By: Tonny Leao
A nonjury trial involving a lawsuit from four men who argue the NYPD stops mostly black and Hispanic men without probable cause. This lawsuit seeks to reform and may even stop the stop-and-frisk which was made legal under a 1968 supreme court decision in terry v. In the nonjury trial, police officers were able to testify and made statements about the stop-and-frisk policy".
"Police officers testifying at a federal trial challenging New York City's stop-and-frisk policy say they were ordered to increase their number of arrests, summons and 250s — the code for stop, question and frisk". According to the article, police officers who fail meet the quota could be denied days off and overtime, and even be given a poor evaluation. Also it mentions that if they didn't meet the quotas they were sometimes forced to "drive their supervisors" who would make them give out to summons and make street stops, sometimes to people they didn't even observe.
Another police testify and said that "This is about quotas. At the end of the day, it's about quotas," he said. "That's why there is such an epidemic in these communities of people getting stopped and frisked — because the police are told to get numbers, and they are not interested in the numbers of radio runs or how they help. They are interested in arrests, summons and 250s." This article suggest that police officers in New York are too focus on meeting their quota. This system sacrifice quality over quantity. Many will argue that police who are cutting close to their quota deadline will probably stop and frisk someone without any probable cause. Does pressure to boost statistics cause police to stop, question and frisk people, whether or not there's a real suspicion of a crime? Another testimony for this trial, three police department supervisors all said no, "we are not a police department that wants to do numbers for number sake" said Heidi Grossman of the New York City Law Department.
What should we believe and what is the right thing to do? Should we modify stop-and-frisk or just remove it? Surely this type of policing have shown reduce crime rates with also combining it with other policing methods. I believe that police should not meet a quota but focus on making successful stops with probable cause. Police officers should not be pressure to make forced stops just to meet a number to satisfy their supervisor. I believe that the police who are not force to meet a quota and focus more on important issues in their city will create a more safe environment for their citizens. Hopefully this issue is resolved and that this will not diminish the safety of society.
This may sound idealistic, but I believe if there was a more definite definition of 'reasonable suspicion' there would be less room for bias and targeting. However, I really feel life because of the concentrated efforts of the police in certain areas that are made up of mostly minorities creates more distrust in the police. Building up the reputation, credibility and trust in the police in necessary.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to hear that even the police officers that are not inclined to stop and frisk are forced to do so by superior officers. If this is practiced in many departments its no wonder why there are such little signs of a decrease in racial profiling. I can understand the need for a quota in traffic violations because they bring in money for the city and cannot simply be made up by "reasonable suspicion", but stop and frisks were made to be used as a tool, not a necessity.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand of most police departments, although this specific instance of New York's police departments may differ, police must "perform to the average of their peers". That is, there is no quantitatively defined monthly quota for how many arrests, tickets, or other policing tactics officers must use. Their policing behavior must instead be relatively on par with their fellow police officers who are alongside them in the field. This standard raises similar questions as to the fairness of this practice. As frontline workers, police officers exercise discretion in the situations they are faced with. The fact that they must "perform to the standard of their peers" seems to encourage a normalization of each police officer's individual discretion, which is not possible and arguably should not happen. Having a set quota from superiors in a police department for the number of stop-and-frisks makes the situation no less fair, but is it much worse than encouraging officers to change their own discretion to match one another's? Or are both of these "quotas" just exacerbating the seemingly unabatable problem of standardizing judgment?
ReplyDeleteChristine Sun
Effective police work is not an assembly line. It combines the various knowledge and experiences of the police with the cooperation of citizens. It is then absurd to impose quotas on arrests, summons and 250s because treating everyone as a suspect hurts this relationship. Stops-with-probable-cause is not only the more logical approach; it also increases the people’s confidence in the police. Performance assessments should be based on police presence and involvement in relation to criminal activity in specific areas, and not on keeping up with quotas.
ReplyDelete-Sehun Lee
I think the phenomena of NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" is particularly salient given our recent reading of "Cops, Teachers, and Counselors". If there is top-down pressure on the frontline workers to produce numbers, police officers may not be able to effectively operate the way they know how to, using their own individual judgment when they're out patrolling and making contact with subjects. Instead of having discretion on what to do and really think about who to stop, parts of this discretion are removed and they are pressured to act in a way that they otherwise may not by those that have a very broad and general view of what goes on at the level of the frontline worker. This is perhaps why so many citizens complain of the policy, and why there are so many reports of questionable stops. The frontline worker's freedom to operate in the way that is effective may be impeded by the administration's misguided views.
ReplyDeleteThis whole idea of quotas for stop & frisk write-ups is dangerous. It's always weird to realize that police are actually going out looking for individual crime instead of solely responding to it. Like I said in the drone post from last week, it worries me that our society is becoming more and more proactively criminalizing by installing different mechanisms that automatically assume negative behavior.
ReplyDelete-Catherine Hall
I think it's a bad idea for police departments to have quotas. Not only does it make officers target young men of color more likely, but it also adds to a loss of legitimacy. It's no wonder minorities distrust law enforcement, they're usually stopped even though they didn't do anything wrong and it makes them feel victimized. If I remember correctly, Berkeley PD said that they don't have quotas because they're more concerned with quality than quantity. I think this is a better tactic because police officers will make better decisions and use their discretion to how they see fit. They won't feel pressured to write up five citations before the end of their shift. The stops that they do make will actually be legitimate.
