The Shake Down:
An Overview of the Stop and Frisk Policy in New York City
In 2011, a record 684,330 people were stopped, questioned, and searched by the NYPD. Of those stopped in 2011, only 1.9% were found with a weapon in their possession. This is an alarming statistic! New York City citizens were indignant then, and they still are now.
The stop and frisk policy was put in place with the intent that it would make New York City a better and safer place, but that failed-- severely. Stop and frisk has evolved from an innocent way to improve the community to a controversial tactic used by powerful government leaders to manipulate the citizens of New York City.
The New York Police Department enacted the “stop and frisk” policy shortly after the attacks on 9/11. NYPD’s definition of stop and frisk according to Olivia B. Waxman’s article, “Here’s How Stop-and-Frisk Laws Got Their Start” (2016), is the stopping, questioning, and/or searching of a person in a public place, but only if the police officer "reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor" (Waxman). Sounds pretty simple, right? The way the NYPD has defined the stop and frisk policy, it seems like a smart move; however, it is extremely hard to control every single stop, police officer, and citizen. There are multiple ways one stop and frisk could go wrong.
The Black and Hispanic communities-- along with many white communities-- in New York City, feeling jeopardized, have responded negatively to the stop and frisk policy by protesting and even bringing the matter to court. These communities feel targeted. They feel threatened. The feel vulnerable. They felt exposed.
Those against stop and frisk believe that the entire policy is unconstitutional and racially profiling the citizens of New York City. The stop and frisk policy is also an invasion of the citizen’s privacy. Even people who have nothing to hide are worried because the NYPD can pick anyone on the street with the smallest amount of suspicion. Think about it. Everyone looks suspicious on the street; they are strangers. Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin calls stop and frisk “indirect racial profiling” (Waxman). Scheindlin has a front row seat in the public’s response to stop and frisk. She agrees that the policy is unconstitutional and she is against the policy altogether.
If some members of the government do not agree with the policy, how do the citizens feel about the NYPD? The citizens of New York City are starting to lose trust in the NYPD. The public is supposed to rely on the police to keep them safe, but stop and frisk is being overused. If stop and frisk is truly unconstitutional and disliked by the public, then why is it still around?
Statistics show a dramatic drop in crime starting during Mayor Dinkins’ period as mayor of New York City-- 1990-1993. The drop in crime became steeper during Mayor Giuliani’s time as mayor-- 1994-2001. Eventually, it started to drop at a steadier rate towards the end of Giuliani’s term, around the time of 9/11, and at the beginning of Mayor Bloomberg’s session-- 2002-2013. What does the recent drop in crime in New York City have to do with the evolution of stop and frisk?
The statistics are what is keeping stop and frisk around: the drop in crime. Many claim that stop and frisk is the reason for the drop in crime. “The Facts About Stop-and-Frisk in New York City,” written by Philip Bump, states that Mayor “Giuliani's claim that he deserves credit for New York's crime rate is also overblown. The plunge had begun before he took office, in parallel with a sharp national drop in crime levels. It continued after he left” (Bump). Mayor Giuliani’s term was from 1994 to 2001, and the drop in crime in New York City started around 1992. The stop and frisk policy was put in place during the beginning of Mayor Bloomberg’s term in 2002.
The FBI’s data on crime rates, from 1990 to 2015, compared to the recorded amount of stop and frisks throughout the years and each mayor’s term, shows that there is simply no correlation between stop and frisk, the recent drop in crime in the city, and the mayors in office at the time.
Enter Trump. The current president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is a supporter of stop and frisk. Everyone knows that Trump has big plans. Trump has strong opinions. Trump is relentless. In other words, if Donald Trump wants something, he gets it; if he says something, he sticks with it.
Stop and frisk was a topic in the 2016 presidential debate. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were at opposite ends about the topic of the stop and frisk policy. When stop and frisk ended around 2011, there was a small spike in the crime rates; however, that only lasted less than a year. Crime and homicides (murders) are now going down at a steady rate. During the presidential debate, Trump completely ignores the statistics and claims that murders in New York City are up because stop and frisk has, well, stopped. He is wrong in many ways. First of all, the murders barely ever went up after the spike in 2011. Secondly, stop and frisk was never terminated entirely; it just slowed down. Trump also claims that stop and frisk was terminated by the recent mayor, Mayor de Blasio, which is not true. Jim Dwyer’s article in the New York Times (2016), “What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk,” provides substantial and reliable evidence explaining Trump’s connection and thoughts on stop and frisk. In 2015, “the city police conducted 22,939 stops, or about 63 a day. So stop-and-frisk was not terminated by Mr. de Blasio, or by anyone else for that matter. It’s true that the use of the tactic has declined” (Dwyer). From my perspective, it seems as if Trump only likes stop and frisk because it gives him more access to the citizens of New York City. Simply put, it gives him power over the people.
There are a plethora of people who agree and disagree with Trump and his “obsession” with stop and frisk.
