Beyond New York City: A Guide to Stop & Frisk in the United States

While the New York City Police Department can be credited for notarizing the phrase “stop and frisk”, the questionable police tactic infamous for targeting people of color was written into American history back in 1968 as a result of the landmark Terry v. Ohio case.

In New York City alone, the stop and frisk tactic is the driving force behind over 4 million stops between 2004 and mid-2012. In 2011, NYPD racked up 685,724 stops. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, nine out of 10 people stopped do not carry guns or receive tickets.

Where did “stop and frisk” come from?

In October 1963, Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden observed two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, acting suspiciously on a street corner. The two would take turns walking up to a storefront window and then walking back to talk to each other. At one point, a third man met up with the two for a brief conversation and then left. Detective McFadden believed they might be, “casing a job, a stick up”, leading him to follow them to another store where they met up with the other man again. He approached the three men outside of the store, identified himself as a police officer and asked their names. The men mumbled a response, prompting Officer McFadden to pat down the outside of Terry’s clothes. He felt a gun in Terry’s left pocket but could not remove it immediately so he ordered the three men to go into the store and face the wall with their hands up. He took Terry’s overcoat to remove the gun and then patted down Chilton and Katz. Officer McFadden found a gun in the outer pocket of Chilton’s coats but Katz was not carrying any weapons. At the police station, Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons.

Their defense moved to suppress the guns as evidence but the court denied the motion on the grounds that Officer McFadden, “had reasonable cause to believe . . . that the defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, and some interrogation should be made of their action,” and that he acted to protect himself by searching them. The Ohio Court of Appeals found nothing wrong with the search but made it clear that a frisk should only be conducted upon suspicion of a dangerous weapon — that it, “It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest.”

Terry appealed the case to the United State Supreme Court in 1967. In June 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision, affirming that Terry’s Fourth Amendment right protecting him from unreasonable search and seizure were not violated because the Office McFadden acted lawfully upon his belief of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and a potentially dangerous situation that warranted his subsequent stop and frisk. The court stated that, “Ever since its inception, the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment has been recognized as a principal mode of discouraging lawless police conduct.” Officer McFadden, a 39-year police force veteran, was known for his acute ability stopping pickpockets. The case set a precedent that enables police to conduct “Terry stops” without probable cause for arrest given that there is reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and a potentially imminent threat to the officer’s safety.

Does my state have a stop and frisk law?

This is a bit of a trick question. Stop and frisk, unlike stand your ground, is not an official law. It is however, a Supreme Court sanctioned practice that any state’s law enforcement can choose to employ as a crime-deterring strategy.

Baltimore is another major city whose police force is known for using the tactic. In 2013 however, Baltimore Deputy Police Commissioner Jerry Rodriguez made a decision to move away from using the name “stop and frisk”, stating that the moniker carried too much of a negative connotation, due much in part to the NYPD’s abuse of the practice. Baltimore City Police now refer to the tactic as “investigative stops”. A reported 249 stops were conducted between January through August 2012 and 422 stop reports were submitted by police between August 2012 and July 2013. In 2005, however, police only reported 11 stops — raising questions about how often they are actually submitting the reports required by law.

Del. Jill Carter, a Baltimore City Democrat said in an interview with the Baltimore Sun that, “If you talk to people around the city, especially young black men, they will tell you that police stop them on the street and say, ‘Hey, what’ve you got on you, do you have drugs? Do you have ID?’” Carter said. “That’s a misuse of police powers. … It’s a fishing expedition to find crime and criminalize people.”

Following an article written by the Maryland ACLU criticizing the Baltimore police force, Commissioner Anthony W. Batts moved to have Baltimore city police retrained on how to properly conduct investigative stops, ensuring that they fully understand and discern when and why the tactic should be employed. Batts said he wants his officers to know that randomly stopping people sans cause or reason is not acceptable.

Why is New York so heavily associated with stop and frisk?

In 1999, Amadou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant, was shot and killed by four plainclothes NYPD officers. Diallo was shot 19 times after reaching for his wallet in his jacket. The officers believed Diallo looked like a serial rapist and fired 41 shots after they claim they thought he was reaching for a gun. They were acquitted of all charges in February 2000. Following Diallo’s death, the Center for Constitutional Rights spearheaded filing Daniels v. City of New York, which challenged stop and frisk practices used by the NYPD Street Crimes Unit. The case was settled in 2003. NYPD agreed to disband the unit and incorporate a stop and frisk paperwork audit system in addition to creating a written anti-racial profiling policy.

In 2008, the CCR filed Floyd v. City of New York, a federal class action lawsuit that takes to task NYPD’s abuse of the stop and frisk ta ctic and aggressive use of racial profiling. The case goes to trial nine weeks from March to May 2013 and in August 2013, a federal judge finds NYPD culpable of carrying out unconstitutional stop and frisks driven by racial discrimination. NYPD is ordered to reform its abusive practices by including the input of communities of color targeted and affected by the policy. Statistics from NYPD showed that 90 percent of people stopped are Black and Latino even though the two groups only comprise 52 percent of the city’s population. Guns are found in less than 0.2 percent of stops and 90 percent of the time arrests do not follow stops. These stops violate the Fourth Amendment because of a lack of legitimate reasonable suspicion of carrying a weapon and posing danger to officers that would warrant a subsequent stop and frisk. No conclusive data has been found showing that the use of the stop and frisk tactic as employed by NYPD reduces crime levels.

Despite the wealth of public data showing egregious abuses by NYPD, the City appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Second District that same month to freeze the reform process while police unions file intervention motions. During October and November 2013, a panel of judges grants the freeze and removes district court judge Shira A. Scheindlin from the case, sparking public outcry. The panel of three judges faulted Judge Scheindlin for speaking to the media and making public statements about the case as it was pending, even though she had worked on the case for five years.

In January 2014, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced he is working to get the city to withdraw the appeals and reach an agreement with civil rights lawyers, enabling the appointed monitor to continue to oversee massive reform within NYPD. Police unions continue to challenge Scheindlin’s original reform ruling.

What are my rights when it comes to stop and frisk?

The key amendments when it comes to stop and frisk are the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seizure and the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees equal protection under law regardless of race.

If you live in New York, you can download the NYCLU’s free “Stop and Frisk Watch” app that records, listens and reports stop and frisks by NYPD. If you are stopped but are not under arrest, you have the right to walk away. New York law does not require its residents to carry or produce identification if simply stopped by the police.

Your state might be one of 24 that might require identification if there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. The American Civil Liberties Union created a full guide on what to do if you are stopped by police, immigration agents, or the FBI.