NY stop and frisk policy - Essay Example

New York stop-and-frisk policy The criminal procedure law in the New York (section 140.50) provides for the empowerment of police officers to stop and frisk pedestrians based on suspicion. The police department in the city observes the programs of ‘stop-question-and-frisk’ through which thousands of the pedestrians are annually frisked for weapons as well as other contraband. The effectiveness of the policy has been observed in success by police department in seizures of such weapons as guns and such unauthorized guns as well as the minimal shootings by criminals.

However, the recent past has seen a great reaction towards the policies with the most influential one coming from judge Scheindlin's recent ruling, which termed the policy unconstitutional. According to the CNN report, the court ordered that the policy of stop and frisk be altered because in its interpretation, it was unconstitutional in that it targeted the Latinos and the minority blacks. In the judge’s ruling, the policy is a complete violation of the constitution of the land, which is against such discrimination as is entertained by the ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy.

The judge reasoned that the searches without reasonable suspicion violated the plaintiffs’ fourth amendment, which bars unreasonable searching of persons. Moreover, the case found out that the policy violated the fourteenth amendment rights which specifically guarantees equal protection and which according to the evidence presented was not observed when searching the Latinos and the black Americans only. Therefore, according to the judge, altering the policy is necessary and inevitable as this will stop propagation of the racial discrimination shown towards some races as well as ensure that stopping and frisking is based on justifiable suspicion (Tuttle and Maing, para 1-6).

Nevertheless, the ruling by judge Scheindlin that the police policy needs amendment has increasingly triggered discussions with various parties citing support towards the decision while yet others posing contrary opinions. For instance, the city officials are quoted to have held a different opinion and vowed to appeal the ruling holding that the policy has been very successful in cutting down crime rate within the city. In fact, Bloomberg (the city mayor) as well as Ray Kelly interpreted the judge’s order as disturbing and equally offensive.

The police boss claimed that the police are thoroughly trained on the matter of stop and frisk and thus refuted the proofing that it was done on discriminatory manner or without justifiable suspicion. The mayor on the other hand supported the program through statistical evidence that the tool had been applied effectively to control murder crimes up to about 50% since he took over the office (Hanna, para 1-10). With a vow on an appeal towards the ruling, much of an argument is expected with the city officials holding firm to their opinions that the program is timely and all efforts must be put towards observing it for the welfare of all the New York dwellers.

In the appeal, the officials are expected to justify their claims of effectiveness of the policy in controlling crimes and their postulation that judge Scheindlin lacks the technical capacity to understand the police profession ethics and guidelines (Pilutik, para 1-3). Socially, the majority of the victims to the discrimination caused by the policy, especially the minority blacks received the ruling with gratitude and relieve. They reasoned that the amendments would be very essential in saving them from the unfair treatment leveled against them by the police department in New York City.

Complaints from the people of color held the police department responsible for the formulation of the policy, which contravened the constitution in matters of equal treatment to all as well as frisking at justifiable suspicion. However, as the mayor and police boss reasoned, the amendment and subsequent stop of the policy would heighten cases of insecurity to all city dwellers. Security lapse within the city would have adverse effects in social economic aspects. In fact, according to a report by Pavlich, there is already a notable sharp rise in crime within the city, just a month after the ruling by the judge.

He quoted the New York Posting that the month recorded a 13% increase in shootings as well as a 17% rise in gun seizures since the ruling (Pavlich, para 1-4). In conclusion, the police department of the New York City has had great steps in crime management especially though the formulation and imposition of the policy on stop and frisk. The effects noted were in curtailing the free movement of weapons, which are associated with crime. However, a recent ruling by the court that the implementation of the program went against the constitution through targeting particular segments of the society and failing to observed suspicion policy has spark a heated debate.

Much is expected in the appeal case awaited from the New York officials who have vowed to appeal the ruling on amendment of the policy. Works cited Hanna J., “Judge rules NYC's stop-and-frisk policy unconstitutional; city vows appeal” 2013. para 1-10. Web. 2 October, 2013. < http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justice/new-york-stop-frisk/index.html> Pavlich K., “Crimes Involving Guns Up in NYC Since Judge Banned Stop and Frisk” 2013. para 1-4. 2 October, 2013. < http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/09/20/crimes-involving-guns-up-since-judge-banned-stop-and-frisk-n1705289> Pilutik S.

, “Frisk Assessment: Mayor Bloomberg’s efficiency arguments about stop-and-frisk are wrong, as well as irrelevant” 2013. para 1-3. Web. 2 October, 2013. < http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/08/new_york_s_stop_and_frisk_policy_is_neither_effective_nor_constitutional.html> Tuttle R. and Maing S., “Ending Stop-and-Frisk for Good” 2013. para 1-6. Web. 2 October, 2013.