User:Cwt101/sandbox

The New York City stop-question-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. The rules for stop, question and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio. About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011. The vast majority of these people were African-American or Latino. Some judges have found that these stops are not based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Administration
Part of the stop-question-and-frisk program is executed under Operation Clean Halls, a program wherein private property owners grant officers prior permission to enter a property for enforcement against criminal activity.

Some NYPD officers have objected publicly to the department's use of stop-question-and-frisk paperwork as a performance metric, which they claim encourages officers to overuse the practice and creates public hostility. Activists have described this as a form of quota, a characterization that department representatives have denied.

In about ninety percent of cases, no evidence of wrongdoing is found and the stopped person is let go.

Investigative Response
After the controversial shooting of 23-year old African immigrant Amadou Diallo by New York City Police Officers, and the subsequent backlash by the public over the event, the New York Attorney General's Office conducted an in-depth and substantial investigation into the "Stop and Frisk" Program. After comiling data from over 175,000 UF-250s (the form filled out by police officers during a stop) ranging from January 1998 to March 1999, the investigation turned up many relevant facts about the nature of the program.


 * Minorities, particularly African Americans, were stopped at a higher rate than whites.
 * African Americans comprise 25.6% of the population, but 50.6% of all stops.
 * Hispanics comprise 23.7% of the population, but 33% of all stops.
 * Whites comprise 43.4% of the population, but 12.9% of all stops.


 * Stops were targeted demographically, and not solely off of changes in crime rates.
 * Of the ten precincts with the most recorded stops, only one was a white-majority precinct.
 * After accounting for the difference of crime rates in certain areas, African Americans were stopped 23% more than whites, and Hispanics were stopped 39% more than whites.


 * Based on the UF-250, which the officer fills out after a stop, a large number of stops were not "constitutionally valid".
 * 61% of reports contained facts sufficient to justify a stop.
 * 15.4% of reports contained facts that were insufficient to justify a stop.
 * 23.5% did not contain enough facts to allow a supervisor to verify the justification of the stop.
 * 23.2% of reports filled out by the Street Crimes Unit did not contain facts sufficient to justify a stop.

A second investigative report, conducted by the New York Attorney General's Office, was released November 2013. This study, which focused more on what happened after the stops were conducted and an arrest was made. By looking at 150,000 "Stop, Question, and Frisk" arrests made from 2009 to 2012 (of the approximately 2.4 million SQF stops made during that timeframe), the study focused more on the legality of the stops, or more pointedly, the ability of the State to prosecute the person arrested.

The study found that:
 * Close to half of the SQF stops did not result in a conviction.
 * Fewer than 1 in 4 arrests - or 1.4% of all stops - resulted in a jail or prison sentence.
 * One in fifty SQF arrests - or 0.1% of all stops - led to a conviction for a crime of violence.
 * One in fifty SQF arrests—or about 0.1% of all stops—led to a conviction for possession of a weapon.
 * Almost one quarter of SQF arrests (24.7%) were dismissed before arraignment or resulted in a non-criminal charge such as an infraction or a violation at the time of arraignment.

Activist Response
New York police officer Adrian Schoolcraft made extensive recordings in 2008–2009 which documented orders from NYPD officials to search and arrest black people in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. Schoolcraft, who brought accusations of misconduct to NYPD investigators, was transferred to a desk job and then involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. In 2010, Schoolcraft sent his tapes to the Village Voice, which publicized them in a series of reports. Schoolcraft alleges that the NYPD has retaliated against him for exposing information about the stop and frisk policy. The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and The Bronx Defenders filed a federal class action against this program.

In response to allegations that the program unfairly targets African-American and Hispanic-American individuals, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has stated that this is because African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are more likely to be violent criminals and victims of violent crime.

On June 17, 2012, several thousand people marched silently down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue from lower Harlem to Mayor Bloomberg's Upper East Side townhouse in protest of the stop-question-and-frisk policy. The mayor refused to end the program, contending that the program reduces crime and saves lives.

In early July 2012, stop-question-and-frisk protesters who videotaped police stops in New York City were targeted by police for their activism. A "wanted"-style poster hung in a police precinct headquarters, without any allegation of criminal activity, accused one couple of being "professional agitators" whose "purpose is to portray officers in a negative way and too [sic] deter officers from conducting their responsibilities", and police officers later surveilled and recorded the exit of persons from a "stop stop-and-frisk" meeting held at the couple's residence, allegedly in response to an emergency call of loitering and trespass.

Legal Response
On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the stop and frisk practice was unconstitutional and directed the Police to adopt a written policy to specify where such stops are authorized. Scheindlin appointed Peter L. Zimroth, a former chief lawyer for the City of New York, to oversee the program. Mayor Bloomberg indicated that the city will appeal the ruling.

Scheindlin had denied pleas for a stay in her overthrow of the policing policy, saying that "Ordering a stay now would send precisely the wrong signal. It would essentially confirm that the past practices... were justified and based on constitutional police practices. It would also send the message that reducing the number of stops is somehow dangerous to the residents of this city."

On October 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit blocked the order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from the case. On November 9, 2013, the city asked a federal appeals court to vacate Scheindlin's orders.

Bill de Blasio, who will succeed Bloomberg as mayor in 2014, has pledged to reform the stop-and-frisk program, and is calling for new leadership at the NYPD, an inspector general, and a strong racial profiling bill.