A new report released by the New York attorney general’s office on Thursday highlights just how ineffective New York City’s “stop-and-frisk” policy, which randomly targeted millions of minority residents, has been.
According to the analysis, just 1.5% of all stop-and-frisk arrests resulted in a jail or prison sentence. Just one in 50 stop-and-frisk arrests, 0.1%, led to a conviction for a violent crime or possession of a weapon. Close to half of all stop-and-frisk arrests did not result in a conviction.
The report is yet another chip at the credibility of the practice, a favored policy of outgoing Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s, in which millions of innocent minorities have been randomly stopped and sometimes frisked by the police. The new analysis is the first full accounting by the attorney general’s office of the policy’s impact on the criminal justice system in nearly 15 years.
“My office’s analysis of the city’s stop-and-frisk practices has broad implications for law enforcement, both in New York City and across the state,” said Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. “It’s our hope that this report – the first of its kind – will advance the discussion about how to fight crime without overburdening our institutions or violating equal justice under the law.”
Over the past decade more than 4 million New Yorkers have been targeted under the program. The vast majority of those stops occurred in mostly poor, mostly minority neighborhoods. Between 2004 and 2012, 4.4 million people were stopped. A weapon was found in less than 1% of the cases
A federal judge in August ruled that the NYPD violated the constitutional rights of those it targeted, overwhelmingly blacks and Latinos, saying the tactic amounted to “indirect racial profiling.”
Judge Shira Scheindlin called for a federal monitor to oversee sweeping reforms to the police department’s policy. Scheindlin blasted city leaders, including Mayor Bloomberg and top cop Raymond Kelly, writing in her decision that “the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner.”
But late last month an appeals court halted Scheindlin’s ruling. The court subsequently pulled the judge from all stop-and-frisk related cases, ruling that she failed to act impartially in the case by encouraging a class action lawsuit and giving media interviews following her decision. Lawyers for Scheindlin have since called her ouster from the case a “character assassination.”









