Unreasonable Suspicion In The Big Apple

The streets of New York City are apparently teeming with suspicious people. I am not one of them.

I can wander from one end of the metropolis to the other; nobody is going to stop me. I might loiter in Chinatown, lollygag around Little Italy, hike through Washington Heights, park myself on Pelham Parkway or rock out in the Rockaways. Nobody would care, least of all the New York City Police Department.

Even if I seem out of place, being white and middle-aged places me above suspicion. Don’t take my word for it. You can ask the NYPD.

New York police are on a stop-and-frisk binge under the direction of Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, who once disdained the practice, as The New York Times recently reported. Last year, his officers stopped 685,724 New Yorkers, 88 percent of whom were found to be doing absolutely nothing wrong. That’s nearly 1,900 stops per day, or 78 stops per hour, or – just think about it for a moment – more than one stop for every minute of every day of the year.

Of those stopped, 87 percent were either black or Latino, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union.

I have never had the experience of having a cop stop me as I walk down the street, tell me to face the wall, and “ask” (though it won’t sound like a mere request) that I empty my pockets. I would be outraged. I would certainly ask why I was being stopped. I would probably ask if I was being arrested. Though I would not physically resist, I might tell the officer the he or she must either tell me that the stop was mandatory or let me go. I know my rights.

But my defiance does not mean I am braver or smarter than the people who are actually stopped every minute of every day on New York City’s streets. It means I am whiter, and as a result, my experiences lead me to respond differently to the police. And, apparently, lead the New York City police to respond differently to me. I invariably find the officers I encounter to be courteous, professional and respectful.

The practice of detaining a citizen and then patting him or her down to check for weapons was upheld in the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio. The Supreme Court determined that such a procedure did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, so long as the police officer had “reasonable suspicion” that the person had committed, was committing or was about to commit a crime, and that the person may be armed and “presently dangerous.” The suspicion, according to the courts, must be based on specific and articulable facts, not merely a hunch.

The “frisk” authorized by the courts is an external pat-down of the outer garments to alert the officer to the possible presence of weapons. Nothing requires a stopped pedestrian to produce identification or even to talk to the police at all. Someone like me can probably engage in such passive resistance and escape unharmed. But in practice, a young man of color exhibiting such defiance in New York City, though within his rights, risks finding himself in a situation that could quickly escalate to dangerous heights.

In 2009, college student David Ourlicht asked to take down the badge and scooter numbers of an officer who stopped and asked him for ID on his way home from school. Ourlicht told the Daily News that, in consequence, the cop threw him against the wall, frisked him, and issued him a ticket for disorderly conduct. Ourlicht fought the charge, which was eventually dropped.

More recently, 19-year-old Brooklyn resident Jasheem Smiley reported that he asked to see a badge when a man claiming to be a cop jumped out of a van and ordered him to get on the sidewalk. The request garnered Smiley a face pressed to the pavement by the officer’s shoe.

City Councilman Jumaane Williams of Brooklyn told NPR that the stop-and-frisk policy “creates a culture that’s festering in the NYPD.” He also said that, in practice, it is racial profiling, which certainly seems self-evident in the department’s statistics. Williams, who is black, was himself arrested during a Labor Day parade last September.

That festering culture means black parents must have a serious talk with their sons about how to react if approached by a police officer. It is supposed to be the officer’s job to ensure that everyone stays safe. Instead, New York teenagers are called upon every day to handle themselves with just the right deportment to prevent an armed, trained law enforcement agent from feeling threatened enough to resort to violence. New York asks its nonwhite youths to make the streets safer for cops.

Commissioner Kelly, however, continues to defend the practice. In a recent interview he said: “I think it’s an important tool – certainly not the only tool – that we use to keep this city safe. I think it’s one of the tactics and strategies that helped us reduce murders by 51 percent […] from the decade before.”

The police claim their approach is productive because they very occasionally recover a weapon or make an arrest. Many of these arrests are for possession of trivial amounts of marijuana, which, arguably, shouldn’t be illegal in the first place. The police cannot legally compel people they stop to reveal such possession; that would be the territory of a search, for which they would need a warrant or probable cause. Yet the fact remains that officers often intimidate those they stop into waiving their rights.

