Why ‘Stop and Frisk’ Was Ruled Unconstitutional

The Rev. Al Sharpton, center, walks with demonstrators during a silent march to end the "stop-and-frisk" program in New York, Sunday, June 17, 2012.
National Journal
Brian Resnick
Aug. 12, 2013, 7:56 a.m.

A U.S. Dis­trict Court judge has ruled that New York’s con­tro­ver­sial prac­tice of “stop and frisk” is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, on grounds that it un­fairly singles out ra­cial groups.

The policy al­lows po­lice of­ficers to stop, ques­tion, and pos­sibly search a per­son if the of­ficer has sus­pi­cions that per­son has or may com­mit a crime. The policy was in­voked 4.4 mil­lion times between 2004 and 2012, ac­cord­ing to the judge’s rul­ing. And it has been ef­fect­ive. The At­lantic re­cently re­por­ted that “in 2011, 770 guns were re­covered across New York dur­ing frisks. That amounts to a 30 per­cent in­crease over 2003, when 594 guns were re­covered.”

But here’s what has raised eye­brows, and promp­ted the lit­ig­a­tion: In that 2004-2012 time frame, 80 per­cent of those stopped in New York City were black or His­pan­ic. In 2010, blacks and His­pan­ics made up about 50 per­cent of the city’s pop­u­la­tion. 

U.S. Dis­trict Judge Shira Scheind­lin put it in no un­clear terms as to why the pro­gram should be ree­valu­ated. Re­gard­less of how well the policy works, she wrote in an opin­ion Monday, it vi­ol­ates con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tions. The de­cision, in all, is 195 pages long, but the fol­low­ing pas­sage sums up the sen­ti­ment:

It is im­port­ant to re­cog­nize the hu­man toll of un­con­sti­tu­tion­al stops. While it is true that any one stop is a lim­ited in­tru­sion in dur­a­tion and depriva­tion of liberty, each stop is also a de­mean­ing and hu­mi­li­at­ing ex­per­i­ence. No one should live in fear of be­ing stopped whenev­er he leaves his home to go about the activ­it­ies of daily life. Those who are routinely sub­jec­ted to stops are over­whelm­ingly people of col­or, and they are jus­ti­fi­ably troubled to be singled out when many of them have done noth­ing to at­tract the un­wanted at­ten­tion. Some plaintiffs test­i­fied that stops make them feel un­wel­come in some parts of the city, and dis­trust­ful of the po­lice. This ali­en­a­tion can­not be good for the po­lice, the com­munity, or its lead­er. Fos­ter­ing trust and con­fid­ence between the po­lice and the com­munity would be an im­prove­ment for every­one.

In Ju­ly, New York Po­lice Com­mis­sion­er Ray Kelly took to the Wall Street Journ­al op-ed pages to de­fend the pro­gram, point­ing to how murders are down 29 per­cent over last year, which had the low­est rates in half a cen­tury. He called the ra­cial-pro­fil­ing charges against the po­lice force “disin­genu­ous,” cit­ing how the re­duc­tion in crime has the greatest pos­it­ive im­pact on minor­ity com­munit­ies.

But Scheind­lin didn’t care that the pro­gram was ef­fect­ive. After all, she reasoned, it would be a lot easi­er to cap­ture crim­in­als if po­lice routinely re­sor­ted to il­leg­al means.

I em­phas­ize at the out­set, as I have throughout the lit­ig­a­tion, that this case is not about the ef­fect­ive­ness of stop and frisk in de­ter­ring or com­bat­ing crime. This Court’s man­date is solely to judge the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of po­lice be­ha­vi­or, not its ef­fect­ive­ness as a law-en­force­ment tool. Many po­lice prac­tices may be use­ful for fight­ing crime — pre­vent­at­ive de­ten­tion or co­erced con­fes­sions, for ex­ample — but be­cause they are un­con­sti­tu­tion­al they can­not be used, no mat­ter how ef­fect­ive.

Along with the rul­ing came some “rem­ed­ies” for what ails stop and frisk. Scheind­lin ordered a pi­lot pro­gram for of­ficers to wear cam­er­as to mon­it­or their in­ter­ac­tions with oth­ers, and com­munity meet­ings centered around re­forms.

May­or Mi­chael Bloomberg

MOST READ
What We're Following See More »
FIRST WOMAN NOMINATED BY MAJOR PARTY
Hillary Clinton Accepts the Democratic Nomination for President
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"It is with humility, determination, and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president," said Hillary Clinton in becoming the first woman to accept a nomination for president from a major party. Clinton gave a wide-ranging address, both criticizing Donald Trump and speaking of what she has done in the past and hopes to do in the future. "He's taken the Republican party a long way, from morning in America to midnight in America," Clinton said of Trump. However, most of her speech focused instead on the work she has done and the work she hopes to do as president. "I will be a president of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. For the struggling, the striving, the successful," she said. "For those who vote for me and for those who don't. For all Americans together."

COUNTER-CHANTS AT THE READY
Protesters Make Good on Threat to Disrupt Speech
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

Supporters of Bernie Sanders promised to walk out, turn their backs, or disrupt Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, and they made good immediately, with an outburst almost as soon as Clinton began her speech. But her supporters, armed with a handy counter-chant cheat sheet distributed by the campaign, immediately began drowning them out with chants of "Hillary, Hillary!"

SUFFOLK POLL
New Survey Shows Clinton Up 9 in Pennsylvania
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

If a new poll is to be believed, Hillary Clinton has a big lead in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania. A new Suffolk University survey shows her ahead of Donald Trump, 50%-41%. In a four-way race, she maintains her nine-point lead, 46%-37%. "Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections, going back to Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992. Yet it is a rust belt state that could be in play, as indicated by recent general-election polling showing a close race."

Source:
THREE NIGHTS RUNNING
Democrats Beat Republicans in Convention Ratings So Far
14 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Wednesday was the third night in a row that the Democratic convention enjoyed a ratings win over the Republican convention last week. Which might have prompted a fundraising email from Donald Trump exhorting supporters not to watch. "Unless you want to be lied to, belittled, and attacked for your beliefs, don't watch Hillary's DNC speech tonight," the email read. "Instead, help Donald Trump hold her accountable, call out her lies and fight back against her nasty attacks."

Source:
SHIFT FROM ROMNEY’S NUMBERS
Catholics, Highly Educated Moving Toward Dems
18 hours ago
THE LATEST

Catholics who attend mass at least weekly have increased their support of the Democratic nominee by 22 points, relative to 2012, when devout Catholics backed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, a Morning Consult poll shows that those voters with advanced degrees prefer Hillary Clinton, 51%-34%. Which, we suppose, makes the ideal Clinton voter a Catholic with a PhD in divinity.

×