More handpicked essays just for you.
Racial discrimination in the police force
Racial profiling amongst police officers in America
Racial profiling amongst police officers in America
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the last years, the government have approves new laws that in some cases can affect our freedom and privacy. Sometimes those new rules are seen as unconstitutional by the society such as the case of Stop-and-Frisk. The Stop-and-Frisk is a New York City Police Department practice of temporarily detaining, questions and searching civilians on the street for weapons and illegal things. In 2013, judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that Stop-and-Frisk was unconstitutional and violent the 4th amendment of the United Stated constitution, because it was use by the NYPD officers as their daily patrols. Stop-and-Frisk is a political rule because in most of the cases, police officers use bias at the time of stop, questions and search civilians. Such as the …show more content…
Police officer only need reasonable suspicion to stop, questions and search civilians. At the time of the search police officer have limitation, officers only have the right to patdown for weapons and don’t need any warrant to search. One of the big issue with Stop and Frisk is that people believe that violentes our fourth amendment of the United State constitution. The fourth amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. One example of violation of the 4th amendment is that you need probable cause to searches people. In the Stop and Frisk police officer only need reasonable suspicion to stop and searches people. Another issue with Stop and Frisk is that there are racial bias. According to the United States District Court Southern District of New York, “The New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) made 4.4 million stops between January 2004 and June 2012. Over 80% of these 4.4 million stops were of blacks or Hispanics. In each of these stops a person’s life was interrupted. The person was detained and questioned, often on a public street. More than half of the time the police subjected the person to a frisk.” ( the United States District Court Southern District of New York,
Cop in the Hood by Peter Moskos is a book concerning a sociologist named Peter Moskos wanting to know more about the ways of American cops. A Harvard student going to work in Baltimore in the eastern district for one year, writes about his learnings and findings from firsthand experience. Some people say cops are not prepared when they leave police academy. From the book it says police officers learn more in the first two years than they will learn at the police academy. Becoming one of the deadliest profession cop’s duties are eye opening and even jaw dropping. Cops are known either has “gatekeepers” or even “pigs” in slang term. What if there were no cops in America? What would happen if they all just vanished and there was no one to protect
Stop and Frisk is a practice that was put into play by which a police officer initiates a stop of an individual on the street supposedly based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity “Stop and frisk” and other discriminatory policing practices have spiraled out of control.
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.
Thesis Statement: The application of “Stop” and Frisk” as an evidence based practice will hinder trust of community policing among communities.
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
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.
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.
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
When are some laws that are implemented by the police harmful to society? In 1968, a Police Officer in Ohio decided to search individuals in front of a store based on the suspicion that the individuals might attempt to rob it. This case is known as Terry v Ohio (United States) and is the beginning of what is known as Stop and Frisk. In 1971 New York City adopted Stop and Frisk and the New York Police Department began implementing the law on the general public. The following years little was said about the policy until 1999, when an unarmed African American, Amadou Diallo, was shot by police during a routine Stop and Frisk procedure. This incident resulted in a first class action suit against New York City for illegal Stop and Frisk and
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.
There seems to be nothing stopping it as it continues to grow out of control throughout the country. Even before the stop is made (add comma after made). cops watch possible suspects of any suspicious activity, even without any legal right. “Plainclothes officers known as “rakers” were dispatched into ethnic communities, where they eavesdropped on conversations and wrote daily reports on what they heard, often without any allegation of criminal wrong doing.” (NYPD Racial Profiling 1)
The process of using behavioral evidence left at a crime scene to make inferences about the offender, including inferences about personality characteristics and psychopathology is called criminal profiling. Around the country, several agencies rely on the minds of criminal psychologists to lead them in the right direction to finding the correct offender. Criminal profiling provides investigators with knowledge of the appearance and behavior of a potential criminal.