Stop-And-Frisk Debate Sounds Like SB 1070 All Over Again
On Monday, a federal judge struck down New York City’s stop-and-frisk practice, ruling that the practice is unconstitutional and amounts to “indirect racial profiling.”
The practice allows police to stop a suspect and pat them down. The suspect is not arrested unless there is evidence of a crime. Over the last 10 years the city has performed about 5 million so-called “stop-and-frisks.” More than 80 percent of those stopped have been Latino or Black.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration argued that the tactic has saved the lives of many minorities, who are typically the victims of violent crimes, by getting guns off the streets. But, as Judge Shira Scheindlin pointed out, only a very small number of those stopped — 0.14 percent — had guns.
In her decision Scheindlin concluded the stop-and-frisk strategy showed a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches, as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Reading about the stop-and-frisk tactic from my desk in Flagstaff, I can’t help but think of the SB 1070 debate here in Arizona. SB 1070 is the state law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally.
While the U.S. Supreme Court threw out parts of SB 1070 last year, it upheld the “show me your papers” provision of the bill. The Obama administration criticized that provision as an unconstitutional intrusion. One of the provisions thrown out would have allowed police to arrest suspected undocumented people without warrants.
Still, many lawmakers and civil rights groups say the part of the law left in place remains an invitation to racial profiling.
In Arizona many people who don’t have documents proving their status have left the state since SB 1070 was introduced. It’s hard to say whether that was because of the lack of jobs here or because of the new law.
In New York, as the number of stop-and-frisks went up over the last decade, crime rates dropped significantly, hitting record low levels. So it begs the question: While these laws may be unconstitutional, are they having the intended impacts?
