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

What We're Following See More »
WORDS AND PICTURES
White House Looks Back on bin Laden Mission
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
NO BATTLE OVER SEATTLE
SCOTUS Won’t Hear Appeal of Minimum-Wage Law
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a sweeping constitutional challenge to Seattle’s minimum wage law, in what could have been a test case for future legal attacks on similar measures across the country. In a one-line order, the justices declined to hear a case by the International Franchise Association and a group of Seattle franchisees, which had said in court papers that the city’s gradual wage increase to $15 discriminates against them in a way that violates the Constitution’s commerce clause."

Source:
DOWN TO THE WIRE
Sanders Looks to Right the Ship in Indiana
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

Hillary Clinton may have the Democratic nomination sewn up, but Bernie Sanders apparently isn't buying it. Buoyed by a poll showing them in a "virtual tie," Sanders is "holding three rallies on the final day before the state primary and hoping to pull off a win after a tough week of election losses and campaign layoffs." 

Source:
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN JUNE
DC to Release Draft Constitution as Part of Statehood Push
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The New Columbia Statehood Commission—composed of five District leaders including Mayor Muriel Bowser, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and D.C.'s congressional delegation—voted today to publicly release a draft of a new constitution for an eventual state next Friday, at the Lincoln Cottage." It's the first step in a statehood push this year that will include a constitutional convention in June and a referendum in November.

Source:
ALZHEIMER’S OUTCRY
Will Ferrell Bails on Reagan Movie
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

Amid outcry by President Reagan's children, actor Will Ferrell has pulled out of a movie that makes light of Reagan's Alzheimer's disease. A spokesperson for Ferrell said, “The ‘Reagan’ script is one of a number of scripts that had been submitted to Will Ferrell which he had considered. While it is by no means an ‘Alzheimer’s comedy’ as has been suggested, Mr. Ferrell is not pursuing this project."

Source:
×