The idea of stop and frisk was created to reduce the crime rate in New York City by granting law enforcement the power to detain a suspicious individual based on reasonable suspicion and search the civilian outer garments for illegal contrabands.
There are many controversy surrounding this practice that it is based on racial discrimination and the idea that it is unconstitutional. Civilians feels like this practice only target blacks and Latinos. Supporting civilian concerns, a study conducted by the New York Civil Liberties Union the NYPD showing that there were a recorded of 22,939 New Yorker were stop-and-frisk in 2015. Out of those people, 80% of them were in totally innocent, within that search 12,223 were black (54 percent), 6,598 were Latino (29 percent), 2,567 were white (11 percent). Based on this study the majority of them were blacks or Latinos. …show more content…
Although this policy has made a great difference with decreasing the crime rate, the opposite end of the policy now feels like police officers are violating their 4th amendment right. The 4th amendment, “prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause”. This amendment provides law enforcement with the power to only seize a civilian property as it relates to a specific act which is the controversy comes into place making civilian feels like this practice is unconstitutional. Where on the other hand law officer don’t think it is unconstitutional, they think the search has saved the lives of much young black and Hispanic and at the same time removing guns from the streets. This now created a bad relationship between law enforcement and the public which is a vital part of policing. Terry v. Ohio is a great example of stop and frisk being unconstitutional supporting civilian
There are many controversy surrounding this practice that it is based on racial discrimination and the idea that it is unconstitutional. Civilians feels like this practice only target blacks and Latinos. Supporting civilian concerns, a study conducted by the New York Civil Liberties Union the NYPD showing that there were a recorded of 22,939 New Yorker were stop-and-frisk in 2015. Out of those people, 80% of them were in totally innocent, within that search 12,223 were black (54 percent), 6,598 were Latino (29 percent), 2,567 were white (11 percent). Based on this study the majority of them were blacks or Latinos. …show more content…
Although this policy has made a great difference with decreasing the crime rate, the opposite end of the policy now feels like police officers are violating their 4th amendment right. The 4th amendment, “prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause”. This amendment provides law enforcement with the power to only seize a civilian property as it relates to a specific act which is the controversy comes into place making civilian feels like this practice is unconstitutional. Where on the other hand law officer don’t think it is unconstitutional, they think the search has saved the lives of much young black and Hispanic and at the same time removing guns from the streets. This now created a bad relationship between law enforcement and the public which is a vital part of policing. Terry v. Ohio is a great example of stop and frisk being unconstitutional supporting civilian