Argument: Stop-and-frisk‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Can Work, under Careful Supervision

In mid-November, speaking in a black church in Brooklyn, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is now running for the Democratic nomination for president, apologizedpublicly for supporting stop-and-frisk, a police practice intended to reduce violent crime, which had been criticized as racially biased (the NYPD called the policy “Stop, Question, and Frisk”).

Henry F. Fradella and Michael D. White write in The Conversation thatBloomberg’s apology puzzled many observers. “That included scholars of criminal justice like ourselves.”

The write:

His apology was confusing because that phrase, often shortened to “stop and frisk,” is used to describe two different things.

As we wrote in our book, Stop and Frisk: The Use and Abuse of a Controversial Policing Tactic, one is a legitimate, constitutionally sanctioned tactic, grounded in a police officer’s reasonable suspicion that a particular person is engaged in criminal activity.

The other is an illegitimate, broad crime-control strategy that, more often than not, ignores the law’s requirement that a particular person be reasonably suspected of breaking the law.

They conclude

Despite those problems in New York, we believe that it is possible for stop-and-frisk to succeed in contemporary policing – so long as it is not used broadly and indiscriminately.

….

If used properly, we believe, stop-and-frisk can be successfully and legitimately used while treating people with dignity and respect and giving suspects fair opportunities to tell their sides of the story. By making decisions fairly and acting with trustworthy motives, officers can ensure public safety while honoring citizens’ constitutional rights.