For the majority of Americans, the immediate suspension of their constitutional rights protecting their privacy and property while entering an airport terminal has become an expected part of life. There, Americans’ privacies falls to the wayside, as people experience extensive searches, and occasionally seizures, of their property. Many Americans take comfort, at least, in knowing that this ordeal is temporary, and that once we have reached our destination, our rights will be reinstalled.

Minority residents in New York City and other large cities, however, can not necessarily take this same comfort that their constitutional rights won’t be violated outside an airport terminal. As long as they are within city limits, their rights are on a permanent hold, as they can be stopped at any moment, searched, and questioned with no probable cause for arrest.

The New York City Police Department has adopted this stop-and-frisk policy in order to combat crime. At least, that is what it claims. But new evidence has surfaced proving that this policy has disproportionately targeted racial minorities and revealing that the stop-and-frisk policy may do more to fuel racism than to actually lower crime.

These random acts of search and seizure by the NYPD are defended by the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio in 1968 in which the Supreme Court found that the rights embodied in the Fourth Amendment fail to apply to a police officer stopping an individual for brief questioning and frisking. The assumption was that officers have the mental capacity to  exercise solid judgment in determining the necessity of subjecting an individual to harsh treatment. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.

As it turns out, the NYPD has arguably twisted this policy into a virtual witch hunt against racial minorities. It’s been found that from 2004 to 2011, whites   — despite only making up about 33 percent of New York City’s population  — only accounted for 10 percent of individuals who had been stopped and frisked. Of minorities stopped, Latinos made up 31 percent, while blacks made up 52 percent. Astoundingly, blacks make up only 23 percent of the city’s population.

Not only are blacks and Latinos more frequently stopped by police, they are more likely than white to be subjected to force when questioned as suspects by police. Ironically, when frisking does occur, statistics reveal that whites are more likely to be found with contraband or an illegal weapon in their possession.

Blame for this racial targeting often lies on the poor training of officers who are given vague parameters defining suspicious behavior — such as “furtive movements,” which justifiably could be anything. Others argue that stop-and-frisk instances occur more frequently in high-crime areas that have larger minority populations. The areas determined to be “high crime,” however, are largely up to officers’ discretions and could, therefore, be subject to bias. 

Viewing the statistics, it becomes clear that not only has the NYPD taken Terry vs. Ohio too far — thus making a mockery of the Fourth Amendment — but it has also managed to attack the 14th Amendment by intentionally targeting minorities. With evidence surfacing that there is little benefit to the stop- and- frisk policy — through which only about 10 percent of cases actually result in an arrest — it’s clear that the stop-and-frisk policy is not just severely ineffective, but actively harmful.

This month marks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s delivery of his “I Have a Dream” speech. Yet, half a century after this historic event, we find New York City enforcing a policy that promotes police activity eerily similar to the racial targeting that occurred during the Civil Rights movement. The police activity during that time was similarly ineffective because it wasn’t actually combating crime, but attacking human rights. The stop-and-frisk policy needs to be abolished not only because it does not make cities any safer, but also because it violates rights for which generations of Americans have fought.

Write Stephen at [email protected].