The stop and frisk policy aroused debate in the US on whether the Fourth Amendment prevents it or not. The new amendment to the constitution gives protection from unreasonable frisks as well as confiscations (MacFarlane, 2018). Additionally, it states that a person has the right to consent to be searched after being informed of the reasons for the frisk. Before the court ruling of Terry v. Ohio 1968, the policy of stopping and frisking citizens was illegal. However, the case led to the legalization of stop and frisk (MacFarlane, 2018). This paper discusses the Terry v. Ohio supreme ruling, which resulted in stop and search regulation.
Terry V/s Ohio 1968 Policy
After the legalization, the court of law required to describe what instituted a stop and frisk because the policy contradicted the regulations of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court explained that the stop and search regulation fell under the Fourth Amendment’s purview. However, the court permitted officers to stop and search when they perceived unusual behavior leading them to reasonably conclude that the suspect was dangerous to the officer and other people (MacFarlane, 2018). Further, the search was permitted in the officer had prior knowledge that the suspect owned a weapon.
The law allowed a frisk only when the officer suspected the suspect was carrying a weapon likely to be used in criminal activity. However, the officers were not required to use unnecessary force, especially when the suspected person was not resisting (Sutton, 2021). The policy also required that after realizing the person did not have a dangerous item, the law enforcer was not allowed to continue with more searches.
The court explained that the law was supposed to reduce crime rates in dangerous areas. Terry’s case had a high crime rate, especially murder through shooting. The Supreme Court ruling aimed at reducing criminal activities, particularly murder and shooting in high-crime areas. The court had good intentions to prevent citizens from carrying weapons, drugs, and other contraband in public and reduce crime in New York City (Sutton, 2021). However, the policy became and still is the most controversial and debated regulation in the country.
The Controversy of Terry V/s Ohio Policy
The citizens argue that law enforcement uses more than the required force while enforcing this policy. There has been a media sensation on officers harassing people while frisking them for weapons (Sherman & Kumar, 2021). Americans have complained that police violated their right by invoking the fourth amendment, which requires being informed before one can be searched. On the other hand, the NYPD claim that they have not used this regulation to harass Americans, but it has only been used in critical situations (Sherman & Kumar, 2021). The above debate is far from over, especially with recent cases such as the one for George Floyd, who died in the hands of officers.
The NYPD Stop and Frisk policy also faced the racial bias claim. Though the people of color are the minority in New York City, statistics show that above 85% of all stop and frisk cases involved blacks and Latinos (Levchak, 2021). Specifically, a survey conducted between 2003–2019 focusing on the NYPD record shows that officers did over five million stops, and roughly 90% of the cases involved black or Latino individuals (Levchak, 2021). The Data indicate that the policy seems to target persons of color disproportionately. The NYPD has not been able to explain these facts and show why a large number of people stopped and searched were those of color in a population dominated by whites. Therefore, people of color continue to fight for their rights primarily by recording the search incidences and sending them through social media platforms. The claim that the policy targets people of color spread from New York City to other counties, becoming a national concern.
There is also the controversy of the police stopping innocent people suspected of having a weapon or other contraband items. Data indicate that a good number of stop and frisk cases resulted in the suspect not being guilty. Nearly 8 out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been entirely innocent (Sherman & Kumar, 2021). The data indicate that though this clause requires police to use their training and experience in detecting the degree of danger the suspect poses, it is clear the officers are wrong in most cases. The above-mentioned raises the question of whether the NYPD can implement this regulation without violating the rights of the citizens.
New Yorkers have also criticized this policy, citing that police were arresting innocent people and putting contrabands like drugs and guns on them to add to statistics of reduced crime rates. There have been conflicts between the law enforcers and people arrested by the stop and frisk policy, with the majority arguing that the evidence was put on them by officers. However, police claim this policy has greatly helped prosecute drug dealers and other criminals who can never agree that they were caught with drugs (Stack, 2018). Before the regulation, the police had to acquire the consent of the suspect, which drug dealers would not give willingly.
The Benefits of Terry V/s Ohio Policy
The NYPD reports show that the law has contributed mainly to reducing homicide. In 1990, New York City experienced approximately 2,200 homicides committed on the streets by armed individuals. Twenty-plus years later, while enforcing the stop and frisk rule, the number reduced to around 350 murders (Stack, 2018). The police department argued that stopping and searching resulted in recovering weapons that would have been used in crimes and murder. Additionally, the law enforcers have helped arrest suspects that may have committed the above offenses, hence the crime reduction.
Furthermore, the policy pushed drug dealers and users out of the streets by ensuring that those selling and taking drugs outside were frisked and arrested when found with the substances. The above-stated also slowed the movement of drugs in the streets, which was a big blow to drug cartels (Vito et al., 2021). Not only did the change make public areas more accommodating to law-abiding citizens, but it rendered them safe and secure by decreasing the incidents of drive-by targets on the streets as well (MacFarlane, 2018). Similarly, by confiscating and deterring the handling of concealed firearms, the security forces helped stop numerous physical altercations from escalating into gun violence or stabbings.
The policy encourages police officers to stop crimes before they happen instead of waiting to respond to crime scenes. Preventing criminal activities is a better strategy law enforcement can use to create safe societies. It is better to thwart a murder than wait until someone has lost their life and arrest the suspect. The above stated explains the essentiality of stop and frisk because it helps save lives.
Conclusion
The studies have shown that as much as the Terry law creates controversy in society, it is very beneficial in reducing crime and dealing with street drug dealers. As much as the citizens criticize the policy, there is statistical evidence to indicate that crime has drastically declined due to the implementation of this regulation. Though people would like to invoke the fourth amendment when they are stopped for a search and frisk, the modification can prevent law enforcers from preventing criminality that may be about to happen. The above gap is what the Terry policy intended to cover.
Since the law is essential in creating safe communities and allowing law-abiding citizens to enjoy their freedom peacefully, it narrows down to the execution part of the law. Many people have complained that police use unnecessary force, which is harassment. People have also argued that the police were biased, focusing more on people of color.
The notion of harassment and discrimination can be corrected by the NYPD training their police officers on handling the suspect. Additionally, the law enforcers can use a body camera to record all the incidences to ensure that there is evidence to correct the perspective that the law targets a particular race. Using a body camera can also handle the allegations that police use frisk and search to plant evidence on suspects. The NYPD should also suspend all the officers associated with harassment and framing of innocent people to ensure that their department is not corrupt and biased in executing their mandates. With proper management, the NYPD can convince the citizens that stopping and frisking are not harmful but helpful to society.
References
Levchak, P. J. (2021). Stop-and-frisk in New York City: Estimating racial disparities in post-stop outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, 101784.
MacFarlane, K. (2018). Introduction: Terry v. Ohio at 50: The Past, Present, & Future of Stop and Frisk. Idaho Law Review, 54.
Sherman, L. W., & Kumar, S. (2021). Equal protection by race with stop and frisk: A Risk-Adjusted Disparity (RAD) Index for balanced policing. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 5(1), 1-19.
Stack, T. (2018). Racial biases within stop and frisk: The product of inherently flawed judicial precedent. Ramapo Journal of Law and Society, 4(1), 16-17. Web.
Sutton, N. C. (2021). Lockstepping through Stop-and-Frisk: A Call to Independently Assess Terry v. Ohio under State Law. Va. L. Rev., 107, 639.
Vito, A., Higgins, G., & Vito, G. (2021). Police Stop and Frisk and the Impact of Race: A Focal Concerns Theory Approach. Social Sciences, 10(6), 230.