Trump, on the other hand, as you know, wants stop and frisk to continue. Trump considers stop and frisk a way to decrease crime in cities. On a television show, “Fox and Friends,” Trump responded to criticism from earlier when he suggested that stop and frisk should be used nationwide by saying, “Chicago is out of control, and I was really referring to Chicago with stop-and-frisk.” Trump is referring to the high crime rates in Chicago. Although Jeremy Gorner’s article, “Trump Urges Stop-and-Frisk for Chicago, a Practice Attacked as Racial Profiling,” 2016, Chicago Tribune enlightens readers that “in Chicago, police have used a similar practice for years, stopping people they deem suspicious and questioning them, sometimes patting them down” (Gorner). This might be the reason why Chicago has such a high crime rate-- people are rebelling.
Trump has many plans for the stop and frisk policy, but luckily there are judges and people in Congress who are on “the people’s side” of this controversial policy.
I wonder why stop and frisk is still around. It is unquestionably controversial and unconstitutional and does not seem to have any correlation to drops in crime. Stop and frisk has caused the people to be afraid of those who are supposed to protect them-- the NYPD. There is so much wrong with stop and frisk: it’s unconstitutional, it’s racially profiling, it’s uselessness, etc.. I think that the NYPD should use the mistakes of stop and frisk and make an improved, constitutional version of the policy.
Starting as a loose idea used by police all over the United States, stop and frisk has evolved immensely. Eventually, the stop and frisk idea became a policy disliked by many. After it was enacted, stop and frisk was the bumpy road that everyone dreaded going on. There is so much wrong about stop and frisk that was meant to be helpful. It is now used more as a political power than a way to improve a community. The issue is discussed not only in New York City, but all over the United States. Big cities all around the United States are worried that stop and frisk will be applied by Trump in their communities. Take Los Angeles for example. It is a place that small town people dream of going to become famous, but that could change with the stop and frisk policy. It hits close to home for a lot of people. The policy has been protested, dwindled, ascended, and manipulated. Meant to be a way to make New York City a safer place, the stop and frisk policy has been used as an addition to the government’s power over the people.
The New York Police Department enacted the “stop and frisk” policy shortly after the attacks on 9/11. NYPD’s definition of stop and frisk according to Olivia B. Waxman’s article, “Here’s How Stop-and-Frisk Laws Got Their Start” (2016), is the stopping, questioning, and/or searching of a person in a public place, but only if the police officer "reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor" (Waxman). Sounds pretty simple, right? The way the NYPD has defined the stop and frisk policy, it seems like a smart move; however, it is extremely hard to control every single stop, police officer, and citizen. There are multiple ways one stop and frisk could go wrong.
The Black and Hispanic communities-- along with many white communities-- in New York City, feeling jeopardized, have responded negatively to the stop and frisk policy by protesting and even bringing the matter to court. These communities feel targeted. They feel threatened. The feel vulnerable. They felt exposed.
Those against stop and frisk believe that the entire policy is unconstitutional and racially profiling the citizens of New York City. The stop and frisk policy is also an invasion of the citizen’s privacy. Even people who have nothing to hide are worried because the NYPD can pick anyone on the street with the smallest amount of suspicion. Think about it. Everyone looks suspicious on the street; they are strangers. Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin calls stop and frisk “indirect racial profiling” (Waxman). Scheindlin has a front row seat in the public’s response to stop and frisk. She agrees that the policy is unconstitutional and she is against the policy altogether.
If some members of the government do not agree with the policy, how do the citizens feel about the NYPD? The citizens of New York City are starting to lose trust in the NYPD. The public is supposed to rely on the police to keep them safe, but stop and frisk is being overused. If stop and frisk is truly unconstitutional and disliked by the public, then why is it still around?
Statistics show a dramatic drop in crime starting during Mayor Dinkins’ period as mayor of New York City-- 1990-1993. The drop in crime became steeper during Mayor Giuliani’s time as mayor-- 1994-2001. Eventually, it started to drop at a steadier rate towards the end of Giuliani’s term, around the time of 9/11, and at the beginning of Mayor Bloomberg’s session-- 2002-2013. What does the recent drop in crime in New York City have to do with the evolution of stop and frisk?
The statistics are what is keeping stop and frisk around: the drop in crime. Many claim that stop and frisk is the reason for the drop in crime. “The Facts About Stop-and-Frisk in New York City,” written by Philip Bump, states that Mayor “Giuliani's claim that he deserves credit for New York's crime rate is also overblown. The plunge had begun before he took office, in parallel with a sharp national drop in crime levels. It continued after he left” (Bump). Mayor Giuliani’s term was from 1994 to 2001, and the drop in crime in New York City started around 1992. The stop and frisk policy was put in place during the beginning of Mayor Bloomberg’s term in 2002.
The FBI’s data on crime rates, from 1990 to 2015, compared to the recorded amount of stop and frisks throughout the years and each mayor’s term, shows that there is simply no correlation between stop and frisk, the recent drop in crime in the city, and the mayors in office at the time.
