Stop-and-frisk 1

Nia Saunders

English 102

Dr. Wynne

8 March 2017

Stop-and-Frisk

In an effort to lower crime rates and discourage citizens from carrying drugs and

weapons, law enforcement implemented a law known as stop-and-frisk. Under this law police

officers have the right to stop a suspicious person and search or question them about illegal

activities. While some find comfort in this law, others see it as an opportunity for law

enforcement to infringe on basic citizen rights. In recent years, this country has seen a growing

number of minorities affected by this law while Caucasians are seldom affected. This issue has

lead to individuals questioning the racism behind the law and its constitutionality. To find

answers to these questions its important to consider:

1. What is the history behind stop-and-frisk?

2. Is there a specific ethnicity that is arrested more under stop-and-frisk?
3. Does stop-and-frisk promote civil injustices and/or discrimination?
4. Has stop-and-frisk lowered crime rates in areas it is heavily used?

The following literature review will discuss stop-and-frisk, its effectiveness in societies, the

race issues it causes as well as its history and development.

What is the history behind stop-and-frisk?

To understand stop-and-frisk in American society today, it is important to be educated on

why it was implemented in the first place. Frisking is a procedure done by law enforcement

dating back many years; it is when cops search a suspect for concealed weapons and other

illegal objects. Prior to the stop-and-frisk law, this was a regular procedure for cops after they

arrested a suspect to insure they did not have contraband that could potentially harm other
Stop-and-frisk 2

cops or inmates. The new stop-and-frisk law changed the way that people would view

frisking, shifting it from a legal justified means for safety against criminals to an unjustified

search of a citizen.

Stop-and-frisk was first implemented in New York State; it was used as a method to deter

locals from carrying illegal objects that they believed would subsequently lower the crime

rates. According to an article written by Alex Elkins Tellingly, stop-and-frisk did not

become a thing, hyphenated and conjoined, until 1964, the year New York State passed the

countrys first law under that name (Elkins). Citizens did not initially think of the law as

racist until the Terry v. Ohio case shifted public opinion. The case was surrounded around the

investigation of a detective who stopped three black men who he thought were suspicious.

Although they were not doing anything illegal at the time, they were stopped, and the cop

found two pistols and arrested them. The ruling of this case angered minorities because the

court upheld the principles underlying stop-and-search policing, and determined that the

threshold for a stop-and frisk was an officers reasonable and articulable suspicion not

probable cause that a person was involved in crime was armed (Elkins). From that moment

forward the world saw that it was cops own idea of a suspicious person that determined

who would be stopped and searched. Looking at the origin of the idea and the policy

America has today for stop-and frisk, American citizens see the rise of profiling and the

distrust in law enforcement.

Is there a specific ethnicity that is arrested more under stop-and-frisk?

Stop-and-Frisk has caused a divide amongst minorities who believe their civil rights are

compromised under the law and non-minorities who do not believe in the inequalities of the law.

In order to end the inequality debate, however, the researcher must first look at past statistics that
Stop-and-frisk 3

quantify racial differences. Research done by Joseph Ferrandino found that Of the 532,881

stops recorded by the NYPD in 2012, 53% were black while 31% were Hispanic, representing

similar proportions to their Rikers Island population (Ferrandino). Looking at these results one

might side with the non-minority perspective, arguing that stop and searches are not based on

physical appearance but rather the consistent criminal activity amongst the minority group. These

statistics bring into question the validity of the claim that stop-and-frisk is racially bias as it

shows that although blacks and Hispanics are arrested more, they are also sent to jail just as

much; this information suggests that searches of minorities were actually warranted because they

were in fact doing illegal things.

Research has also been found that challenges the idea that stop-and-frisk is not targeted at

certain individuals. Researcher Joseph Ferrandino wrote in a scholarly journal article While

minorities are more frequently stopped and frisked, whites are as likely to be arrested and were

more likely to have contraband or weapons except guns (Ferrandino). Since White Americans

are just as likely to have weapons as minorities, one must wonder why blacks and Hispanics are

arrested and seen as more suspicious.

To test the theory that minorities are stopped more than Caucasians, a survey was given

in March at an urban predominately black and Hispanic school (Schenectady High School) and a

suburban predominantly white school (Niskayuna High School). The study was surrounded

around Black, White, and Hispanic male and females. In this study twelve students, eight from

the urban school (4 black and 4 Hispanic) and 4 from the suburban school (all white), were

asked, Have you ever been stopped and searched by a cop when you hadnt done anything

illegal. The study found that 75% (3 of 4) of the black students had been stopped and searched

by police officers when they had not done anything illegal; of these 3 students, 25% (1 out of 4)
Stop-and-frisk 4

admitted that drugs or a weapon were found on them. The results from the Hispanic students

were that 25% were stopped by law enforcement (1 of 4); he reported that there was no

contraband found on him. Looking at the white students surveyed, 25% or (1 out of 4) said they

had been stopped and searched by an officer; she reported that she did in fact have contraband on

her.

The survey supports the claim that minorities are more likely to be arrested than whites

under stop-and-frisk. Looking at the data one can see that although more African Americans and

an equal number of Hispanics reported being stopped, more Caucasian Americans were actually

caught with illegal objects. It relates back to the statistics above, which show the large difference

between the number of minorities and whites stopped and searched.

Percent of Students stopped and Searched

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Caucasian Black Hispanic

Does stop-and-frisk promote civil injustices and or discrimination?