ReplyDelete-Laci Patiga
The use of quotas to hold police officers accountable for their work is unethical. As previously mentioned, quota requirements for stop-and-frisk may necessitate aggressive action, in the eyes of an officer, when the situation does not call for such action. Of course, officers need to be held accountable, but far better methods can and should be implemented to ensure that the law is enforced in an equitable manner.
ReplyDelete-Anton Kienast
I do think that the stop-and-frisk helps reduce crime rate just because it puts fear in the eyes of those who may be taking part in illegal activity, but I also do believe it must be modified. I've never realized that police have quotas they must meet, which ultimately affects those civilians involved with getting stopped and frisked. The main goal at the end of the day shouldn't just be about quota but instead it should primary focus on enforcing the law and taking care of the current crimes.
ReplyDeleteHaving a quota system does not help an officer do their job. It is more of a distraction to them, and will cause them to lose focus. It could even cause them to become biased as they're always doing random stops. Even though stop and frisk acts as a deterrent, it is making officers more unproductive. Their attention should be better focused onto other police duties. If anything there should not be any quotas, and it should be up to the officer if they went to stop and frisk someone.
ReplyDelete-Alex Juha
Statistics of NYC crime rates have shown that stop and frisk tactics reduce crime. However, a quota system for such tactics should not be in place. Officers should not racially profile suspected criminals and should not have to meet a quota. Using stop and frisk methods to meet a quota instead of stopping suspected criminal activity is unjust.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUsing a quota system in "stop and frisks" would definitely cause officers to overlook potential crimes because they would only focus on the certain ethnic group that are needed to fill their quota. This method would probably provide a more racially equal statistic on these stops, but these numbers would be skewed because officers would only target certain groups at a given time.
ReplyDelete-Eric Walbridge
I agree with the idea that creating a quota system for "stop and frisks" would create a more even number of stops racially. However, having to fill racial quotas would not be the best way to prevent crime due to the fact that officers would overlook certain people in order to fulfill the "quota".
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to ticket quotas that are implemented across the country, except New York has thrown aggressive "stop & frisk" into the mix. While ticketing/arrest quotas aren't exactly unheard of, there must be better alternatives out there. As others have said, it puts pressure on police when it comes down to meeting their quotas -- at which point, they're probably just looking for anyone who is looking like they might be doing anything remotely illegal. With this active search for people to ticket/arrest, comes increased chance that their internal biases may play into who they are ultimately stopping. Furthermore, quotas also make less room for discretion since police officers always have that quota at the back of their minds and make it more likely for them to stop people.
ReplyDelete- Donald Chan
The use of quotas should be prohibited, especially when concerning stop and frisk because of the effects that they have on communities of color. The objective should not be to get numbers but rather to stop crime, that being said, there should also be a reform on stop and frisk, especially since most people who are stopped and frisked are not violating the law and it is not really clear if their use actually reduces crime.
ReplyDeleteMaria Campos
While I believe stop and frisk is beneficial to some extent, it definitely needs to be reformed. I feel it is wrong for there to be quotas because it is not exactly fulfilling the goal of crime suppression. It does not even become about stopping or preventing crime, but rather to just meet a quota. Additionally, I feel this pressures policemen to stop people who look like they may commit a crime and unfortunately that makes them target young men of color because society and the media has taught that wrong ideal. Something definitely needs to be done.
ReplyDelete-Genesis M. Garcia
This article brings up the question whether or not stop and frisks are actually beneficial to the public. Are they really decreasing the crime rates within communities? It seems as if they are just bringing in statistics regarding crime rates then actually trying to stop them. The people getting "stopped and frisks" aren't doing anything wrong and we don't know for certain if these stop and frisks are decreasing crime rates.
ReplyDelete-Derek Campbell
I will have to concur with the 18 comments above me. I think the use of quotas is highly dangerous to damaging the legitimacy to the NYPD. But i think installing quotas along with incentives or policies that are coercive in nature is fatal to the legitimacy. Police offers, as front line workers, need to have the ability to report crime as they see it rather than create it so they can go on vacations.
ReplyDeleteI think that its wrong for police to harrass innocent people in order to make their quota. But in reality its every man for themselves, if a police officer needs to do this for his or her job to support a family, they have to do what their supervisors expect of them. And if that means they have to go above and beyond to stop and frisk then thats what they have to do. If the officer has a problem with the way their police departments is running things, maybe they should work somewhere else. I do not think that there should be a quota like this because its not fair to ordinary citizens who are being harrassed by this policing tactic. But I guess you can't blame the police for doing their job.
ReplyDeleteMeeting quotas should not be a part of policing at all. This causes law enforcement to acuse and profile people instead of just responding to crime. The police should be more concentrated on figuring out why people are committing crimes and solving the root of the problem instead of trying to arrest as many people as they can.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought the idea of police using quotas was an interesting one. On the one hand without quotas, what is to prevent police from just driving aimlessly all day? On the other hand, quotas can also be a waste of resources when police are focused on numbers rather than actually making successful stops. Having quotas should not rationally increase stops on a certain race because as we saw yesterday there is not a big difference in drug use between the races. But in order to meet the numbers it seems law enforcement are relying on stereotypes rather than data. Thank you for sharing it was very interesting!
ReplyDelete-Katie Wellman