The stop, question and frisk program in New York is spearheaded by the Department of Police. It is a legal program established by the New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50. Arguably, the program was motivated and arose from the Supreme Court holding in Terry v. Ohio. The program gives a police officer the discretion to stop, question and frisk a person in the public precincts including the streets. The discretion is predicated on the fact that the police officer would exercise it (discretion) reasonably and devoid of any malice or self-aggrandisement. Whether the officers have leaved to this spirit, is partly the subject of this paper. In 2011 alone, six hundred and eighty four thousand people were stopped. Statistics also indicate that the number of total homicides in 2012 was four hundred and fourteen. However, this is considered the lowest figure of homicides recorded in the last forty years. Whether these results should be attributed, to the program remains debatable. However, they serve as a pointer of the likely success and inconveniences that the program is packaged with to the residents of New York City. It is illustrative to note that residents continue to question the relevance of the program and have raised contentious matters as to discrimination in the application of the law to the minority class of the citizenry and violation of their civil rights especially the right to privacy. This paper assumes a dual trajectory, essentially critiquing the stop, question and frisk program in the first limb, and then in the second limb, proposing a workable solution that would address the dual yet competing interests of keeping the levels of crime low and maintaining the happiness of the citizenry.
Pros
The main protagonists in the implementation of this program have been the police department. They have found an ally in the office of the mayor. The mayor has refused to heed to the demands of the citizenry to have the program suspended. Indeed, reports from the police department paint a good image of the program. Their assertions appear to justify the implementation and continued retention of the program. For instance, in the 2011 report, police reported that in every five searches, one led to discovery of criminal activity. In these cases, the culprits were either intending or were in the process of committing a crime. Police observe that the program plays a fundamental role in detection and prevention of crime. It enables detection of criminal activities through questioning and frisking. Police observe that officers relied on their instincts, general experience and subtle but essential observations in their interaction with the citizenry. The fact that in every five stops, one led to discovery of crime tells a lot about the effectiveness of the program. One needs only to ask how effective can the process be made to ensure the other four stops in the five stops are dispensed with caution.
In addition, the police assert that the early discovery of weaponry through searches contributed to the prevention of crime. In their eyes, they feel that in the absence of the stop, question and frisk program, the number of crimes committed would have been higher. Such assertions, though debatable, are supported by the fact that in 2012, the number of homicides recorded was lowest in the recent history of crime in the City of New York (Ferrandino, 2012).
Another reason advanced in support of the program relates to the preventive effect it has on criminals. Police have observed that criminals in fear of being impounded with contraband either wholly abandon or carry lesser quantities. The fact that police have the power to randomly frisk citizens exposes criminals to discoveries. To avert the crisis of being impounded, criminals have wisely thought against carrying excess or any contraband for that matter (Ridgeway, 2007). The police relate this trend to reduced criminal activities. Indeed, the police hold the opinion that crime can only be committed with the aid of facilitative weaponry. In the absence of weaponry, the criminal’s ability to perpetrate crime is effectively weakened and this leads to reduced criminal activities.
Finally, the police observe that the program facilitates the maintenance of safety within the city. In their opinion, the fact that citizens can be frisked upon reasonable suspicion creates a feeling of safety among the people. The feeling of safety when among strangers remains an essential component for every citizen in the city. Indeed, with the introduction of the program, citizens always feel safe with the presence of police officers around them. Their expectation usually is that police officers would apply their skills and knowledge in detecting and arresting criminals or potential criminals in the public (Ferrandino, 2012).
Outside the reasons advanced by the police, it remains imperative for one to appreciate the advantages that the program brings to the ordinary citizen in the city. The program enables police and law enforcement officers to overcome the legal barriers that have previously been used by criminals to evade prosecution on the ground of illegal searches. This is because the program has effectively complemented the need for search warrants by allowing for admission of evidence gathered even in the absence of search warrants (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2008). This, in my opinion, is a score for justice lovers. The program effectively defeats the enemies of justice who applied the illegal search defence to make otherwise relevant evidence inadmissible. Moreover, this program has significantly facilitated the performance of police officers through elimination of impediments in police action. Previously, police would be compelled to rely on legal channels and procedures before effecting action. The program allows the police to approach action with a hands-on attitude that eventually enables success.
