A Controversial Procedure in NYC May Be an Effective Way to Prevent Crime
The stop and frisk law is one of the most controversial police procedures. This law was created to try to reduce crime on the streets and try to catch people with concealed weapons before they are used. What I am going to explore is whether or not this procedure violates the 4th amendment of unreasonable search and seizures. I will also examine statistics to prove this procedure effective or not.
How the law is enforced
The way this law is enforced is that a policemen will patrol an area of his or her choice, usually by car, and look out for anything that he or she believes to be suspicious and when he or she does find something suspicious they will stop that person and proceed to do a brief pat down of the outer garments. If nothing is found then that person will be released, but if a weapon or any other illegal substance is found, that person will be arrested and brought into police custody for questioning. The main complaint that people have is that this search goes against their constitutional rights because they are being searched without a warrant. It is also a hassle and an inconvenience to have policemen stopping you to pat you down.
Pros and cons to the stop and frisk law
The argument goes both ways in this case. Most people say that this is a good idea and will be successful in reducing crime, but many people complain about being stopped for no reason and waste time being searched. In my mind and in the law enforcer’s minds, it is worth stopping and searching innocent people some of the time in order to catch the real criminals before crimes are committed.
How is it working so far?
Studies show that the stop and frisk policy is an effective crime deterrence and has reduced crime in many cities. The bottom line is that this is a great way to prevent crime before it happens, but what I am researching and we have to make sure of is that citizens rights are not being violated.