Resisting Stop and Frisk as a State Agent

By: Ji Park

The efficacy of the stop-and-frisks has been a topic among law enforcements, and has recently been brought to the spotlight due to the recent lawsuit that challenged NYPD on their controversial technique. Pedro Serrano is a New York City officer retaliating against the racialized stop-and-frisk tactics. Abiding by his own moral belief, Serrano made fewer stop-and-frisk stops compared to his colleagues. His stance of the controversial technique of stop and frisk clashed with his bosses in NYPD who encouraged utilizing stop-and-frisk to meet the quotas. Serrano’s accounts reveal the firm belief of NYPD on the efficacy of stop-and-frisk. According to Serrano and another officer Adhyl Polanco, the stops entailed of racial profiling to target blacks and latinos. This racialized side of the New York trial brings the attention to the legitimacy and fairness of the stop-and-frisk tactic. NYPD denies the accusations of racial profiling, even though 87% of all those who were stopped were black and latino. The lawsuit is not demanding a complete stop to the stop and frisks, only that it is supervised with more oversight, to ensure “all stop-and-frisks be based on reasonable, articulable suspicion”.

The tactic of stop-and-frisk roots its origin from the broken windows theory, a theory of aggressive policing focused on crime reduction. Broken windows theory suggests that untended property encourages untended behavior; leading to the question on the efficacy of the broken window policy in the urban areas of the United States such as Los Angeles and New York. Perhaps it is time to shift from the tactic that stems from the broken windows policy, originally designed to have zero-tolerance and no-nonsense policing, to a more advanced tactic that is tailored to the urban neighborhoods of the US. With further continuation of the stop-and-frisk method, NYPD risks legitimacy among citizens. 

Near the end of the article, Nicholas Pert testifies on the stand to advocate his stance on being racially profiled as an innocent black man. His accounts were one of the examples in our Policing and Society class, depicting his negative experiences of being stopped and searched numerous times altering his overall behavior and demeanor. Nicholas Pert is a victim of the adverse effect of stop-and-frisk tactic: being unfairly targeted started to alter the way he conducted his life. According to the article, the plaintiffs also appeal their humiliation and fear they experienced while being searched. The validity and efficacy of the stop and frisk tactic must be reviewed. Zimring has already published his personal view against the tactic, but perhaps more extensive search is needed. It is disturbing to see that the officers who refuse to conduct the controversial tactic that has yet to be proven in efficacy is subjected to questions from the state agents, being accused of not doing their job properly.

Evident in the article is the issue of racial profiling. Terry v. Ohio(1968) is a supreme court decision that shifted the police’s powers to stop and search on “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion”. As the legitimacy in the tactic of stop-and-frisk grows, ACLU have filed a lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia on Racial profiling among stop and frisk routines. In a precedent case against the LAPD in 2008, the police could search anyone with ‘suspicious activity’, now they are no longer allowed to search people committing minor infractions such as jaywalking or sleeping on the street. As Professor Musheno asserted in class, racialized policing is one of the major problems of police malfeasance. Bias and human error among stop and frisk policy is unavoidable. As the issue of stop-and-frisk gathers the media attention, demands for reform is growing.