Cameron Greer                                    Greer 1English 12AMrs. Sutton11/20/17          Cornell University Law School states, “Stop-and-frisk involves the police stopping people when there is ‘a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed’ and then patting them down to see if they have a weapon on them'” (qtd in Bandler). While stop and frisk seems reasonable, according to Holmes, “Stop-and-frisk is a type of aggressive policing that allows — some say encourages — officers to detain a person on virtually any type of vague suspicion, search that individual without a warrant and arrest the person if any kind of illegal substance or weapon is found.” Although Stop and Frisk reduces crime, it increases the number of innocent people being searched, encourages police to racial profile, and causes more stops to become unconstitutional. Stop and frisk helps reduce crime by getting weapons off the streets and driving down crime rates. Stop and frisk reduces crime by getting weapons off the streets. According to Heather Mac Donald, “In 2011, ‘stops yielded nearly 800 guns and over 5,000 other weapons, mostly knives”‘ (Bandler). According to “Stop and Frisk: Should,” “Through stop-and-frisk tactics, police have removed guns from the streets, prevented murders, and made New York City one of the safest large cities in America.” The number of weapons taken off the streets prevents criminals from commiting crimes.                        Stop and frisk also reduces crime by driving down crime rates. Mac Donald states, “Murders declined almost 80 percent and major felonies by almost 75 percent from the early 1990’s to 2013 thanks to ‘Protective Policing,’ which includes the practice of stop-and-frisk”‘ (Bandler). According to City-Data.com, “Other violent crimes also fell during this time period. Assaults were down 13%, robberies declined 27% and rape declined 35%” (qtd in Holmes). Crime rates decreased due to the stop and frisk tactic. Because stop and frisk has been enforced, weapons are removed from the streets and crime rates are driven down.     Stop and frisk calls for an increase in innocent people being searched and harmed by police. Innocent people have been stopped frequently in New York. According to New York Civil Liberties Union, “In 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times. 80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent)” (“Stop-and-Frisk Data”). In New York, According to New York Civil Liberties Union, “Nearly nine out of 10 stopped-and-frisked New Yorkers have been completely innocent” (“Stop-and-Frisk Data”). Stop and frisk is ineffective and unprofessional because of how many stops was made up of  innocent people. Stop and frisk harms the reputation or the life of an innocent person. According to Issues & Controversies, “Opponents of stop and frisk also argue that the encounters, which can be combative or humiliating, distance the police from local communities, creating resentment towards law enforcement agents, particularly among minority populations” (“Stop and Frisk: Should”). An innocent man was killed by police after they thought he matched the description of a suspect. According to Issues & Controversies:The four officers had approached Diallo outside his apartment early in the morning and                 determined that he matched the description of a rape suspect. Police ordered Diallo to show his hands; instead, he pulled his wallet out of his pocket. Mistaking the wallet for a gun, the police shot 41 rounds at Diallo, hitting him 19 times (“Stop and Frisk: Should”). Police are to serve and protect, but with the passing of stop and frisk some policemen take advantage of it. This leads to people distrusting the police and separating themselves from them. Because of the amount of innocent people searched or harmed in the process of enforcing stop and frisk, communities have distanced themselves from law enforcement. Stop and frisk increases the risk of racial profiling. Races such as African Americans and Hispanics are targeted the most by stop and frisk. According to Heather Mac Donald, “Blacks commit around 70 percent of all robberies and about 80 percent of all shootings in the city” (Bandler). According to “Stop and Frisk: Should,” “Though blacks and Hispanics constitute about 50 percent of New York City’s population, they make up about 83 percent of stop and frisks.” Blacks and Hispanics may make up half of the population, however; they are stopped by using stop and frisk more than whites and other races.While Blacks and Hispanics are stopped more frequently, Blacks are stopped the most out of all the races. According to New York Civil Liberties Union, “In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times…243,766 were black (54 percent)” (“Stop-and-frisk Data”).  