The statistics, which were also divided by precinct, showed that minorities were even more likely to be stopped in wealthier areas of Manhattan like the Upper West Side. In the 20th precinct, for instance, 77 percent of stops were minorities, even though only 21 percent of Upper West Side residents are minorities. This disparity has long angered local community leaders.

“Stop and frisk is a wildly discriminatory practice,” said Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal.  “It only serves to make those who are stopped mistrust law enforcement. I fail to see how the city can even justify this.”

According to Robert Gangi, the director of PROP, the Police Reform Organization Project, people on the street can only be stopped if they look suspicious, or are committing a crime. In addition, police can also stop an individual if they fit the description of a known criminal in the area. Gangi said that although this practice is legal, sometimes police officers go over the top.

“There’s a lot of pressure for police to meet their quotas and in a desperate effort to do so, they will engage in unwarranted or illegal stops,” Gangi said.

According to NYPD statistics, however, not only did stop-and-frisks increase steadily from over 540,000 in 2008 to almost 686,000 in 2011, but crime has also steadily decreased. Murders are down 43 percent, and this year, on Nov. 26, not a single person was reported stabbed, shot or slashed, according to the NYPD.

Nick Viest, the chair of the 19th precinct community council on the Upper East Side, said that he supports the NYPD stop-and-frisk policies.

“From what I’ve witnessed, they’ve handled these things very professionally and appropriately,” Viest said. “When you look at these statistics at face value, people get concerned, but they are responding to specific descriptions. They are doing the job necessary to keep the community safe.”

As far as stopping those who fit a certain description, Victor Goode, a professor at the CUNY School of Law, said that he doesn’t quite buy that explanation.

“Let’s say there’s a report of purse-snatching by a young African-American male, 14 to 16 years old,” Goode said. “When the suspect is characterized as broadly as that, it gives them an excuse to stop almost anyone.”

Next month, Darius Charney, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and his colleagues, will try to challenge the constitutionality of NYPD stop-and-frisk practices like these. However, he did stress that stop-and-frisk is not an illegal police tactic in and of itself.

“Their argument that black and Latino people are more likely to commit crimes is not the best, because these are law-abiding folks that are being stopped,” Charney said. “Are you saying that blacks and Latinos are more likely to look suspicious?”

The trial, “Floyd vs. The City of New York,” a lawsuit, is set to begin on March 11.

The statistics, which were also divided by precinct, showed that minorities were even more likely to be stopped in wealthier areas like the Upper East Side. In the 19^th precinct, for instance, 76 percent of stops were minorities, even though only 17 percent of Upper East Side residents are minorities. This disparity has long angered local community leaders.

“It’s become abusive, particularly to minorities in low-crime neighborhoods,” said Assembly Member Michah Kellner. “It says this community is not welcoming of all people, if so many of our black and Latino neighbors are going to be stopped and frisked. Is that them message we really want to send?”

According to Robert Gangi, the director of PROP, the Police Reform Organization Project, people on the street can only be stopped if they look suspicious, or are committing a crime. In addition, police can also stop an individual if they fit the description of a known criminal in the area. Gangi said that although this practice is legal, sometimes police officers go over the top.

“There’s a lot of pressure for police to meet their quotas and in a desperate effort to do so, they will engage in unwarranted or illegal stops,” said Gangi.

According to NYPD statistics, however, not only did stop and frisks increase steadily from over 686,000 in 2011 from 540,000 in 2008, but crime has also steadily decreased. Murders are down 43 percent, and this year, on November 26^th, not a single person was reported stabbed, shot or slashed, according to the NYPD.

Nick Viest, the chair of the 19^th precinct community council said that he supports the NYPD Stop and Frisk policies.

“From what I’ve witnessed, they’ve handled these things very professionally and appropriately,” said Viest. “When you look at these statistics at face value, people get concerned, but they are responding to specific descriptions. They are doing the job necessary to keep the community safe.”

As far as stopping those who fit a certain description, Victor Goode, a professor at the CUNY School of Law, said that he doesn’t quite buy that explanation.