Some argue that stop-and-frisk does not discriminate or target certain individuals, and

some argue the contrary. According to a book written by David Rudovsky It determined that

African-Americans were stopped six times more frequently than whites(Rudovsky). This means

that for every one white person stopped, six black people were stopped. Supporters of stop-and-

frisk would argue that this is because blacks are more likely to commit crimes but based on the

number of blacks arrested each year the theory cannot be true; Stops without reasonable
Stop-and-frisk 5

suspicion indeed seemed to be weaker, in that only 1 in 29 of these stops led to arrests,

compared to 1 of 7 stops with reasonable suspicions (Gelman, Fagan, Kiss 816). According to

this journal the majority of the arrests were of minorities. This disproves the claim that stop-and-

frisk is not targeted at certain individuals because even though they found nothing and made no

arrests when stopping minorities they continued the pattern of arresting them. This revelation

goes to show that even though minorities continue to prove that they dont partake in

suspicious activity, they will still be seen as suspicious individuals to police. When looking

at the areas targeted by stop-and-frisk, society sees a high concentration of stops in minority

communities District 1 residents are Hispanic (70%) or African American (20.8%)through

2012, District 1 has consistently listed as one of the top-ranked areas in terms of volumes of

police stops(Rengifo and Slocum). This suggests that not only are minorities targeted, but also

the communities they live in and are a part of.

Has stop-and-frisk lowered crime rates in areas it is heavily used?

Stop-and-frisk is known for its aggressive approaches on policing, this poses the question

of whether or not it is actually effective. Following President Donald Trumps statement that

Stop-and Frisk lowered crime rates, CNN decided to look into its effectiveness. What they

found was that the number of stops in the New York area had drastically increased the number

of stops in the city rose dramatically from 97,296 in 2002 to 685,724 in 2011 (Holmes). These

statistics suggest that more stops were done as a defense against lowering crime rates, however,

CNN found results that suggested the contrary. The number of homicides did not fall in

proportion to the soaring number of stops, dropping from 587 in 2002 to 515 in 2011. Moreover,

the NYClU also found that in the more than 5 million stops between 2002 and 2013, guns were

found in only.2% of cases (Holmes). What this proves is that not only are stops not drastically
Stop-and-frisk 6

improving crime rates but they also are not resulting in the prevention of contraband; this brings

into question a cops judgment of suspicious activity because they seldom stop actual criminals

or citizens breaking the law. Supporters argue that while stop-and-frisk did not drastically lower

crime rates, not using it wouldve raised crime rates drastically; current statistics prove this

theory to be false. Christina Sterbenz from the Business Insider found that As a whole crime in

those categories fell 7.95% from 2013 to 2016. And that decrease happened while stops carried

out under stop-and-frisk decreased as well (Sterbenz). If crimes decreased when stop-and-frisk

decreased one can deduce that the policy actually had no effect on crime rates. Looking at past

and present statistics one could argue that stop-and-frisk does very little to lower crime rates.

Conclusion

When stop-and-frisk was first implemented, law enforcement had all the right intentions

in lowering crime rates. They had a vision that if they stopped and arrested individuals partaking

in illegal activity then they could deter communities from committing crimes. Sadly, the country

has seen the exact opposite happen. In previous years America has seen that stop-and-frisk is

blatantly directed at certain individuals, most of which, are minorities. Although minorities

continue to remove themselves from criminal situations, they still find themselves being pulled

over and frisked just like any other criminal. Stop-and-frisk is racially prejudice and infringes on

the civil rights of certain individuals. A step towards outlawing stop-and-frisk is a step towards

equality under the law.

Work Cited
 Stop-and-frisk 7

Elkins, Alex. The Origins of Stop-and-Frisk. Jacobin, 15 May. 2015,

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/stop-and-frisk-dragnet-ferguson-baltimore. Accessed

14 March 2017

Ferrandino, Joseph. "Minority Threat Hypothesis and NYPD Stop and Frisk Policy." Criminal

Justice Review, vol. 40, no. 2, 2015, pp. 209-229, doi:10.1177/0734016814564989.

Gelman, Andrew, Jeffrey Fagan, and Alex Kiss. "An Analysis of the New York City Police

Department's "Stop-and-Frisk" Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias." Journal of

the American Statistical Association, vol. 102, no. 479, 2007, pp. 813-823,

doi:10.1198/016214506000001040.

Holmes, Steven. Reality Check: Was stop-and -frisk effective.CNN, 22 Sept. 2016

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/politics/reality-check-stop-and-frisk/ accessed

6 March 2017

Rengifo, Andres F., and Lee A. Slocum. "Community Responses to Stop-and-Frisk in

New York City: Conceptualizing Local Conditions and Correlates." Criminal Justice Policy

Review, vol. 27, no. 7, 2016, pp. 723-746, doi:10.1177/0887403414560013.

Rudovsky, David. Breaking the Pattern of Racial Profiling: When Law Enforcement Officers make

Discretionary Judgments Based on Race, can Litigation Put an End to 1Stop-and-Search

Violations?, vol. 38, American Association for Justice, 2002.

Sterbenz, Christina. Donald Trump claims stop-and-frisk had a very,very big impact on New

York Citys crime-heres what data really says. Business Insider, 27 Sept. 2016,

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-stop-and-frisk-debate-2016-9 . Accessed 27

Feb. 2017
Stop-and-frisk 8