The Data Can't Be Ignored: 'Stop and Frisk' Doesn't Work

Three years ago, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin declared the New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk” operations unconstitutional. An audit of these stops found that black and Latino New Yorkers were approached and patted down by police at a far higher rate than white New Yorkers, yet they rarely were found to be in illegal possession of guns or drugs. As a result, then-NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly ordered the police force to wind down “stop and frisk” practices, which it did considerably, though the practice remained. Kelly’s successor, Bill Bratton, continued to wean the NYPD off of the practice—all of which drove the acolytes of aggressive and intrusive policing crazy.

The New York Daily News editorial board, in particular, warned on August 13, 2013, that Scheindlin’s ruling “put New York directly in harm’s way with a ruling that threatens to push the city back toward the ravages of lawlessness and bloodshed.” That kind of fear-mongering language has been par for the course anytime it’s suggested that police themselves need to comply with the law when enforcing the law. Donald Trump has basically banked his entire presidential campaign on the idea that, without aggressive police tactics like “stop and frisk,” America’s cities are headed for Purge-like fates.