New York City, the United States’ largest populated city in the nation, as well as on of the most diverse metropolitan areas in the nation. With such a large population, crime can be a given, however in the recent years of the Michael Bloomberg administration, the current mayor of the City, there has been a rise in the amount of “stop-and-frisk” searches, particularly in the African American and the Latino communities of New York.
According to the “Police in New York City stopped and questioned a record-breaking 684,330 people last year (2011). The figure represents an increase of over 600% since the controversial practice of stop, question and search – commonly known as stop-and-frisks – began in 2002.”[1]
The major factor for the rise of stop-and-frisks can be attested to the New York’s city council, which began requiring the police department to deliver quarterly “stop-and-frisks” totals in 2002. In addition, since 2004, the amount of stop-and-frisks has increased every year, with the exception of 2007. There have been a total of four million people, and the overwhelming people who were searched were people of color. In 2011, 92 percent of persons searched by NYPD were male and 87 percent of these persons were either African American or Latino.
According to the New York Civil Liberties Union (NCYLU), “NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop-and-frisk activities confirm what many people in communities for color across the city have long known. In addition the NCYLU asserts that nearly nine out of their ten people who are stopped-and-frisked have been completely innocent, according to. [2]
Search and frisk’s legality in the United States was decided in 1968, when the Supreme Court, ruled in the landmark case Terry v. Ohio, the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable search and seizures is not violated if a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks them without probable cause of to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable decision that the person has committed, or is about to commit a crime.[3] Additionally, a police officer may frisk a “suspect” if they have reasonable belief that the person would be armed and dangerous.[3]
The modern frisking program in New York is said to have began in 1991 through the Operation Clean Halls, which is “intended to combat activity in the city’s high-crime areas.” What this law did is allow “private property, owners to fill out a form granting the police the right to enter their buildings and arrest anyone inside who is engaged in criminal activity.” By the early 1990’s as well 3,895 buildings in Manhattan alone and in the Bronx, “virtually every private apartment building enrolled in the program.
There have been several cases in which officers allegedly accused citizens of color of trespassing – allowing them to subject these persons into searches, and potential arrests. In one situation, a 17-year-old Bronx resident was subjected to an arrest as he was visiting a friend at his apartment in Queens in February 2011 when police officers “stopped him and two other friends on the sidewalk.” He was ultimately accused of trespassing despite him telling them that he had just left his friends apartment, and as one officer left to check their story with the apartment’s residents, the then proceeded to arrest the three men.[3]
On October 31, 2013, a federal appeals court on Thursday “blocked a judge’s order requiring changes to the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk Program”..[4] Judge Shira Scheindlin, who ruled on the case in August of 2013 described the law to violate the Constitution in the way tit carried out its programs of stopping and questioning people.4 The U.S. Appeals court ruled that the judge be removed from the case because she “ran afoul of code of conduct for U.S. judges by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality in part because of a series of media interviews and public statements responding publicly to criticism of the court.”
According to Scheindlin – the police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with its stop-and-frisk program. In addition, “she appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes, including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered a pilot program to test body-worn cameras in some precincts where most stops occur.”[4] As well, New York has agreed to end the practice of storing names and addresses of people whose cases are dismissed after a police stop.[4]
Although this rigid system of stop-and-frisk has been around in New York City for decades, ultimately it comes into questioning when you see ethnic groups that are targeted more than others. If all groups were targeted equally, meaning that the majority of frisking cases were not of one or two ethic groups then this law would not come into the question of the majority of people. Through the numbers, it is displayed that there is an unhealthy profiling situation occurring on the streets of New York in which persons of color are more likely to be approached by a police officer, and in the majority of cases, they are in fact innocent. There is no clear-cut way to abolish discrimination – or just simple prejudice of law enforcement, but if there are laws and regulations that allow the acceptance of these practices, then ultimately there will be no change.
--------------------------------
References:
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/14/nypd-stop-frisk-record-high
[2] http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices
[3] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html
[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57610296/court-blocks-ruling-on-nypd-stop-and-frisk-policy/