Introduction
Stop and frisk became a program introduced by the New York police, which allowed law enforcement to stop and detain persons and search them if necessary when they showed fair suspicion of violating the law. This strategy has drawn massive debates, particularly due to the excessive stops that exist with most of these stops being faced by blacks and Hispanics even in places with more whites.
Supporters and Opponents of Stop and Frisk
The supporters state that it operates against violence and should be able to proceed, although, in addition to being counterproductive, opponents believe it to be unacceptable. It should not be imposed in San Francisco due to the uproar it attracts, especially because of human rights.
Constitutionality of Stop and Frisk
A careful evaluation of this policy allows the acknowledgment of why the policy should not be adopted in other states. Numerous findings show that this policy is unconstitutional. Firstly, this policy promotes racial profiling. For instance, a secret audio showed the wrong treatment that police meted out particularly on people of color. A young man had been stopped several times besides being handled inappropriately. The police officers verbally and physically abused him in addition to threatening to take him to jail for no legal reason ("Amazing Video on NYPD"). His race warranted this treatment. They even attempted to harass him to provoke an outburst, which would validate their arresting him. Secondly, it violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Shira Scheindlin violates this constitutional provision since it violates the aspect of equal protection since minorities are targeted more than whites (Matthews). Thirdly, this policy violates the fourth amendment. People had been subjected to living in fear of leaving home and being stopped and searched.
Ineffectiveness of Stop and Frisk
The policy did not show any significant contribution to making communities safer. It only served to have minorities having no trust in law enforcement due to the unfair treatment they received. Studies have shown that it was not effective in New York. New York has since shown a drop in the crime rates after this policy was shut down (Mason). It demonstrates that the policy was ineffective.
Alternatives to Stop and Frisk
De Blasio, the New York mayor, has even claimed to be pursuing an anti-racial legislation that would ensure that all law enforcement activities do not violate any human rights (Mason). Therefore, there is no evidence that stop and frisk would be useful in San Francisco. Finding a policy that respected people's constitutional rights would be better.
Potential Unfair Treatment in San Francisco
If the stop and frisk policy were to be implemented in San Francisco, it would encourage unfair treatment of minorities. It is already evident that police officers in this state depict racial disparities in their traffic searches and areas they patrol (Palomino). The policy would only serve to aggravate this illegal practice that would contravene the constitutional rights of some of its residents. Nevertheless, strategically implementing it would be instrumental in the reduction of crime without it being discriminatory. A good option would be to have officers wearing body cameras, which would record everything thus deterring violation of people's rights (Goldstein). Communities could also be involved in coming up with effective tactics.
Conclusion
In conclusion, an assessment of the stop and frisk policy is instrumental in facilitating the acknowledgment of why it is ineffective. It attracts a lot of controversies, mainly due to the violation of the constitution, thus demonstrating that it should not be implemented in San Francisco. Numerous findings show that it is unconstitutional due to its promoting racial profiling in addition to contravening the fourteenth and fourth amendment of the constitution. Also, the policy did not illustrate any significant contribution as crime rates began declining after it was shut down. Implementing it in the state would only encourage more unfair treatment. However, some measures such as wearing body cameras and community involvement could be helpful.
Works Cited
- "Amazing Video on NYPD Racial Profiling, Brutality and the Injustice of Stop and Frisk." Tim Wise. N.p., 22 July 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2017. http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/amazing-video-on-nypd-racial-profiling-brutality-and-the-injustice-of-stop-and-frisk/
- Goldstein, Joseph. "Judge Rejects New York's Stop-and-Frisk Policy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2017. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?amp%3B_r=0&%3Bmtrref=www.pbs.org
- Mason, Eugene. "Donald Trump's stop-and-frisk proposal raises questions." PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2017. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/donald-trumps-stop-frisk-proposal-raises-questions/
- Matthews, Dylan. "Here's what you need to know about stop and frisk — and why the courts shut it down." The Washington Post. WP Company, 13 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/13/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-stop-and-frisk-and-why-the-courts-shut-it-down/?utm_term=.450feb5dd016
- Palomino, Joaquin . "Racial disparities in SF traffic searches raise concerns of bias." PoliceOne. N.p., 10 Apr. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2017. https://www.policeone.com/officer-misconduct-internal-affairs/articles/170357006-Racial-disparities-in-SF-traffic-searches-raise-concerns-of-bias/
