Describe one argument that supports “stop and frisk” policies.

Describe one argument that supports “stop and frisk” policies.

Crime in our major cities have become overwhelming for our police departments and new crime fighting tactics must be employed to bring violent crime under control.  Many major cities in all 50 states across the country have some sort of “stop and frisk” statute.  In Baltimore Maryland, it is called “Investigative stops.”  Stop and frisk laws has lowered crime in many cities across the country.  “In 1990, New York had 527,257 victims of “serious crimes.” In 2011, there were 106,064. Murders dropped in that period from 2,262 to 504” (Smith, 2012).  In my book, these are numbers that work.  In 1968, the Supreme Court case “Terry v. Ohio” upheld a stop and frisk search conducted by a plainclothes police officer who observed three men who he believed were preparing to rob a store.  From the actions being carried out by the men, the officer believed a robbery was about to happen.  Under the “probable cause act”, the office stop the three men finding a gun on one.  

Describe one argument that opposes “stop and frisk” policies.  

Judge “Shira Scheindlin” a “United State Court Judge ruled that New York controversial practice of “stop and frisk” is unconstitutional, on the grounds that it unfairly singles out racial groups” (Resnick, 2015). In New York, there is evidence that crime decreased over a period of time.  However, there has not been any real research that can back up whether or not stop and frisk was the cause of the decrease in violent crime.  Crime actually stop and increase during certain periods without warning. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, “Guns are found in less than 0.2 percent of stops. That is an unbelievably poor yield rate for such an intrusive, wasteful and humiliating police action. Yet, stop-and-frisk has increased more than 600 percent under Bloomberg and Kelly. And the rate of finding guns is worsening as the NYPD stops more innocent people each year” (Stop and Frisk Facts).   If these numbers are to represent the continuation of the stop and frisk program, the program could be considered a failure.

Explain which argument is the most constitutionally sound. Why?

The “Fourth Amendment” provide protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The Constitution does not explicitly cover stop and frisk laws, but it does promote the use of “Probable Cause.” Although probable cause is spelled out in the Constitution, it is still a gray area as what is a probable cause to one officer may not be to another officer.  This is where the problem arise with stop and frisk in my opinion.  It is true that police unfairly signal out people of color to stop and frisk and this is due to years of stereotyping by unprofessional police officers and this practice is not the practice of all officers. However, in the inner cities, crimes is running rampant primarily within the projects and red light districts areas. This is not to say other parts of the cities do not have crime.  Given my personal knowledge of how stop and frisk and probable cause should work as specified under the Constitution, I have to support stop and frisk policies.