“Let’s say there a report of purse snatching a young African-American male, 14-16 years old,” said Goode. “When the suspect is characterized as broadly as that, it gives them an excuse to stop almost anyone.”

Next month, Darius Charney, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and his colleagues, will try to challenge the constitutionality of NYPD Stop and Frisk practices like these. However, he did stress that Stop and Frisk is not an illegal police tactic in and of itself.

“Their argument that black and Latino people are more likely to commit crimes is not the best, because these are law abiding folks that are being stopped,” said Charney. “Are you saying that black and Latinos are more likely to look suspicious?”

The trial, “Floyd vs. The City of New York,” a class action lawsuit, is set to begin on March 11^th.

The 2011 NYPD data on the controversial policy bears out common criticism of the practice

The NYPD recently re-released citywide Stop and Frisk data from 2011 that reinforce what many opponents of the controversial policy have criticized: Almost 90 percent of all people stopped and frisked citywide in 2011 were minorities. The statistics were re-released just in time for the trial next month that will determine the legality of this police practice.

The statistics, which were also divided by precinct, showed that minorities were even more likely to be stopped in neighborhoods with higher percentages of white residents, like the Lower East Side. In the 1st precinct, even though blacks and Latinos only make up 27 percent of the population, they constituted 85 percent of all stops. In the 9th precinct, blacks and Latinos make up almost half of the population, while almost three-quarters of all stop and frisks in 2011 were black and Latinos.

“It’s not really ‘I don’t like you because you’re black or Latino’; it’s ‘I see you as a potential criminal,’” said Babe Howell, a professor at CUNY School of Law explaining her theory on the numbers. “If you stop a black or Latino kid, chances are you aren’t stopping someone who will be related to the mayor or a city council member.”

But according to Robert Gangi, the director of PROP, the Police Reform Organization Project, people on the street can only be stopped if they look suspicious, or are committing a crime. In addition, police can also stop an individual if they fit the description of a known criminal in the area. Gangi said that although this practice is legal, sometimes police officers go over the top.

“There’s a lot of pressure for police to meet their quotas and in a desperate effort to do so, they will engage in unwarranted or illegal stops,” said Gangi.

NYPD statistics show that not only did stop and frisks increase steadily from over 540,000 in 2008 to almost 686,000 in 2011, but crime has also steadily decreased. Murders are down 43 percent, and this year, on Nov. 26, not a single person was reported stabbed, shot or slashed, according to the NYPD.

Nick Viest, the chair of the 19th precinct community council on the Upper East Side said that he supports the NYPD Stop and Frisk policies.

“From what I’ve witnessed, they’ve handled these things very professionally and appropriately,” said Viest. “When you look at these statistics at face value, people get concerned, but they are responding to specific descriptions. They are doing the job necessary to keep the community safe.”

As far as stopping those who fit a certain description, Victor Goode, a professor at the CUNY School of Law, said that he doesn’t quite buy that explanation.

“Let’s say there a report of purse snatching [by] a young African-American male, 14-16 years old,” said Goode. “When the suspect is characterized as broadly as that, it gives them an excuse to stop almost anyone.”

Next month, Darius Charney, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and his colleagues, will try to challenge the constitutionality of NYPD Stop and Frisk practices like these. However, he did stress that Stop and Frisk is not an illegal police tactic in and of itself.

“Their argument that black and Latino people are more likely to commit crimes is not the best, because these are law abiding folks that are being stopped,” said Charney. “Are you saying that black and Latinos are more likely to look suspicious?”

The trial, “Floyd vs. The City of New York,” a class action lawsuit, is set to begin on March 11.

Growing opposition prompts City Council to discuss reform of NYPD’s controversial policy

By Paul Bisceglio

For some New Yorkers, the recording says it all.

“I just got stopped two blocks ago, yo,” argues Alvin, a 17-year-old walking home in Harlem.

“You know why?” says one of the three cops approaching him. “Because you look very suspicious.”

The cops search Alvin, and as he badgers them with questions, an officer threatens to take him to jail.

“What am I getting arrested for?” Alvin asks.

“For being a f—ing mutt,” the officer responds.

