NYPD Stop, Question, and Frisk Policy Term Paper

NYPD Stop, Question, and Frisk Policy - Term Paper Example .. found that the stops were not actually finding or preventing crimes. 97% percent of stops resulted in no conviction at all, although they did still utilize city time and resources to reach those outcomes. â€Å" (Clark, Meredith â€Å"Reports Find 'Stop-and-Frisk' Does Not Cut Crime†). Reports also say that the policy has only served to fuel racial discrimination charges as those stopped are supposedly mostly black and Latino men. A move that according to most, constitutes the violation of a person's constitutional rights. The American public has their right to privacy and has quite strict rules regarding racial discrimination across the country. The New York Stop-and-Frisk policy has chosen to ignore the constitutionally and legally protected rights of the New York citizens in an effort to â€Å"keep peace† within their borders. With an average of 88 percent of â€Å"stop and frisks† resulting in the release of those being stopped without issuing a ticket or resulting in an arrest (â€Å"NY 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Violates Minority Rights, US Constitution - Judge†) , this policy should be seen as nothing but merely a nuisance. Evidence of this constitutional rights violation can be seen in the annals of the New York Attorney General's office as far back as 1999 when it was discovered that â€Å"Black and Latino New Yorkers were stopped at far higher rates than white men and women† (â€Å"NY 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Violates Minority Rights, US Constitution - Judge†). Such acts can be deemed as racial profiling which is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution declares that people shall be protected from unreasonable searches. Yet in the state of New York, under the Stop-and-Frisk policy, at least 200,000 stops were made without reasonable suspicion from the year 2002 - 2004. Such a high rate of stops overall makes it quite evident that that there is no crime taking place and that the people being stopped were not in any way acting in a suspicious manner (Hanna, Jason â€Å"Judge Rules NYC's Stop-and-Frisk Policy Unconstitutional; City Vows Appeal). Over the past decade, a total of 5 million stops have occurred involving mostly Black and Hispanic men. The New York Stop-and-Frisk Policy is nothing more than a violation of one's right to privacy according to some people who have been involved in the implementation of the policy. Under the 14th Amendment people, regardless of gender, race, and ethnicity are also protected and given the equal protection of the law (Adelmann, Bob â€Å"Judge Rules New York City's 'Stop and Frisk' Policy Unconstitutional†). This amendment in particular is violated by the stop-and-frisk policy because of the conscious decision of the police force to concentrate their operations on the members of the black, Latino, and Hispanic communities. Due to the existence of the stop-and-frisk policy, New Yorkers are gripped with fear that they can be apprehended on the streets for no apparent reason. It has led people to fear a police state coming into existence in New York City. This is a policy that must be brought to an end because: â€Å"The NYPD's practice of making stops that lack individualized reasonable suspicion has been so pervasive and persistent as to become not only a part of the NYPD's standard operating procedure, but a fact of daily life