Whistle-blowing regarding the illegal use of quotas in the NYPD, first from Adrian Schoolcraft in Brooklyn and more recently from Craig Matthews in the Bronx, has not bolstered the credibility of those arguing that such stop and frisks are proper or necessary. The staggering racial inequality of the stops does nothing for the argument either.

New York’s police can take legitimate pride in the dramatic reduction of the city’s crime in the past two decades. Kelly is utterly wrong, however, in arguing that stopping hundreds of thousands of innocent people has anything to do with reducing crime. He is misguided when he implicitly argues that we should buy safer streets at the price of wholesale violations of young, nonwhite citizens’ rights.

We may not live in a police state, but if you are a young person of color living in the five boroughs, you certainly live in a police city. If people like me had to walk the city’s streets in your shoes, this outrage would soon cease.

Disclaimer: This page contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, we may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

About Larry M. Elkin 564 Articles

Affiliation: Palisades Hudson Financial Group

Larry M. Elkin, CPA, CFP®, has provided personal financial and tax counseling to a sophisticated client base since 1986. After six years with Arthur Andersen, where he was a senior manager for personal financial planning and family wealth planning, he founded his own firm in Hastings on Hudson, New York in 1992. That firm grew steadily and became the Palisades Hudson organization, which moved to Scarsdale, New York in 2002. The firm expanded to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in 2005, and to Atlanta, Georgia, in 2008.

Larry received his B.A. in journalism from the University of Montana in 1978, and his M.B.A. in accounting from New York University in 1986. Larry was a reporter and editor for The Associated Press from 1978 to 1986. He covered government, business and legal affairs for the wire service, with assignments in Helena, Montana; Albany, New York; Washington, D.C.; and New York City’s federal courts in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Larry established the organization’s investment advisory business, which now manages more than $800 million, in 1997. As president of Palisades Hudson, Larry maintains individual professional relationships with many of the firm’s clients, who reside in more than 25 states from Maine to California as well as in several foreign countries. He is the author of Financial Self-Defense for Unmarried Couples (Currency Doubleday, 1995), which was the first comprehensive financial planning guide for unmarried couples. He also is the editor and publisher of Sentinel, a quarterly newsletter on personal financial planning.

Larry has written many Sentinel articles, including several that anticipated future events. In “The Economic Case Against Tobacco Stocks” (February 1995), he forecast that litigation losses would eventually undermine cigarette manufacturers’ financial position. He concluded in “Is This the Beginning Of The End?” (May 1998) that there was a better-than-even chance that estate taxes would be repealed by 2010, three years before Congress enacted legislation to repeal the tax in 2010. In “IRS Takes A Shot At Split-Dollar Life” (June 1996), Larry predicted that the IRS would be able to treat split dollar arrangements as below-market loans, which came to pass with new rules issued by the Service in 2001 and 2002.

More recently, Larry has addressed the causes and consequences of the “Panic of 2008″ in his Sentinel articles. In “Have We Learned Our Lending Lesson At Last” (October 2007) and “Mortgage Lending Lessons Remain Unlearned” (October 2008), Larry questioned whether or not America has learned any lessons from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. In addition, he offered some practical changes that should have been made to amend the situation. In “Take Advantage Of The Panic Of 2008” (January 2009), Larry offered ways to capitalize on the wealth of opportunity that the panic presented.

Larry served as president of the Estate Planning Council of New York City, Inc., in 2005-2006. In 2009 the Council presented Larry with its first-ever Lifetime Achievement Award, citing his service to the organization and “his tireless efforts in promoting our industry by word and by personal example as a consummate estate planning professional.” He is regularly interviewed by national and regional publications, and has made nearly 100 radio and television appearances.

Visit: Palisades Hudson

1 Comment on Unreasonable Suspicion In The Big Apple

  1. Mr. Elkin, I would venture to guess that you were not living in NYC in the late 70’s through mid- 90’s. If so, perhaps you have memory loss. Although Stop and Frisk may seem to many as an assault on poor minority communities, it is in fact the opposite. The current policies of the NYPD have helped reduce crime tremendously in the worst neighborhoods in NYC. Reverting back to a “Do Nothing and Look Away” policy will hurt minorities more than they will affluent people….in more ways than one. When crime was bad here, we experienced suburban flight…When crime was bad here, mostly minorities were victims. So, one has to weigh the balance. Instead of reading nonsense such as your article, we will be hearing the daily murder counts on network TV again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.