Rob Horowitz: A Teaching Lesson at Brown

Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Rob Horowitz, GoLocalProv MINDSETTER™

 

View Larger +

There's no shortage of controversy over 'stop and frisk', but its reasonable and mature discussion is vital.

Two days after a small group of rude and immature Brown University students—joined by some local community activists all professing to be motivated by their outrage over New York City’s stop and frisk policy—shouted down New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and prevented him from speaking, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a stay at least temporarily postponing the sweeping restrictions on stop and frisk ordered this summer by a federal district court judge. This sequence of events drives home the fact that the actions of an ignorant few stopped the broader Brown University community and any interested local residents from hearing from a leading figure on an important issue at the intersection of law enforcement and constitutional rights as it plays out in real time.

Any real examination of ‘stop and frisk’ as it is practiced in New York demonstrates that it is an issue that fails to fall in the category of good versus evil. Like most messy public policy issues, it contains shades of gray. It is an issue where people of good will can and do disagree.

According to the US Legal Dictionary, “Stop and frisk is when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. Reasonable suspicion is one step below probable cause and one step above a hunch.”

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Opposing views

Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, and a number of other leaders in law enforcement argue that it is an effective law enforcement tool. They assert that its use by New York City is a major contributing factor in the dramatic reduction in crime, saving lives and stopping criminal acts before they occur. According to supporters of the policy, members of the minority community are disproportionately stopped because they commit a disproportionate number of the crimes. They point out that the minority community also receives the lion’s share of the benefits of the policy since minorities also make up a disproportionate share of crime victims.

Commenting on the New York stop and frisk controversy, William Bratton, formerly a Boston, New York City, and Los Angeles Police Commissioner, called it "the most basic tool fundamental of American policing."

"So, while you may have more oversight and training—which is always good—more guidance, more reporting requirements, it doesn't change the fundamentals that are always involved in stop-question-and-frisk," Bratton added.

Opponents' of stop and frisk views are well encapsulated in Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s ruling this summer in which she ordered severe restrictions on the practice. She stated that New York City’s implementation of stop and frisk amounts to an indirect form of racial profiling. According to the Judge, since only 6% of the total stops uncovered any criminal activity and this activity was more often found among whites stopped than among members of the minority community, there was not a sufficient justification for the disproportionate stopping of minorities. She ruled that the way New York City was conducting this policy violated both people’s fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures and their fourteenth amendment rights to equal protection under the law. (Scheindlin's ruling is now being called into question by the Appeals Court because some of her actions jeopardized the “appearance of impartiality.)

Other opponents of New York City’s policy, including current Democratic Mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio also claim it is an ineffective use of limited police resources and that supporters of the policy overstate its role in reducing crime.

Reasonable evaluation

But even de Blasio, who has made opposition to stop and frisk as currently practiced a major part of his campaign platform, is not calling for its elimination. He is simply stating that the practice needs to be reformed. And since he is all but certain to be the next Mayor and will select the next police commissioner, that is the likely outcome.

To state the obvious, this issue will be resolved in New York City through the democratic process, where people who disagree openly debate ideas and then we citizens form our own informed judgments and vote. The self-indulgent actions of an ignorant few in Providence last week are completely removed from any practical impact on this result.

I respectfully suggest that any punishment Brown University metes out to the disruptive students, who demonstrated complete disrespect for the overwhelming majority of their classmates who wanted to hear from Commissioner Kelly, include the assignment of an extensive term paper where they are required to grapple with the issue of stop and frisk in all its complexity and perhaps learn that no one person or one side of an argument has a monopoly on wisdom.

 

Rob Horowitz is a strategic and communications consultant who provides general consulting, public relations, direct mail services and polling for national and state issue organizations, various non-profits and elected officials and candidates. He is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island.

 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

 
 

Sign Up for the Daily Eblast

I want to follow on Twitter

I want to Like on Facebook