Alvin talks back, and a sergeant tells him to shut up. “I am going to f—ing break your arm,” the sergeants says, “then I’m going to punch you in the f—ing face.”

The Nation released this recording last week in a short documentary on Stop, Question and Frisk, the NYPD’s controversial inspection policy that allows cops to stop and examine anyone who arouses “reasonable suspicion.” Alvin captured the confrontation—the only known audio clip of “stop-and-frisk” in action, according to the magazine—on his phone last summer, on a day that he was approached multiple times by police for walking with his hood up and casting wary glances at patrolmen. The officer’s racial slur, though, suggests that these cops may have had ulterior motives for stopping him.

City advocacy groups have opposed stop-and-frisk for years on the grounds that police use the tactic to racially profile citizens and abuse their rights. For these groups, Alvin’s recording was not shocking. It was proof.

“This video confirms what communities of color have always known,” said New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman in an interview. “The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk regime is out of control and undermining the ability of communities to be able to trust and respect the police.”

The New York City Council also worries about stop-and-frisk’s damaging effects on communities.

Two days after The Nation’s documentary was released, the Public Safety Committee held a hearing, on Oct. 10, in City Hall to discuss the Community Safety Act, four proposed bills that aim to reform stop-and-frisk and, more broadly, the NYPD’s accountability. A crowd of New York citizens joined advocacy group representatives at the hearing to testify in the bills’ favor, but first endured a three-hour wait as council members grilled Michael Best, chief counselor to the mayor and the sole testifier against the proposed bills.

“Stop, Question and Frisk is a critical element in NYPD’s law enforcement strategies,” Best repeated again and again in response to council members’ attacks on the policy. He was the administration’s only representative at the hearing, a fact lamented frequently by council members who believe Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly owe the Council a constructive dialogue on the issue. Bloomberg’s and Kelly’s absences spoke for them, though: Neither acknowledges any discrimination in stop-and-frisk practices.
“Do these bills get at a problem?” demanded Councilman Jumaane Williams, one of the bills’ lead sponsors, as he questioned Best.

“In general, the police is doing a very good job,” Best responded.

Council members cited plenty of statistics to the contrary, most popularly New York Civil Liberties Union’s analysis of NYPD stop-and-frisk records that found 84 percent of the 685,724 New Yorkers stopped last year were black or Latino (groups that together make up only 52 percent of the city’s population), and the NYPD’s own report that 88 percent of stopped citizens were innocent. Best objected that numbers alone could prove or disprove stop-and-frisk’s efficacy, arguing that the practice works in tandem with the NYPD’s other approaches that have significantly reduced the city’s crime and murder rates in the past decade. Mistakes are inevitable, he insisted, but in accordance with the law, police are only stopping and frisking on reasonable suspicion.

Yet when is suspicion reasonable? Underlying the hearing’s exchanges was a question of whether the alleged racial profiling is promoted by stop-and-frisk itself, or cops’ unlawful abuse of it. The Community Safety Act’s proponents face the challenge of writing legislation that holds cops accountable in interpersonal interactions that are very difficult to regulate. As Quinn put it in her opening remarks, “We’re here to discuss how the police themselves are policed.”

The four proposed bills would require officers to identify their name, rank and reason whenever they perform stops, as well as to inform the individuals stopped of their right to refuse searches. People or organizations affected by discriminatory profiling would be allowed to bring a lawsuit, and an independent office of the Inspector General for the NYPD would be established to oversee police practices.

Public testimony in favor of these changes lasted for hours, stretching into the afternoon as the hearing’s audience and council members diminished. Black, Latino, Middle Eastern, LGBT and homeless citizens shared one anecdote after another of mistreatment, and urged the Public Safety Committee to push for reform.

“There has never been a better opportunity to overhaul our city’s police department and ensure New Yorkers are protected against discriminatory policing,” said a representative of the Center for Constitutional Rights Advocacy Program. “The Community Safety Act can help lay the foundation for a police department that is not above the law, one that can protect our city while treating us all with dignity and respect.”

