U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled last week that the stop-and-frisk practice employed by New York City police officers was unconstitutional. Judge Scheindlin said that the policy leads to “indirect racial profiling” and has called for an overhaul to the program. Unhappy with this decision, the city filed an appeal last Friday and will request a stay.
Stop-and-Frisk Requires Reasonable Suspicion
Under the stop-and-frisk rule, a police officer can stop a person in public on grounds of reasonable suspicion that the person is or was involved in a crime. The officer may stop the suspect physically or by instruction alone and may frisk him or her for weapons or drug paraphernalia.
Stop-and-frisk is legal in the U.S. and is also known as a “Terry stop,” named for the 1968 Supreme Court case Terry v Ohio that upheld it. Though stop-and-frisk is used across the country, the program in New York City has been criticized as being a legal form of racial profiling that unfairly targets African-American and Hispanic men.
Bloomberg and Kelly Speak Out Against the Decision
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly spoke out against the decision, saying that race has nothing to do with it. Officers are more likely to use stop-and-frisk in parts of the city with higher crime rates, and that’s what accounts for the racial breakdown of the stops.
Bloomberg further said that the judge “does not understand how policing works” and insists that the policy has reduced crime and saved lives.
Supporters Call Stop-And-Frisk Legal Racial Profiling
But not everyone agrees with Bloomberg’s assertion. The numbers show the ratio of stop to seizure is high – meaning many more people are stopped than are found with contraband, and studies have not shown it to save lives. As for race, the ratio of stops to seizures is much higher for African-American and Hispanic people than for white people, and the absolute number of stops is also much higher. Last year, more young African-American men were stopped (168,126) than live in NYC (158,406).
The mother of Trayvon Martin is one supporter of the decision, saying that people should not be stopped because of their race. Other supporters agree with the judge that stop-and-frisk violates the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees equal protection and the Fourth Amendment that bars unreasonable search and seizure.
Alienating communities the police wish to serve is another concern over the effects of the stop-and-frisk policy.
Judge Scheindlin Calls for Reforms
Though Judge Scheindlin ruled against stop-and-frisk, she did not call for an immediate end to the practice, but gave orders to oversee changes in the program. An appointed federal monitor will oversee reforms, including cameras worn by some patrol officers. These changes will be implemented unless the city’s call for stay and appeal are successful.