Enter Trump. The current president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, is a supporter of stop and frisk. Everyone knows that Trump has big plans. Trump has strong opinions. Trump is relentless. In other words, if Donald Trump wants something, he gets it; if he says something, he sticks with it.
Stop and frisk was a topic in the 2016 presidential debate. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were at opposite ends about the topic of the stop and frisk policy. When stop and frisk ended around 2011, there was a small spike in the crime rates; however, that only lasted less than a year. Crime and homicides (murders) are now going down at a steady rate. During the presidential debate, Trump completely ignores the statistics and claims that murders in New York City are up because stop and frisk has, well, stopped. He is wrong in many ways. First of all, the murders barely ever went up after the spike in 2011. Secondly, stop and frisk was never terminated entirely; it just slowed down. Trump also claims that stop and frisk was terminated by the recent mayor, Mayor de Blasio, which is not true. Jim Dwyer’s article in the New York Times (2016), “What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk,” provides substantial and reliable evidence explaining Trump’s connection and thoughts on stop and frisk. In 2015, “the city police conducted 22,939 stops, or about 63 a day. So stop-and-frisk was not terminated by Mr. de Blasio, or by anyone else for that matter. It’s true that the use of the tactic has declined” (Dwyer). From my perspective, it seems as if Trump only likes stop and frisk because it gives him more access to the citizens of New York City. Simply put, it gives him power over the people.
There are a plethora of people who agree and disagree with Trump and his “obsession” with stop and frisk.
Trump, on the other hand, as you know, wants stop and frisk to continue. Trump considers stop and frisk a way to decrease crime in cities. On a television show, “Fox and Friends,” Trump responded to criticism from earlier when he suggested that stop and frisk should be used nationwide by saying, “Chicago is out of control, and I was really referring to Chicago with stop-and-frisk.” Trump is referring to the high crime rates in Chicago. Although Jeremy Gorner’s article, “Trump Urges Stop-and-Frisk for Chicago, a Practice Attacked as Racial Profiling,” 2016, Chicago Tribune enlightens readers that “in Chicago, police have used a similar practice for years, stopping people they deem suspicious and questioning them, sometimes patting them down” (Gorner). This might be the reason why Chicago has such a high crime rate-- people are rebelling.
Trump has many plans for the stop and frisk policy, but luckily there are judges and people in Congress who are on “the people’s side” of this controversial policy.
I wonder why stop and frisk is still around. It is unquestionably controversial and unconstitutional and does not seem to have any correlation to drops in crime. Stop and frisk has caused the people to be afraid of those who are supposed to protect them-- the NYPD. There is so much wrong with stop and frisk: it’s unconstitutional, it’s racially profiling, it’s uselessness, etc.. I think that the NYPD should use the mistakes of stop and frisk and make an improved, constitutional version of the policy.
Starting as a loose idea used by police all over the United States, stop and frisk has evolved immensely. Eventually, the stop and frisk idea became a policy disliked by many. After it was enacted, stop and frisk was the bumpy road that everyone dreaded going on. There is so much wrong about stop and frisk that was meant to be helpful. It is now used more as a political power than a way to improve a community. The issue is discussed not only in New York City, but all over the United States. Big cities all around the United States are worried that stop and frisk will be applied by Trump in their communities. Take Los Angeles for example. It is a place that small town people dream of going to become famous, but that could change with the stop and frisk policy. It hits close to home for a lot of people. The policy has been protested, dwindled, ascended, and manipulated. Meant to be a way to make New York City a safer place, the stop and frisk policy has been used as an addition to the government’s power over the people.
Works Cited
Bump, Philip. "The Facts about Stop-and-frisk in New York City." The Washington Post. WP
Company, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017.
Dwyer, Jim. "What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
Gorner, Jeremy, and Tribune Wire Reports. "Trump urges stop-and-frisk for Chicago, a
practice attacked as racial profiling." Chicago Tribune. Associated Press, 22 Sept. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.
Naspretto, Ernie. "The Real History of Stop-and-frisk ." NY Daily News. n.d., 3 June 2012.
Web. 23 Feb. 2017.
Waxman, Olivia. "Donald Trump and Stop and Frisk: How Stop and Frisk Started." Time.
Time, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.
Bump, Philip. "The Facts about Stop-and-frisk in New York City." The Washington Post. WP
Company, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2017.
Dwyer, Jim. "What Donald Trump Got Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 19 Mar. 2017.
Gorner, Jeremy, and Tribune Wire Reports. "Trump urges stop-and-frisk for Chicago, a
practice attacked as racial profiling." Chicago Tribune. Associated Press, 22 Sept. 2016. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.
Naspretto, Ernie. "The Real History of Stop-and-frisk ." NY Daily News. n.d., 3 June 2012.
Web. 23 Feb. 2017.
Waxman, Olivia. "Donald Trump and Stop and Frisk: How Stop and Frisk Started." Time.
Time, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.