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 …show more content…
Racial Profiling. Stop and Frisk was analyzed and investigated many times after this incident to show if in fact Stop and Frisk was helping or harming society. This paper will discuss how Stop and frisk resulted in harassment, implemented racial profiling, and violated the 4th amendment. Harassment is described as using aggressive pressure, use of intimidation, and creating a hostile unwanted situation.
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.
William Brangham reported similar stories from the two individuals. Nicholas Peart and David Ourlicht both stated that they had been stopped ten or more times by a New York City Police Officer and was never arrested or given a ticket. Later in the same interview Peart also stated this was normal amongst minorities in New York City and that it's almost like a rites of passage (Brangham).
With the constant thought of possibly being stopped by police without reason and to be treated as a criminal in front of neighbors, family, and friends is not only embarrassing, but also deters individuals to pursue enjoyable events with those same people. This creation of a hostile living environment is the definition of harassment. Harassment was not the only problem that derived from the Stop and Frisk policy, and through statistical evidence Racial Profiling was also a major
…show more content…
concern. Racial Profiling concerns arose after data collected from the New York Police Department showed an unbalanced number of stops between races annually. The data that was collected by the Center For Constitutional Rights spanned over eight years from 2004 to 2012. The Center for Constitutional rights released to The Washington Post that the New York Police Departments data within those eight years reflected African Americans were stopped 2.3 million times with 16,000 seizures and Latinos were stopped 1.4 million times with 14,000 seizures. These numbers represented 83% of all Stop and Frisk procedures conducted by the New York Police Department during that eight year span. The data collected also showed that Caucasians were stopped 435,000 times, 10%, and had 16,000 seizures (Matthews). With the numbers that were given one can calculate that Caucasians had roughly five times more seizures, tickets, or arrests than African Americans and more than three and half times that of Latinos.
And although, with statistics that showed Caucasians were committing crimes at a higher rate the New York Police Department stopped and searched African Americans and Latinos overwhelmingly more. Though the New York Police Department claims that they do not condone Racial Profiling the statistics paint a very different picture. And though Racial Profiling is a major issue for some races all races had concerns for their Fourth Amendment Constitutional
rights. The Amendments of The United States Constitution were set in place to guard the peoples civil liberties. The most relevant Amendment to this topic is the 4th Amendment. As explained on UScourts.gov "The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government." (United States). The Stop and Frisk policy violates the 4th Amendment due to the unlawful searches a seizures accompanied with the policy. Joseph Goldstein, of The New York Times, wrote that "A federal judge, Judge Scheindlin, ruled on Monday that the Stop-and-Frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city, ..." As a Federal figure Judge Scheindlin acknowledge that the Stop and Frisk policy disregarded the 4th Amendment and made the decision to discontinue such actions taken by the New York Police Department.
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
Angelie Ortiz Ms. Matlen ERWC Period: 1 Racial Profiling In the United States of America today, racial profiling is a deeply troubling national problem. Many people, usually minorities, experience it every day, as they suffer the humiliation of being stopped by police while driving, flying, or even walking for no other reason than their color, religion, or ethnicity. Racial profiling is a law enforcement practice steeped in racial stereotypes and different assumptions about the inclination of African-American, Latino, Asian, Native American or Arab people to commit particular types of crimes. The idea that people stay silent because they live in fear of being judged based on their race, allows racial profiling to live on.
The justice system is in place in America to protect its citizens, however in the case of blacks and some other minorities there are some practices that promote unfairness or wrongful doing towards these groups. Racial profiling is amongst these practices. In cases such as drug trafficking and other criminal acts, minorities have been picked out as the main culprits based off of skin color. In the article “Counterpoint: The Case Against Profiling” it recognizes racial profiling as a problem in America and states, “[In order to maintain national security] law-enforcement officers have detained members of minority groups in vehicles more than whites”…. “these officers assume that minorities commit more drug offenses, which is not the case” (Fauchon). In relationship to law enforcement there has also been many cases of police brutality leaving young blacks brutally injured, and even dead in recent years, cases such as Michael Brown, Dontre Hamilton, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and Freddy Gray just to name a few. Many of these young men were unarmed, and the police involved had no good justification for such excess force. They were seen as threats primarily because of their skin color. Despite the fact this nation is trying to attain security, inversely they are weakening bonds between many of its
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.
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).
“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.
One discriminating practice used by police officers is racial profiling. This is the police practice of stopping, questioning, and searching 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 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 tha...
Racial profiling, as defined in Criminal Justice Today is, “Any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin, rather than the behavior of the individual…” (Schmalleger, 2009, p. 294) but is racial profiling limited only to police action? In June off 2002 a telephone survey of adults was conducted by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut, in this survey people were asked, “Do you think that African Americans’ civil rights are being respected by the country’s criminal justice system?” 69% of Non-Hispanic Whites said, “Yes, they are respected.” as opposed to 33% of African Americans that think the justice system is fair. (Cole & Smith, 2007, p. 104) What causes this huge percentage gap among the races? Within our criminal justice system there are many disparities and cases of suspected discrimination, because of that our country is race divided on the issue of whether or not discrimination exists in a system perceived as the best of it’s kind.
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.
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.
Racial tension has been part of America ever since the civil war. Today we have a different issue with race which is called racial profiling. Over the years the relationship between the police and community of color has gone bitter do to racial profiling. America’s society today tends to be tainted by racial profiling and stereotypes. These issues can cause great effects on our society. Racial profiling or stereotyping could diminish how a certain race is viewed. Racial discrimination can be a result from having racial profiling and stereotypes in our present culture. Today racial discrimination is used to approach citizens assumed to be criminals. This is called racial profiling. Although some argue that racial profiling is a necessary tool for law enforcement to protect our safety, it puts some people at a disadvantage while it privileges others. Overall racial profiling is bad for the economy, unconstitutional, and sets borderlines for different races.
Minorities are unfairly targeted. To give a particularly striking example, one Florida city’s “stop and frisk” policy has been explicitly aimed at all black men. Since 2008, this has led to 99,980 stops which did not produce an arrest in a city with a population of just 110,000. One man alone was stopped 258 times at his job in four years, and arrested for trespassing while working on 62 occasions. Failure to address this issue communicates to police that minorities are a safe target for abuse.