Stop and frisk search is one of the most controversial procedures that the police execute. According to the legal dictionary, stop and frisk refers to “the situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect’s outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.” The officer also questions the person during this process. The policy was put in place to stop crimes before they even happen. The main goals are to get guns off the streets, solve crime sprees and mainly scare criminals. This policy of stop and frisk has been used in America since the early 1900’s, however, in 1968 it was brought to the Supreme Court and evaluated under the fourth
…show more content…
The main reason I would say that stop and frisk does not prevent harm from occurring in communities is based on the following statistic. In 2011, out of the 686,000 people that the NYPD stopped and frisked only about 12 percent of them were arrested or given a summons (Bergner 2015). So, yes, the policy is protecting the community to an extent but, those 12 percent of people from stop and frisks are not the only criminals in these communities, and probably not the worst criminals either if they are getting stopped before they even commit their …show more content…
The main reason that this policy is considered unconstitutional is due it’s disregard of the fourth amendment, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Firstly, quotas for stop and frisks will be gotten rid of. I think the best way to fix this is by establishing a policy that stop and frisks can only be made when they can be justified. Said policy will require all officers to file a report that explains the reason for stopping the person they did, context for the stop and the ultimate outcome of the stop. Also, a board will be created, of multiple ethnicities, that see’s over the officers that conduct stop and frisks. This board will review the reports from the stops and decide if the stop was reasonable considering the context and reason, as well as make sure that officers aren’t filing the same reason multiple times in a row or making up ridiculous reasons that are not justifiable. I think this could also help the racial bias of stop and frisks as
The main reason I would say that stop and frisk does not prevent harm from occurring in communities is based on the following statistic. In 2011, out of the 686,000 people that the NYPD stopped and frisked only about 12 percent of them were arrested or given a summons (Bergner 2015). So, yes, the policy is protecting the community to an extent but, those 12 percent of people from stop and frisks are not the only criminals in these communities, and probably not the worst criminals either if they are getting stopped before they even commit their …show more content…
The main reason that this policy is considered unconstitutional is due it’s disregard of the fourth amendment, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Firstly, quotas for stop and frisks will be gotten rid of. I think the best way to fix this is by establishing a policy that stop and frisks can only be made when they can be justified. Said policy will require all officers to file a report that explains the reason for stopping the person they did, context for the stop and the ultimate outcome of the stop. Also, a board will be created, of multiple ethnicities, that see’s over the officers that conduct stop and frisks. This board will review the reports from the stops and decide if the stop was reasonable considering the context and reason, as well as make sure that officers aren’t filing the same reason multiple times in a row or making up ridiculous reasons that are not justifiable. I think this could also help the racial bias of stop and frisks as