out to protect citizens from being violated by police officers.
We must take actions to reform police behavior! The problem is not the police nor the people of the United States, but the Federal Government system in which we all have to abide by. In order for a police reform to be implemented, the system has to be fixed and reconstructed. The people of the United States want to feel protected by the police, but on the other hand, they receive limited training on how to effectively interact with the people in the community they serve. Police officers are ordained by the power of the government. Police reform should start by giving proper training to new recruits and veterans, enforcing community policing and police accountability.
When one thinks of police misconduct many not too distant stories might go through our heads. Most adults will remember how they felt when they saw the brutal beating of Rodney King on their local news station; or the outrage they experienced when they heard that the evidence in the OJ Simpson trial had been tampered with. But thanks to new guidelines, procedures and even civilian groups who now “police” the police, instances of police misconduct may soon start seeing a decline.
First, there are many ways that people can be discriminated for example, their physical appearance, the appearance of their car, the way they talk. These are just some examples of reasons why police officers will pull someone aside or assume that they are up to something and investigate the matter. Is someone who is dressed in a hoodie and baggy jeans walking on the street late at night reason enough for an officer to do a stop and frisk? Many would answer that as no and claim that it is discrimination, which it is. Police even admit that “they go to the areas that are heavily populated by Latin Americans and African Americans because they know those areas will have the higher crime rate,” (Branch). Some times the definition of probable cause can be a little iffy when it comes to understanding exactly what a situation of probable cause is. The things that you can do if you were that person in a hoodie being pulled to the side by a police officer with an automatic frisk would be to deny them the right to search you without a warrant, ask them for a specific reason as to why they feel that they need to search you. A police officer must state to the reason as to why they are searching while possessing a probable cause that they have committed a crime. If none of this is done, then the police officer has violated the fourth amendment and should lose their badge or should be put back into the academy to go through the standards of being a police officer once again. If an officer does not understand the rules and limits of his job then he does not deserve to have power to be able to put someone behind
There are more people in prison and jails today just for drug offenses than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980. The absence of significant constraints on the exercise of police discretion is a key feature of the drug war’s design. It has made the roundup of millions of Americans for nonviolent drug offenses relatively easy. Furthermore so long as a police officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity and dangerous, it is constitutionally permissible to stop, question, and frisk them even in the absence of probable cause. Police officers also have the habit of following vehicles in the hopes that they make an illegal drive procedure so they may stop them. The average person feels obligated to let the police
In the 1980’s legal tension involving police searches was a direct result of the war on drugs campaign. Officers were encouraged to stop and seize or search suspicious vehicles to put a halt on drug trafficking (Harns, 1998). But placing this aggressive approach into effect had many negative outcomes. One problem was that it put police on a thin line with the constitutional laws. To no surprise, pretty much no data estimating how often police searches fall outside constitutional laws exist. Only cases that catch the courts attention are logged into the record books. A case study held in “Middleberg” on suspect searches reports that 70 of the 86 searches didn’t result in arrest; citations weren’t presented nor were any charges filed. Just about all of the unconstitutional searches, 31 out of 34, weren’t reported to the courts, nor were they intended to be reported.