“I have been stopped 3 times in the last week and each time I had nothing on me.”, said Gabriel Jesus, a student at NYC iSchool. “I should not be searched if I’m being a good citizen, “ he added. He believes he’s being stopped and frisked so frequently because he is “short and Mexican.”

The Constitutionality of Stop and frisk has continued to be a serious topic and debate in New York City. Officially called “Stop, Question and Frisk,” the police department policy has become an issue due to all the complaints concerning it. A trend has been noticed. The trend is that minorities are stopped and frisked at a far greater rate than non-minorities. In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times. Of those stops, 140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent), 77,704 were black (54 percent), 44,581 were Latino (31 percent),17,623 were white (12 percent), 83,499 were aged 14-24 (55 percent), according to the New York Civil Liberties Union. Police work is split up by the 76 precincts across New York City.

According to “Stop, Question and Frisk Policing Practices in New York City: A Primer” from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, “Of nearly 3 million stops that occurred between 2003 and 2005, five precincts (23rd, 73rd, 75th, 79th, 103rd) stand out as having the greatest number of stops cumulatively. The neighborhoods covered by these precincts are: the Upper East Side/East Harlem (23rd), Ocean Hill-Brownsville, Brooklyn (73rd), East New York, Brooklyn (75th), Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn (79th), and Jamaica, Queens (103rd).” These are all neighborhoods with high populations of minorities and are also high poverty neighborhoods. The neighborhood of these that is the most poor, East New York, has a poverty rate of 33% according to the Bloomberg Administration in 2011. Those who disapprove countlessly bring this up.

A New York Times article, “For New York Police, There’s No End to the Stops” stated that, “Policemen made 168,126 stops of young black men last year. That number exceeded the city’s population of young black men. Even in vastly white neighborhoods, like the Upper East Side and Greenwich Village, the police stopped far more blacks than whites.” This means that many of the same young black men in the city were stopped multiple times.

In a satirical bit on the Daily Show, correspondent Jessica Williams jokes “If anything, stop-and-frisk doesn’t go far enough,” she said as she reported from “one of New York’s most crime-ridden neighborhoods.” She was downtown in the financial district where, she pointed out, mostly white stockbrokers steal far greater sums than anyone in the so-called “hood” robbing a convenience store. The humor continues when she states that she only wants the people who look like they are committing white-collar crime to be stopped, “You know, walking around in tailored suits, slicked-back hair, always need sunscreen, if you know what I’m saying.. If you don’t want to be associated with white-collar crime, maybe you shouldn’t dress that way,” she added. “It’s OK, I can say that. Some of my best friends are white men in suits.” Williams was using humor to point out the perceived absurdity of the reverse claims made against minorities that look and dress like “thugs.”

Stop and frisk has repeatedly been indicated as racist by many that have been victims by this policy. Racial discrimination is prohibited by law under the Civil Rights Act, although racism still exists in the hearts and minds of some people. However, racism still exists to some extent in hearts of the people. “Stop and Frisk” is not racist on paper. A cop sees a suspicious looking person and questions them, frisks them if necessary, but racist people could perceive that minorities are suspicious in general. According to legalzoom.com, reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. It is understood that stop and frisk is not intentionally carried out to make people distrust the police, however this is the trend that has been seen.

“"Stop and Frisk" definitely creates tension between officers and civilians but there isn't any discrimination..Whether or not there are any weapons in sight, clothing, especially if it fits the description I'm looking for, and estrange activity,”said Michael Shelton, an NYC police officer.

According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, frisks should only be conducted when it is suspected that a person is carrying a weapon and of the frisks in 2011 a weapon was found 1.9%. NYPD statistics show that stops have become less regular since 2011. Whether or not there are any weapons in sight, clothing, especially if it fits the description I'm looking for, and estrange activity.”

Stop and frisk seems like a policy that would definitely stop crime. The idea is to stop someone before they commit a crime. Franklin Zimring, Chair of the Berkeley Criminal Justice Studies Program, analyzed New York City data and concluded in 2012 that the crime reduction correlated positively with the NYPD’s law enforcement strategy, which includes preventive street patrol.

The new mayor of New York City, Mayor Bill deBlasio told the New York Times that stop and frisk was “broken and misused” and cited a “collective commitment to fix the fundamental problems that enabled stop-and-frisk to grow out of control and violate the rights of innocent New Yorkers.” Perhaps, with more oversight, the policy will stop crime and will no longer be a source of controversy.