Cons
While the implementation of the program has been greeted with support especially from the police department, two main antagonists have come out against the program. These two have assumed an activist approach. One group is the civil rights activists and the other is the anti-racist activists. Looking at statistics, the main culprits of the program have been the African Americans and to some extent Latino Americans. This has led to the emergence of the racism question which was thought to have been buried with the Luther King movements (Ridgeway, 2007). Critics have questioned why the police tend to exercise their discretion only on minority groups. Nonetheless, studies and statistics show that the minority groups and especially the African American lead in criminal activities. But activists argue that these should not be used to justify police decision to exercise discretion of stop, question and frisk on the African Americans generally. Critics argue that this amounts to not only discrimination based on colour, but also rubberstamps the fallacious stereotype that African Americans are criminals. The point on discrimination could also be seen as an affront to the constitution and, therefore, illegal by the spirit and the letter of the law.
The other critical concern relates to violation of civil rights. Indeed, the constitutional rights vest some freedoms and rights to the citizenry. The right to personal privacy remains fundamental to every citizen in New York City. The random stop, question and frisk program has been interpreted by many as a negation of the privacy right. In fact, critics insist that on that premise alone, the program should be declared unconstitutional and thus illegal. They have shaped the discourse to create a picture of the Police Department overseeing an attempt to infringe on privacy rights of citizens. These critics continue to press for the need for police to obtain search warrants or permits in that line (Ferrandino, 2012).
What the critics have succeeded in doing is to raise questions as to the legal, moral and political repercussions of the program. The legal questions bank on the fact that the program could be an affront to the constitutional rights of privacy. The moral question concerns the issues of racism and its attendant effect to the cosmopolitan society that is New York City. Finally, the political question relates to the legitimacy of the police department and even the office of the mayor in light of the effects of the implementation of the program (Ferrandino, 2012). One would observe this far, that the program though in good faith, needs adequate tuning to address the critical concerns raised by the critics.
Workable solution
Finally after encountering the literature in relation to the stop, question and frisk program, one may wonder whether other solutions could be applied in addressing the objectives of the former program. This part of the paper discusses a proposed solution that if implemented would address the dual and competing interests intimated about earlier. The overriding objective should be to contain crime in the city while retaining citizens’ privacy rights. In that light, a program on community policing would suffice. Community policing enables the police officers and other law enforcement officers to get information concerning crime without directly harassing suspected crimes (Gelman, Fagan, & Kiss, 2008). This is predicated on the fact that preparing and organizing for a crime usually entails phases that would easily let out one’s plans known by others within the community. Indeed, everyone appreciates that crime does not occur in a vacuum, one has to prepare and organize to commit a crime. If the community members within the City of New York were educated and informed on the essence of reporting and discoursing criminal activities, the levels of crimes in the city would substantially reduce. Criminals get motivated when their activities are supported or hidden by community members. In the event that they fail to get this support, they soon feel isolated and misfits within the society. This feeling could provide requisite pressure that contributes to quitting crime. In addition, criminals need weaponry for the crime. Effective community policing would do away with the web and supply chain. This elimination, forward and backwards, effectively solves the crime problem as compared to frisking which targets the final user of the weapon rather than the parties that make the entire web. In conclusion, therefore, the program would effectively balance the two competing interests.
References
Ferrandino, J. (2012, November). The Efficiency of Frisks in the NYPD, 2004–2010. Criminal Justice Review, 10-32.
Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A. (2008). An Analysis of the New York City Police Department’s “Stop-and-Frisk” Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(2), 813-823.
Ridgeway, G. (2007). Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police Department’s Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices. New York City Police Foundation, 1-52.
