The searches take about fifteen minutes each, and added up, number millions of hours of police time spent conducting these Stop and Frisk searches, making the practice a core part of NYPD police training and street policy, and not simply a seldom used law. Another startling fact is that 88% of those who are stopped are not at all guilty of any crime, but are still forced to submit to the police officers conducting the search for the duration of the search, and cannot bypass the search under any circumstances. This means that the police are spending the vast majority of their time not catching criminals, which may seem like an inefficient method. The NAACP, a political group representing African-Americans, has come out against the Stop and Frisk law because of statistics published by the NYPD that show that young black men are targeted at much higher rates for random searches than any other race. (Rivera, 2010) the NYPD searches young black men as often as they search young white men, but considering that there are six times as many white men than black men in the city, the statistics are shockingly unfavorable. The NYPD insists that it is conducting its affairs for the maximum safety of the community, and since statistically crime is more prevalent in young black men, there is a need for these different proportions.

In 2011, 84% of those who were stopped by the Stop and Frisk law were black or Latino. Just 9% of those stopped were white, despite the fact that the city is majority white. The law has become more radical over time, with police spending the majority of their time in the poorest and most dangerous neighborhoods. This policy is touted by the Bloomberg administration as a key component of his anticrime campaign. The individuals who are in these neighborhoods and who are being stopped, mostly young black and Latino men, are now used to being stopped possibly more than once per year, and for some men, repeatedly. This is because even though the searches are meant...

This generally means that the police are going to target the most counterculture individuals that they can, hoping that these individuals will be in possession of some illicit material. Granted, it would be unusual for a police officer to be frisking an elderly Grandma, but still, there remains no doubt that the police are using their right to random searches in order to target a small subset of the population.
In conclusion, Stop and Frisk has politically divided New York City, at a time when terrorism and liberty are conflicted, and crime has become a chief concern for the global epicenter of business. The Bloomberg Administration has defended Stop and Frisk as an act necessary for safety, and has admitted no plans on changing its policies or the wording of the law. The City Council, deeply split on this issue, has been unsuccessful in pursuing any sort of culpability from the police department. It would seem that, for now at least, the NYPD will be sticking to their established search habits.

Works Cited

NYCLU. (2011, December). Stop and frisk. Retrieved from http://www.nyclu.org/stopandfrisk.

Rivera, R. (2010, September 28). Police mum and stop and frisk hearing. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/nyregion/29frisk.html.

Signore, J. (n.d.). Gothamist. Retrieved from http://gothamist.com/2011/06/01/nypd_shatters_stop_and_frisk_record.php.

WNYC Newsroom. (2012, May 10). Bloomberg: Stop and frisk deterrent. Retrieved from http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2012/may/10/bloomberg-stop-and-frisks-work-deterrent/.