The New York police department (NYPD) found themselves in a bind attempting to fight everyday crime; they desired to implement new ways to help combat this issue. A proactive policing tool, by the name of stop and frisk, was developed to assist these officers in doing so. Stop and frisk is a policy that allows an officer to stop an individual based on “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. Anyone can be stopped, however; frisks are only to be made if an officer’s safety is at risk. Stop and frisk was established by the Terry v. Ohio case in Cleveland, Ohio.
A plain-clothed officer, Martin McFadden, spotted two African American males standing on the corner of the fourteenth street. McFadden confessed that he observed these two men for ten to twelve minutes while they went in and out of two stores. Moments later, the two men were joined by a white male, they soon parted ways. Later, the three men met up at Zucker’s store. McFadden suspected the men of “casing the place for a stick-up.” This led him to approach the three young men. He identified himself as an officer and asked for their names. The young men revealed themselves to be John Terry, Richard Chilton, and Katz. McFadden began to frisk these men and retrieved weapons from both Terry and Chilton. As a result, the men were taken into custody and faced charges of carrying concealed weapons. The Supreme Court presented the decision which was an 8 to 1 ruling, which held that McFadden’s search was indeed reasonable under the Fourteenth Amendment (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).
The stop-and-frisk policy was contested for many reasons; mainly due to allegations of racial profiling. Racial disparities were brought to the forefront in the Floyd v. City of New York case. According to the United States District Court Southern District of New York (2013), 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 (p.1). Another prominent issue that was contested was the violation of the individual's Fourth and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifteenth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches or seizures. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination and guarantees equality to all. The New York Police Department was reported to carry out more stops in high-crime areas where Hispanics and blacks reside. This proves that Hispanics and blacks were targeted for stops based on reasonable suspicions more than whites. During Floyd v. City of New York, David Floyd, an African American male, was approached by three officers while walking back to his home.
The officers requested proof of identification. Floyd obeyed their orders and reached into his pockets to retrieve his cell phone. Floyd’s actions led officers to frisk him, although they did not discover anything. This made the frisk unconstitutional due to the lack of evidence determining whether or not officers had reasonable suspicion to question Floyd. On February 27, 2008, Floyd was assisting a tenant who had been locked out of his apartment. This property was owned by Floyd’s grandmother. After fumbling with five or six keys, Floyd and the tenant were approached by three plain-clothed officers. The officers ordered them to put their hands up. Following this procedure, officers began to frisk Floyd without his consent. Floyd was informed by the officers that there had been a series of burglaries in the area. In comparison to the Terry v. Ohio case, Floyd’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated during both incidents. In contrast to the first incident, the officers had reasonable suspicion when they observed Floyd fumbling with the keys. This also shed more light on racial profiling performed by officers.
Stop and frisk had many pros and cons. Among the pros are the officer’s ability to protect themselves, the sense of safety the community has, the decreased crime rates in New York City, and the reduction of guns available on the streets. This policy allows officers to rid of any weapons that could interfere with their safety. The community is now aware that officers are equipped and monitoring who and what could be potentially dangerous and with guns not being readily available violent crimes aren’t occurring as much. These are all precautionary tactics. Unfortunately, the stop-and-frisk policy has disproportionately impacted minorities. As a result, mistrust has formed between New Yorkers and law enforcement, communities are facing long-lasting damage, and there’s an unwillingness to cooperate with the police. The stop-and-frisk policy and New York’s strategic plan both targeted minorities. New York’s plan was to increase the quality of life. The strategic plan focused more on minor crimes while stop and frisk focused more on weapons.
Stop and frisk and New York’s strategic plan implemented focusing on certain neighborhoods to reduce crime rates. Stop and frisk is a policy that I do agree with to a certain extent. Yes, crime was reduced, but it isn’t proven that this policy contributed to these results. Stop and frisk, in my opinion, was put in place to provide protection for the community and the officers. The impact stop and frisk have had on weapon reductions in neighborhoods is amazing! I do believe this policy has instilled fear in the citizens. Safety and liberty are among the few things that citizens fear. Officers should refrain from targeting a specific race. Race should only be a factor when officers are determining the identity of a suspect. The stop and frisk policy is overall a well-established proactive policing tool. I do suggest that police implement more community policing to build and strengthen trust in the community. Officers should consider designating certain areas of the city as “stop and frisk sectors.” This would encourage potential offenders to think before they perform any criminal activity in neighborhoods. Stop and frisk, like any other policy or plan, isn’t perfect however it is a stride to improve the quality of life for all.