In the case Floyd v. New York there was a spectrum of public policy concerns that were raised in the New York City area that allowed NYPD to begin their Stop and Frisk procedures.
If law enforcement, and other officials had concerns for the public wellbeing of health, safety and welfare of its people, they reserved the right to create polices such as stop and frisk to uphold public order for the safety of the people. New York City at this time had of high crime rates and there was public concern for the number of murders by the use of gun in New York City area. They wanted to implement a plan that would allow them to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens and community by using the stop and frisk as a way to prevent crime
…show more content…
before it happens. Violence was on the rise in the New York City and Mayor Michael Bloomberg believed creation of stop and frisk is what was needed to help adjust the violent issues because it was affecting society’s social customs, citizen’s daily lives because they didn’t feel safe, and contributed to many deaths and high crime rates. There were many arguments for and against New York City Stop and Frisk Policy. Individuals who argued for New York City stop and frisk policy argued that stop and frisk was a prime prevention effort. They believed that if officials stopped and frisked suspicious suspect for weapons that it would deter crime from happening because individuals would be stopped from committing a crime before they had the chance. They also believed it to be a way to make the New Yorkers feel safe because it would be less likely that individuals would carry weapons with the knowing the possibility of them being apprehended or there weapon being compensated. They argued stopped and frisk by officers was a mechanism to protect the public safety of the New York City people and reduce crime rates. Individuals who argued against the stop and frisk policy argued that stop and frisk were a violation of their rights. The believed that stopping an individual that was believed to look suspicious was considered wrong. They argued that with the stop and frisk policy officers were using it a way to racial profile. The Black and Hispanic race were widely affected by the racial profiling by officers when stop and frisk was implemented. They argued that the stop and frisk policy did not change, stop or deter crime in the New York City area when it was implemented, but other racial related issues were caused that lead to cases like Floyd v. New York City. Due to racial profiling there was a huge debate about the relevancy and accuracy of stop and frisk that lead the decision being left to the United States District Courts.
The United States District Court held that the NYPD procedures to stop and frisk were unconstitutional. They held that there were unconstitutional because the stop and frisk procedure was performed predominantly more on Black and Hispanics and was considered racial profiling. The use of racial profiling is unconstitutional and a violation of one’s fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. The fourth amendment of the constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, while the fourteenth amendment grants individuals equal protection outlined in “equal protection clause.” Officials must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to issue the search or seizure of any individual. In the case of stop and frisk in New York City individuals' rights were being violated because officers were conducting searches on the basis of race, without any probable cause or suspicion. It is illegal to racial profile individual and because these searches were being conducted under the basis of race officer was also in violation of the equal protection clause which doesn't allow individuals to be discriminated on based on their race in which officer were doing. Stop and Frisk became very unconstitutional in the eyes of the law and many New
Yorkers. To conclude as of today there are still many debates about stop and frisk procedures in New York city although the current Mayor Bill De Blaso is against stop and frisk. In my opinion stop and frisk shouldn’t be eliminated and I think this a great debate to continue having because apparently it had both positive and negative effects on the New York community. I think it needs to have more policy and structure so that individuals are not racially profiled.
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
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.
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).
“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 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.
This is the police practice of stopping, questioning, and searching for potential criminal suspects in vehicles or on the street based solely on their racial appearance (Human Rights Watch, 2000). This type of profiling has contributed to racially disproportionate drug arrests, as well as, arrests for other crimes. It makes sense that the more individuals police stop, question and search, the more people they will find with a reason for arrest. So, if the majority of these types of stop and frisk searches are done on a certain race, then it makes sense that that race would have a higher arrest rate.... ...
Racial profiling is the most idiotic and arrogant thing you can ever do as a person. Usually the people who are affected by racial profiling are minorities, however, any person can be a victim of racial profiling. Some may think that racial profiling is non-existent, however, I would like to bring the situation into focus and show that it is still in existence and has been observed in the past and now in the current year. Although, more than fifty percent of the time racial profiling is conducted it is against a man or woman of color; an African-American in other words. There are instances where a white person can be a victim as well. Trying not to say that there isn't any person out there that is exempted from racial profiling, because there isn't a single person who is just exempted from this cruel method of decision making. In my essay I will talk about racial profiling and what it is, however, you can't forget about where it happens and of course why. Several resolutions will be discussed in this essay to alleviate this problem.
This essay will bring to light the problem of racial profiling in the police force and propose the eradication of any discrimination. 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
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.
Many residents of New York City endured harassment from the New York Police Department while Stop and Frisk was implemented. William Brangham, a News Hour special correspondent, interviewed two African American males who were plaintiffs in the Federal court case that decided to ban Stop and Frisk in 2013.
Stop and frisk-allowed law enforcement officers to stop and search a person suspected of digital-related weapons based on reasonable suspicion (Pollitt, 2002)
The first reason that it can violate your fourth amendment right. In 2013 Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that New York City police officers have for years been stopping innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Officers often frisked these people, usually young minority men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, before letting them go. This is an issue because police officers