Racial and ethnic disparities in “stop-and-frisk” experience among young sexual minority men in New York City

Although racial/ethnic disparities in police contact are well documented, less is known about other dimensions of inequity in policing. Sexual minority groups may face disproportionate police contact. We used data from the P18 Cohort Study (Version 2), a study conducted to measure determinants of inequity in STI/HIV risk among young sexual minority men (YSMM) in New York City, to measure across-time trends, racial/ethnic disparities, and correlates of self-reported stop-and-frisk experience over the cohort follow-up (2014–2019). Over the study period, 43% reported stop-and-frisk with higher levels reported among Black (47%) and Hispanic/Latinx (45%) than White (38%) participants. Stop-and-frisk levels declined over follow-up for each racial/ethnic group. The per capita rates among P18 participants calculated based on self-reported stop-and-frisk were much higher than rates calculated based on New York City Police Department official counts. We stratified respondents’ ZIP codes of residence into tertiles of per capita stop rates and observed pronounced disparities in Black versus White stop-and-frisk rates, particularly in neighborhoods with low or moderate levels of stop-and-frisk activity. YSMM facing the greatest economic vulnerability and mental disorder symptoms were most likely to report stop-and-frisk. Among White respondents levels of past year stop-and-frisk were markedly higher among those who reported past 30 day marijuana use (41%) versus those reporting no use (17%) while among Black and Hispanic/Latinx respondents stop-and-frisk levels were comparable among those reporting marijuana use (38%) versus those reporting no use (31%). These findings suggest inequity in policing is observed not only among racial/ethnic but also sexual minority groups and that racial/ethnic YSMM, who are at the intersection of multiple minority statuses, face disproportionate risk. Because the most socially vulnerable experience disproportionate stop-and-frisk risk, we need to reach YSMM with community resources to promote health and wellbeing as an alternative to targeting this group with stressful and stigmatizing police exposure.

Stop-and-Frisk Policing

Stop and frisk is a proactive policing strategy that is widely used by police departments across the globe. In the United States, the origins of stop and frisk are rooted in the English practice of allowing night watchmen to stop and question individuals who were deemed suspicious. This ability to stop and question suspicious individuals serves two primary purposes. First, it gives law enforcement officers the ability to identify individuals who are looking to engage in criminal activity, stop those individuals, and prevent them from committing a criminal offense. Second, it may have a deterrent effect if potential offenders refrain from criminal offending because they do not want to risk being stopped. By the early 20th century, the implementation of stop and frisk in the United States varied by state. The Uniform Arrest Act, proposed in 1942, sought to standardize the practice. While several states adopted the Uniform Crime Act, which stipulated the circumstances under which a stop and frisk could occur, most states failed to do so. The practice of stop and frisk also faced constitutional challenges, with plaintiffs alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. In 1968, the US Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of stop and frisk. When law enforcement officers can establish reasonable suspicion, they can stop and question an individual. If there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a stopped individual possesses a weapon or poses a threat, law enforcement officers can also conduct a frisk. Stop and frisk has faced significant criticism and has been the subject of several class-action lawsuits, particularly in New York City. First, there is significant concern that nonwhite pedestrians are more likely than white pedestrians to be stopped, frisked, and subjected to the use of force. Next, stop and frisk may reduce perceptions of legitimacy and trust in law enforcement. The practice may also have adverse health consequences for those who are subjected to it or are in fear of being subjected to it. Finally, it is unclear whether stop and frisk prevents crime. It is also important to note that stop and frisk faces these same criticisms in other nations. The literature cited in this article summarizes key pieces on stop and frisk.

Police Stop and Frisk and the Impact of Race: A Focal Concerns Theory Approach

The findings of this study outline the racial differences in stop and frisk decisions by Illinois officers in consent searches and those based upon reasonable suspicion within the context of the elements of focal concerns theory. The analysis for this study was performed using propensity score matching (PSM) and allowed the researchers to create a quasi-experimental design to examine the race of the citizen and police decision making. According to our analysis of official Illinois law enforcement data, Black citizens, particularly males, were less likely to give their consent to a stop and frisk search. Black male citizens were also more likely to be stopped and searched due to an assessment of reasonable suspicion by the officer. Elements of focal concerns theory were also factors in pedestrian stops under conditions of consent and reasonable suspicion. Citizens judged as blameworthy were more likely to be stopped and frisked under conditions of consent and reasonable suspicion. The effect of a verbal threat and the officer’s prior knowledge about the citizen had even more significant impacts.

What Is Just Translation?

This article summarizes a broader project on “just translation” that attempts to rethink translation in the framework of Western philosophies of right, Sittlichkeit (ethical norms, customs, practices), and theories of justice (Plato, Hegel, Rawls), as well as of recent work on “postcolonial justice” that negotiates the collision between the drive toward universality and the normative, on the one hand, and the drive toward difference, on the other. Devising a critical approach that “does justice” to the nuances of words associated with adjudication in all the world's languages is the larger aspiration. But given practical limitations, this means scaling down to select terms and cases that signal translational injustice under conditions of violence and legal disputation. These conditions include gender violence and sexual safety across languages, the untranslatability of terms like refugee and migrant, the fraught vocabulary of settlement and unsettlement (involving the translation of terms like indigeneity, occupation, detention zone, and camp), shibboleth tests and the foreclosure of the right to residency (which amounts to the passporting of speech), and the multilingual scripts of biopolitical surveillance and patrol relied on in forcible-entry raids, stop and frisk, and executions of orders to “report and deport.”

La regulación de las paradas policiales: una comparativa internacional

Las paradas policiales son una línea de investigación jurídica y criminológica destacada en muchos países, sobre todo anglosajones, y cada vez más relevante en otros, como en general los países europeos y, en concreto, España. Sin embargo, existe poca literatura comparando la regulación de las mismas. Con la intención de contribuir en este aspecto, el presente artículo describe los dos principales modelos de regulación internacionales de las paradas policiales: el modelo anglosajón de Stop and Search o Stop and Frisk, presente en países como Reino Unido, y el modelo europeo continental de control de identidad, presente en países europeos como Francia y también en países latinoamericanos como Chile. Respecto a este último modelo se hará un análisis más detallado para el caso español. Pese a las diferencias entre modelos de regulación se puede observar que comparten una serie de características que en ambos casos dificultan el control legal efectivo de las paradas policiales. Por último, a modo de conclusión, se expondrán las principales similitudes y diferencias entre los dos modelos.

Mano Suave–Mano Dura: Legitimacy Policing and Latino Stop-and-Frisk

Stop-and-frisk and other punitive policing practices disproportionately affect marginalized communities of color. In response to calls for reform, police departments have implemented community policing programs aimed at improving relations with racialized communities. This study examines how a police unit used courtesy and respect in its engagement with a criminalized population, gang-associated Latinos, while relying on the stop-and-frisk practice. Our study reveals contextual and situational contradictions between modern police departments’ attempts to establish legitimacy and the hegemonic practice of investigatory stops. Drawing on observations and interviews conducted during a ride-along study, we find that stop-and-frisk, simultaneously used with reform practices like courtesy policing, yield a paradoxical policing approach, “the legitimacy policing continuum.” Officers regularly articulate a goal of respectfully interacting with courtesy to build community and trust—what we term “the mano suave”—while practicing a dominant logic of crime prevention through punitive measures—what we term “the mano dura.” We argue that community and courtesy policing are drawn on strategically in interaction and ultimately intertwined with and constrained by the racial bias at the heart of punitive policing practices like stop-and-frisk.