Proponents’ enthusiasm was checked, though, by Best’s earlier assertion that the bills, justified or not, contradict state law and curtail the mayor’s power, both of which would lead to legal entanglements.

“[The bills] will cause tremendous damage,” he added to emphasize the Act’s impracticability. “There could be immediate lawsuits from almost everyone in the city.” The amount of money required to hear and defend these cases, he argued, would be extraordinary.

Still, like the public testifiers, many council members were not afraid to state their personal investment in reform and to demand change. “It doesn’t work! It needs to be stopped now!” declared Robert Jackson, a black councilman who referenced his unjustly targeted family and friends. When Public Safety Committee chair Peter Vallone asked him to refrain from making speeches, Councilwoman Helen Foster cut in. “If [Vallone’s] father were an 88-year-old who’s being pulled over and called ‘boy,’ then it would be different,” she said.

“I have an obligation and a duty to ask these questions,” Councilwoman Letitia James said to Vallone later in the hearing, “and I will not be stopped by you or anyone else.”
The Public Safety Committee will continue to review the bills and consider public testimony. Two additional hearings will be held next week, in Brooklyn on Tuesday, Oct. 23, and in Queens on Wednesday, Oct. 24.

UWS residents line up Wed. night to voice their concerns to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. (Photo Courtesy of @scottmstringer)

At a packed town hall meeting on the Upper West Side last night, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer fielded questions from concerned residents of the West 90s and 100s. The community came out in full force, pressing Stringer, City Council Member Gale Brewer and a panel of officials representing various city agencies to address their complaints and fears about various neighborhood issues.

Between 100 and 150 residents attended the forum, and the line of people waiting to step up to the microphone to say their piece stretched to the back of the room for the entire two-hour meeting. Armed with literature and, sometimes, un-concealed anger, community members and self-identified local activists pressed their elected officials for answers and action.

Stringer, a contender in the Democratic primary for the 2013 mayoral race, addressed concerns ranging from construction to hydrofracking to rat infestation.

The most-discussed issue of the night was the proposed construction of a Jewish Home Lifecare center on West 97th Street. JHL, an organization that provides health care and support services for the elderly, seeks to build a new, 20-story high-rise nursing home next door to P.S. 163, an elementary school. Although the New York City Planning Commission approved the application, Community Board 7 and local activists have continued to fight against the project.

Avery Brandon, who lives near the 97th Street site and whose kindergarten-aged daughter will be attending P.S. 163 for the next several years, spoke out vehemently against the new building at the meeting.

“A huge construction project like this can have untold effects on the health of our children,” Brandon said. “With the noise levels, and the mental stress that this construction will cause, how will our children be able to learn?”

Brandon and various other residents also cited increased congestion, dust and debris and decreased access to the block for emergency responders as potential negative consequences of the project.

Later, on the issue of fracking, the focus of the conversation centered around the contentious Spectra Pipeline, a proposed natural gas pipeline intended to expand the delivery of natural gas to areas in New York and New Jersey. The project, which was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in May, is slated to run along the coast of New Jersey and cross the Hudson River into Manhattan, bringing gas from the Marcellus Shale — acquired through the process of hydraulic fracturing — to New York City homes on the West Side.

Residents at the meeting last night voiced opposition shared by many critics of the controversial method, citing in particular what they said are particularly high levels of radon and other radioactive material in Marcellus gas. They emphasized the dangers of using radon-infused gas in New York City kitchens, which tend to be small and often not well-ventilated, as well as the potential effects exposure to fracked gas could have on children in the neighborhood.

Attendees also complained of a growing rat infestation on Upper West Side streets — a problem which Council Member Brewer assured would be tackled next month in a block-by-block effort conducted by the Department of Health — and the New York Police Department’s ever-contentious Stop and Frisk policy, which NYPD representatives declined to discuss in detail last night.

Photo Courtesy of Wiki Commons

Two are dead and six were wounded in shootings in the Bronx and Queens this past Sunday. These primarily drug-related shootings follow a long streak of summer violence, including a 3-year-old being struck with a stray bullet.

