Please consider this powerful, well-thought out analysis of "Stop and Frisk" by our own Deacon Reginald Lyles

I want to wade in on the issue of "Stop and Frisk" New York City style. I know about this subject as I used to be a Foot Patrol Officer, Supervisor and Manager of this type of policing, in high crime and drug sales areas.

First, in New York and the New York Police Department  (NYPD) have been employing "Stop and Frisk" tactics since  2002 and the results are in.

Since 2002, according to NYPD's own statistics, 86% of the individuals "Stopped and Frisked," by NYPD, were Blacks and Latinos. That means only 14% were Whites, Asians or others. Moreover, since 2002, 88% of those individuals stopped were INNOCENT of any wrongdoing! That means only 12% were involved in some kind of criminal activity that resulted in an arrest, further prosecution, or possessing contraband weapons or drugs; and because of their behavior these individuals should have been arrested.

Now let's be crystal clear - there is a difference between criminal activity and non-criminal activity. The specific difference is delineated in the criminal law. It is a science that individuals charged with KNOWING the differences (Judges, Criminal Prosecutors, and Police Officers) are held accountable to getting it right; and are also disciplined (administratively, civilly or criminally) for getting it wrong. Society highly scrutinizes and disciplines these individuals because Judges, Criminal Prosecutors, and Police Officers have immense power, within the law, to deny the inalienable freedoms and rights of the individual. 

Consequently, the NYPD, according to their own statistics and actions, have been WRONG 88% of the time. If anyone who has the responsibility of enforcing the law is wrong 88% of the time they should be fired. So why does NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg insist on this tactic? The answer rest with who is adversely affected? Mayor Bloomberg may have his heart in the right place, but "Stop and Frisk" has only adversely affected Blacks and Latinos. Would he continue a similar practice, for more than eleven years, which only adversely affected Jews, Irish or Italian Catholics? I think not. Thus, does he care that NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" tactics are damaging its own Black and Latino citizen's Constitutional Rights?

NYPD's gross error rate and their style of "Stop and Frisk" tactics are pathetic. It has allowed poor NYPD policing, not quality NYPD policing. It has allowed for abusive NYPD policing to become the standard and oppose to the exception. I believe that a minority of NYPD officers are abusive; nevertheless, when NYPD law enforcement officers do not have to uphold the Bill of Rights or monitor their law enforcement actions within the Bill of Rights they become Constitutional law violators. When NYPD gets their intentional police actions wrong 88% of the time, and only stop Blacks and Latinos 86% of the time, the tactic should be ended and the officers retrained, and disciplined. 

Is there a use for "Stop and Frisk"? Yes. An officer correctly using "Stop and Frisk" must have an articulable reason for the stop, or what is called a "reasonable suspicion". The officer, for example, must have observed an action like hiding what could possibly have been drugs in their garments; or an individual's actions (furtive gestures) looked like a hand to hand drug sale with another individual. On the contrary, reasonable suspicion cannot be because of an individual's race, gender, sexual orientation or residency. Again, the reasonable suspicion must derive from an expressed behavior or action.

In NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" program, they stopped and frisked 532,911 individuals, between 2004 and 2009 and of those stopped 473,644 were totally innocent of any crimes. Additionally, of those stopped and frisked: 55% were Black, 32% were Hispanic and 10% were White. What is remarkable is that the 10% who were White were the ones who had the highest rate of having drugs and contraband. These are NYPD's own statistics, and prove that NYPD were systematically violating the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guards against unreasonable search and seizures and the 14th Amendment that guards against unequal protection under the law.

Again, thank you U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin for putting an end to this travesty of justice.

--Reginald W. Lyles