Implementation of the Stop and Frisk Policy by Law Enforcement Officers - Article Example

The stop-and-frisk policy is a procedure applied by the police and involves the police stopping or detaining pedestrians while searching them and asking questions. This happens when the police suspect that the pedestrians might be committing, planning to commit, or have committed any crime, like murder or possession of drugs. When frisking, police officers often look for weapons like guns, knives, etc, and any other contraband like illegal drugs. There has been public outcry about how the police carry out this procedure, especially when they target a specific race more than the rest. To emphasize the impact of this stop-and-frisk policy, we will look at some of the publications and studies on this issue, their results, and their findings. 

Research has shown that from the beginning of the year 2002, the New York Police Department, (NYPD), has taken off the streets thousands of weapons (Coates, 2013). This has seen a tremendous reduction in the rate of crimes, which directly relates to the number of lives and properties saved. Before the introduction of this policy, New York had 13,212 murders. After Mayor Bloomberg took office and introduced the stop-and-frisk policy, the deaths were reduced to an astonishing 5,849. As a result, this policy is supported and immensely defended by Ray Kelly on the Wall Street pages. Stop and Frisk is not just for weapons, but also for contraband like illegal drugs. Ray Kelly thwarted claims of racial and minority discrimination, claiming that a larger number of minorities were stopped and frisked than the whites yet their population is relatively lower than those of whites in New York City. New York’s statistics on population by race show that there are 12,740,974 whites making up 65%, and 3,073,800 making up 15% of the population as of 2012 (Coates, 2013).

Not everybody has welcomed the stop-and-frisk policy implementation. Bill de Blasio is a public advocate in the city of New York, known for his campaigns to reform the stop-and-frisk policy. In achieving this, he ordered mayor Bloomberg to reduce the number of unnecessary and unwarranted stops of individuals. This directive led to the introduction of the use of Comp Stat, which assisted in tracking stops that were unwarranted so that officers responsible for them are accountable for their actions (Coates, 2013). Moreover, Bill de Blasio is the current Mayor of New York City as of November 2013. The public advocate warned that this ‘out of control stop and frisk policy would create a rift between the police and the community, a fact that would make New York less safe’ (Blasio, 2012). He proposed a number of ways that could help reduce the out-of-control stops and frisks, which include misuse and abuse by law enforcement officers. The proposed solutions included holding commanding officers accountable for bad stops, reducing the level of force used by the officers, giving the children a chance, and embracing community policing. The public advocate mentioned the presence of a certain level of racial discrimination in the police department. He, however, acknowledged that the men in uniform have significantly dealt with crimes, and are serving the country well.

According to the NYPD Stop, Question, and Frisk Report Database, the stop-and-frisk policy came into play after the Tyler versus Ohio case. Before that, the police service only needed to have probable cause to search for someone. It clearly stipulated that an officer had to point out the facts that lead him or her to search a person. In addition, the facts must suggest that the person was armed or dangerous. The frisk is also supposed to be only limited to outer clothing for purpose of finding a weapon. It also estimates the percentage of the blacks and Hispanics frisked as roughly equal to that of the whites.

Most citizens perceived a number of police searches as illegitimate (Jones et. al., 2010). This is because to them, the police continuously harass them and stop them unnecessarily. They have also claimed racial discrimination during such stops. This contradicts the law which points out that the search should be warranted and with probable cause. From the research conducted and reported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), it was observed that the majority of the public was satisfied with the stop-and-frisk policy as long as it was well carried out (Gallagher et. al., 2001). Specifically, they prefer that the police provide them with a sound reason for the stop and frisk process and treat them politely. They also appreciate the stop if it is brief and does not make them feel targeted unfairly. Racial discrimination during the stop and frisk process by the police increased after the September 11 terror attacks in Washington D.C and New York City (Gallagher et. al., 2001).