The weekend following the Fourth of July saw seven deaths and 21 injuries from shootings and stabbing violence, reports Gothamist. Seventeen people were shot on the Fourth of July holiday. Between July 2 and July 8, a total of 77 were shot in the City.

Mayor Bloomberg said the Fourth of July traditionally sees a large number of shootings in the City, but this year is particularly out of control. Joe Coscarelli at New York Magazine called the recent shootings “at best a statistical anomaly and at worst a disturbing new trend.”

The Magazine reports the numbers have jumped from last year: “There have been 12 percent more shootings on the year so far, and murders are up to 21 from 18 at this point in 2011 — a jump of almost 17 percent.”

On the issue of whether there is a correlation between heat waves and shooting spikes, a police source recently told the New York Post: “Warm weather means shorter tempers, and the people know that police are doing less stop-and-frisks, so more people carry guns.”

It’s the perfect storm this steamy summer—cops do blame hotter temperatures for the rise in violence, though they also point to recent scrutiny aimed at stop-and-frisk procedures.

Until the recent heat wave, the murder rate was “on pace to be the lowest in years,” reported Business Insider.

—Alissa Fleck

Photo by longislandwins. Photo courtesy of Flickr Commons.

Stop and Frisk has long divided New Yorkers who disagree over what constitutes appropriate policing strategies in the protection of city streets from violent crime. In some neighborhoods where these practices are nothing short of commonplace, activists are as fired up as ever in their efforts to reform local law enforcement.

The polarizing Stop and Frisk program has been a topic of major contention in the city recently as its use by the New York Police Department has increased exponentially over the last several years. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has forcefully defended the practice, saying that the stops “save lives” by “preventing violence before it occurs, not responding to the victims after the fact.”

Still, many critics argue that the program is ineffective and violates civil rights. They also claim that it disproportionately targets racial minorities.

According to data compiled by the New York Civil Liberties Union, 41.6% of all stops made in New York City 2011 were of black and Latino men between the ages of 14 and 24. By comparison, this group accounts for just 4.7% of the city’s population.

One group fighting against such inequalities is the Bronx Defenders, a non-profit organization that provides free legal representation and other services to Bronx residents who have been charged with crimes. The Defenders hosted a block party yesterday to engage community members in the issues facing the Bronx residents. Attendees mingled, played basketball, snacked on Italian ices — and learned about various services available in their neighborhood.

“Besides bringing together the local community, we want to let them know about the different campaigns we’re working with through our office,” said Patricio Martinez, a policy and communications development intern for the Defenders. “Particularly with Stop and Frisk, we’re working with several groups to stop racial profiling and start holding the NYPD accountable.”

He said these groups include NYCLU as well as campaigns such as Communities United for Police Reform. Representatives from both passed out literature at yesterday’s event.

Another Defenders volunteer, a long-time resident of the Bronx, first found his way to the non-profit not to help provide legal counsel, but to solicit it.

“I started as a client,” said former defendant Riko Guzman. “After that they helped me go to college. Then I came by and started helping out and offering my services.”

Guzman has been working for the organization since February.

“His story really shows what the Bronx Defenders are all about,” Martinez said.

Now, Guzman is determined to help put an end to Stop and Frisk policies, starting with communities in the Bronx. He outlined what he said are the three key goals of the movement to eliminate these kinds of police stops.

First, he said, is to once and for all eliminate racial and discriminatory practices in law enforcement.

Second, to politically empower areas classified by the NYPD as “high impact zones” — where there is increased police presence due to high crime rates — which Guzman claims are a target for Stop and Frisk because “the police think that nobody will care.”

Finally, he said, there needs to be more of a “mutual agreement” between cops and the residents of the communities they serve, in order to bolster trust rather than fear.

According to Guzman, another way for people to help combat discriminatory practices and racial profiling is to exercise their right to observe and report. For instance, he described a new app for smartphones that allows a user to videotape police encounters and to send the footage directly to the NYCLU.

“It automatically sends the video the second it stops recording,” Guzman explained, “so even if the police destroy your phone, it still gets sent to NYCLU.”

