Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Stop and frisk used by law enforcement
Stop and frisk literature reviews
Literature review stop and frisk
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Stop and frisk used by law enforcement
tactics used in the world. Sometimes even though it may look like there was a reduction in crime, it is not always clear on if there was a sole explanation to an overall decrease in crime or if there were multiple justifications for the decline. In the case of stop and frisks, at least in New York City, the negatives outweigh the positives. “The New York City policy of aggressive stops and frisks had an extremely negative impact on its principle targets” which have “major implications for crime reduction.” (109) Those implications being the legitimacy of the criminal justice system itself.
While stop and frisks may not have had the impact that was expected, that can not be said for the other improvements. Such as the progress that was made
through the system known as problem-oriented policing. The main idea of problem-oriented policing, or POP for short, “that instead of trying to attack “crime” in a global and unfocused way, the police should identify particular problems (for example, open-air drug dealing or residential burglaries, and so on), examine the underlying causes, and develop strategies specifically designed to address them.” (111) One of the main model that POP uses is the SARA model. Which stands for scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. But like with most police tactics, this is not the only model POP has used in its hopes to reduce crime. Such as the system Oakland used. Which was the Specialized Multi-Agency Response Team, or SMART. This program was used to target known hot spots of drug activity in Oakland, California. “The evaluation of SMART found that it reduced the level of drug activity in the target areas and did not displace crime to nearby area.” (111) The last part of that finding is the most important aspect of this program. Since unlike crackdowns for example, which simply moved the crime to a different part of the city, SMART was able to overcome that hurdle. “Additionally, it had a “diffusion” effect of improving the quality of life in areas surrounding the target beats.” (111) That outcome is the result of all the other attempted tactics. By learning what worked and what did not, the Oakland Police Department was able to come up with a program that accomplished what they set out to do. That being the reduction of crime in a given area without moving it somewhere else.
The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently being implemented by the New York Police Department. It grants police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them questions 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 fall under assault and are 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, identifying himself as a police officer, and making reasonable inquiries.
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
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.
Part One The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: An Introduction According to Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, & Brown (1974), patrol is the “backbone” of police work. This belief is based around the premise that the mere presence of police officers on patrol prohibits criminal activity. Despite increasing budgets and the availability of more officers on the streets, crime rates still rose with the expanding metropolitan populations (Kelling et al., 1974).
The factor of racial profiling comes into play as federal grant programs award police for rounding up as many people as possible. This very tactic was demonstrated by the CompStat system in New York City and further expounded by Victor M. Rios’s analysis of the themes over-policing and under-policing. These themes focus on how officers, police certain kinds of deviance and crime such as, loitering, or disturbing the peace, while neglecting other instances when their help is needed . Rios also stresses how the accumulation of minor citations like the ones previously mentioned, play a crucial role in pipelining Black and Latino young males deeper into the criminal justice system. Rios implies that in order to decrease the chances with police interaction one must not physically appear in a way that catches the attention of a police or do anything behavior wise that would lead to someone labeling you as deviant . Unfortunately, over-policing has made it difficult even for those who actually do abide by social norms because even then, they have been victims of criminalization . However, since structural incentives like those that mimic CompStat are in place, police simply ignore constitutional rules and are able to get away with racial profiling, and thus interrogate, and search whomever they please. Since these targeted minorities acknowledge the fact that the police are not always present to enforce the law, they in turn learn strategies in order to protect themselves from violence that surrounds them. Young African American Americans and Latino youth thus become socialized in the “code of the street”, as the criminal justice system possesses no value in their
Rengifo & Slocum (2016) concentrated on community policing procedure that was implemented in New York City known as “Stop-and Frisk,” also known as “Terry Stop.” Stop-and Frisk” was a method that was implemented by the New York City Police Department in which an officer stops a pedestrian and asked them a question, and then frisks them for any weapon or contraband. The data for this study was collected from 2005-2006 from an administrative area known as Community District1 in South Bronx, New York. This area is composed of the following neighborhoods: Melrose, Pork Morris, and Mott Haven. Majority of the population in this
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).
Another thing the was remarkably effective was his “Quality of life” policing from 1994 to 1996 that made all major crimes declined sixteen percent, 14 percent and seven percent, while murders fell by half. Residents in New York City now believed that their impossible dream could become solid reality.
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 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.
Police justify carding as a general investigation to locate suspects and help people fight crime. Toronto Police Service says that “It does not purposefully target individuals because of their race” (SAMIRA MOHYEDDIN, Nov 24 2016). However that being said, racialized communities testify that they are being targeted for their race and ethnicity. The new rule doesn’t fully end the controversial practice and carding remains a major concern for the minority community. Sandy Hudson, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto says “the new rule doesn’t make any great change” (Muriel Draaisma, Jan 02, 2017). “Where these rules apply- and where they don’t- doesn’t change anything about carding”, she also said “A police officer can always say they are
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.
The statutory powers granted to the police by these pieces of legislation serve as a method of tackling crime on the streets of the United Kingdom. For the police in the UK, the power and ability to stop and search an individual who they suspect of being involved in a crime is a vital tactic necessary to undermine criminal activity. It can be argued that stop and search powers provide a useful means to confirm or deny suspicions about individuals without having to exercise their power to arrest someone.
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