According to New York Civil Liberties Union, “In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times…284,229 were black (55 percent)” (“Stop-and-frisk Data”). Blacks made up more than half the stops back in 2007 and 2012. According to New York Civil Liberties Union, “In the first quarter of 2017, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 2,862 times…1,618 were black (57 percent)” (“Stop-and-Frisk Data”). When compared to other races such as Hispanics, whites, and Italians blacks had the highest percentage of stops. Blacks make up more than half that stops from stop and frisk which makes them a target for racial profiling. Stop and frisk comes with an increase of more police stops being unconstitutional. Some stops associated with stop and frisk violate the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. According to “Stop and Frisk: Should,” “Police use stop and frisk to wrongly harass innocent members of minority groups. The use of stop and frisk violates the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure.” Stop and frisk also violates another Amendment of the Constitution. According to “Stop and Frisk: Should,” “The Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that all Americans enjoy equal protection of the law.” Stop and frisk can be abused; when stop and frisk is abused it ends up violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.Stop and frisk itself is not unconstitutional. Judge Scheindlin stated, “The purpose of the remedies addressed in this Opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection” (Kiely). Stop and frisk is not unconstitutional, but the way police practice stop and frisk can allow it to become unconstitutional. According to Issues & Controversies, “Judge Scheindlin did not find the program itself to be unconstitutional, only the specific targeting of minorities” (“Stop and frisk: Should”). Stop and frisk is lawful and can be practiced, however; stop and frisk must follow within the Constitution.Darius Charney stated, “What led the Center for Constitutional Rights to mount our legal challenge was several years’ worth of the NYPD’s own stop and frisk data, which revealed severe racial disparities in who was being stopped and showed that the vast majority of people stopped were not engaged in criminal activity nor in possession of weapons or contraband and (b) harrowing stories from many New Yorkers, particularly young black and Latino men, who had been stopped, frisked and searched multiple times on their way to school, work, etc., for no apparent reason” (Ross). According to FactCheck.org, “In 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that city police violated the U.S. Constitution in the way that it carried out its stop-and-frisk program, calling it ‘a form of racial profiling’ of young black and Hispanic men”‘ (Kiely). Charney stated, “The NYPD’s press release is correct that stop and frisk in general is not unconstitutional, but it failed to mention that the way the NYPD practiced stop and frisk for a decade was unconstitutional” (Ross).  The law stop and frisk is legal, however; when police violate those legal boundaries,the Constitution, stop and frisk becomes unlawful and unconstitutional.The practice of stop and frisk is legal and Constitutional, consequently, police abuse it and stop and frisk becomes unconstitutional. Stop and frisk has allowed police to stop individuals who they might see as a criminal and stop and search them which is unconstitutional, because it violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.Overall, although Stop and Frisk reduces crime, it increases the number of innocent people being searched, encourages police to racial profile, and causes more stops to become unconstitutional. Stop and frisk decreases crime rates by removing weapons off the streets, increases the number of innocent people being searched due to the fact that police have the right to randomly search anyone who they deem suspicious and possibly kill someone because they believe they are a threat. Stop and frisk also increases the chance of racial profiling since blacks are stopped more frequently than whites, and a chance for more police stops to become unconstitutional, which violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. Stop and frisk does reduce  crime; however, is it morally right to stop someone because they seem suspicious or have a certain color of skin?    Works CitedBandler, Aaron. “5 Things You Need To Know About ‘Stop-And-Frisk’.” Daily Wire, The Daily                                                                                        Wire,  22 Sept. 2016 www.dailywire.com/news/9390/5-things-you-need-know-about-stop-and-frisk-aaron-bandler#. Holmes, Steven A. “Reality Check: Was ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Effective?” CNNPolitics, CNN, 22 Sept. 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/politics/reality-check-stop-and-frisk/index.html.Kiely, Eugene. “Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional?” FactCheck.org, 29 Sept. 2016, www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/. Ross, Janell. “There’s a Lot of Chatter about ‘Stop and Frisk.’ Here Are the Facts.” The Washington Post, 5 Oct. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/05/theres-a-lot-of-chatter-about-stop-and-frisk-here-are-the-facts/?utm_term=.15493edc55a8. “Stop-and-Frisk Data.” New York Civil Liberties Union, 29 July 2017, www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data. “Stop and Frisk: Should police have the right to stop, question, and frisk anyone they deem suspicious?” Issues & Controversies, Infobase Learning, 11 Nov. 2013,http://icof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?ID=6343. Accessed 8 Nov. 2017.