A scene from the protest on Sunday. Photo courtesy of Wiki Commons.

by Adel Manoukian

Reverend Al Sharpton joined thousands of people marching silently at a “Stop-and-Frisk” protest rally held on Sunday, June 17, organized by the Reverend, the NAACP and Local 1199 of the SEIU union.

About 300 civil rights groups were represented in the roughly 30-block walk from the northwest corner of Central Park to Mayor Bloomberg’s townhouse on 79^th Street. Police barricaded the area around the Mayor’s home and his aides would not specify if he was home. The silent march suddenly became loud and rowdy once the large turnout reached the home after about 2 and ½ hours, as activists shouted and tried to push past barricades to continue the walk down Fifth Avenue. According to witnesses, fights broke out, including some scuffles between protestors and the NYPD. Nine arrests were made by police under counts of assault, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

The NYPD’s “Stop and Frisk Policy”, from the mid-90s, is under much scrutiny by residents, elected officials, and labor union members because of the police’s tendency to stop young male blacks and Hispanics. Out of the roughly 700,000 people stopped and frisked last year, 87% were black or Hispanic.

Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly understand efforts must be made by police to have more respect for those who are stopped but they stand by the policy, saying “Stop-and-Frisk” keeps crime rates low and guns off the street.

Gay and lesbian activists also made appearance, showing the growing alliance between civil rights groups and them. This comes after the Board of NAACP, a part of which are many church leaders, voted to endorse gay marriage.

The march was reminiscent of NYC’s “silent march” for civil rights in 1917 after race riots in East St. Louis.

Father’s Day march to reform NYPD policy

By Scott M. Stringer

During recent years, the NYPD’s policy of stop-and-frisk has become one of the defining civil rights issues of our time. Across the five boroughs, New Yorkers are calling for reform of a strategy that overwhelmingly targets people of color and divides our city.

We need to speak with one voice on this issue, so I invite you to join me and a host of community leaders in a Father’s Day march on June 17 where we will be calling attention to a policy that stops thousands of our fellow citizens every day—some 700,000 last year, the vast majority for no reason at all.

We are not marching against the men and women in blue. I agree with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly that New York’s dramatic reduction in crime is one of the city’s proudest achievements.

But the most recent statistics about stop-and-frisk paint a troubling picture of how this policy is being implemented and why it needs to be reformed.

• In 2011, the number of stops was roughly seven times higher than the number in 2002.
• In 94 percent of stops, no arrests were made.
• In 86 percent of cases, the person stopped was either black or Latino.
• In 99.9 percent of stops, no gun was found.

Don’t get me wrong: There are times when police are justified in stopping and frisking subjects they deem to be a real threat.

But we need to base these stops on something more empirical than “furtive movement,” which today is the most commonly checked box by police officers when asked to explain a stop.

The 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches has been clearly defined by the courts for years: The only legal justification for a stop is when an officer has reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts—not on a hunch, and certainly not on the color of someone’s skin—that the individual being stopped has either just committed a crime or is about to. Anything else is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

We need to build bridges of trust and respect into every neighborhood by exploring innovative policing strategies that have succeeded in cities like Chicago, Boston and Cincinnati. It’s a message I delivered nine months ago at an address in Riverside Church in Harlem, and since then I have spent many Sundays listening to congregants in other churches talk of the fear—and despair—they feel about a stop-and-frisk policy that so clearly targets people of color.

Last fall I called on the Department of Justice to launch a probe of our current stop-and-frisk program to see if civil rights are being violated. I was proud to have worked with all 12 Manhattan community boards when they unanimously passed a resolution calling for reform of stop-and-frisk. But now, to bring about the changes we so urgently need, all of us—from uptown and downtown, East Side and West Side—must join together and make our voices heard.

That’s why I hope you’ll join us for our march on Father’s Day, June 17 at 3 p.m. on 110th Street between Fifth and Lenox avenues. New York City can be tougher on crime by being smarter on crime. Once we do that, we’ll make this a better, safer city for all of us.

Scott Stringer is Manhattan Borough President and a 2013 mayoral candidate.

This video originally appeared on City & State’s website. To read more from City & State click here.