By Elorm Sallah
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.1
In
2011, 92 percent of persons searched by NYPD were male and 87 percent of these
persons were either African American or Latino. 1
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.
[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
No comments:
Post a Comment