A study published earlier this year found police were up to 28 percent more likely to use stop-and-search powers against black people than white. New York police’s use of stop-and-frisk has been a hallmark of outgoing mayor Michael Bloomberg’s battle against crime – which has fallen more than 30 per cent during his three terms in office – but has led to lawsuits and growing anger among minorities. The report by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman analysed 150,000 arrests resulting from 2.4million stops between 2009 and 2012, and found 51 per cent of the arrests led to convictions or guilty pleas.
The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to conduct searches of persons based on reasonable reportable suspicion, as determined by Terry v. Ohio in 1968 where supreme court decisions determined that individuals can be searched not only for probable cause (where an individual is under suspicion of committing a specific crime) but also for reasonable suspicion (where an individual is thought to be taking part in of have taken part of a crime, using facts and beliefs at hand which a reasonable inferences can be drawn from). The officer cannot manipulate objects not believed to be weapons in order to determine if they are other illegal substances (Minnesota v. Dickerson). Additionally the police need to notice something in your actions that makes you suspicious (Rogers v. Arizona). The police cannot stop a person because of race, gender etc. When police are conducting an investigation, you have to cooperate with them or you might be arrested. (Hiibu vs. Nevada). Since Rudolph William Giuliani as NYC’s Mayor term, Stop and frisk has been an NYPD tool, but in recent years it has generated an increased amount of criticism and debate due to the alarming rate in which they occur communities of color, who often feel threatened and harassed by the police. According to the annual NYC Police annual crime reports, Violent crimes in New York have decreased...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document