Develop a case study based on the stop and frisk policing strategy by NYPD and explain how the criminal justice leader (James O'Neill & Dermot Shea (NYPD Police Commissioners past and current) faced a

Sociology Compass9/11 (2015), 931–939, 10.1111/soc4.12322

Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future

Jose Torres*

Virginia Tech

Abstract

Scholarly debates surrounding stop-and-frisk typically assess the effectiveness and lawfulness of stop-and-

frisk. Notwithstanding these efforts, recent reviews have excluded some recent research that addresses its

impact on racial and ethnic immigrants. Understanding how the practice of stop-and-frisk affects racial

and ethnic immigrants is worth including in reviews of these policies, considering the recent growth of

research involving crime and immigrants that largely f inds that immigration does not result in higher

levels of crime. This review includes recent work showing that overall enforcement–stops and arrests

–is higher in immigrant communities despite their lower levels of criminal involvement and recent work

exploring differences among f irst-generation and second-generation immigrants in perceptions of police

stops. Finally, some suggestions for the future of stop-and-frisk research are considered.

Terry v. Ohio(1968) established what is commonly known as stop-and-frisk, or aTerrystop. This

means law enforcement can stop anyone they reasonably suspect has committed, is committing,

or will commit a crime and initiate a frisk if they suspect the person is armed and dangerous.

Debates surrounding stop-and-frisk typically assess the effectiveness and lawfulness (legality)

of these policies (Meares 2014). Studies of effectiveness f ind stop-and-frisk produces modest

and inconclusive reductions in crime (Rosenfeld and Fornango 2014; Smith and Purtell

2008), and legality studies f ind strong evidence suggesting stop-and-frisk violates Fourth

Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure and Fourteenth Amendment

protections against discrimination (Fagan 2010, 2012; Fagan et al. 2010; Gelman et al. 2007).

Specif ically, the empirical evidence points to large racial and ethnic disparities at the hands of

stop-and-frisk. Such racial and ethnic inequality in enforcement keep minorities under a con-

stant police gaze, which signif icantly increases their chances of advancing into the legal system

but also reinforcing perceived threats based on race and ethnicity (see Blalock 1967; Eitle et al.

2002; Kent and Jacobs 2005; Parker et al. 2005). Racial and ethnic minorities experience

considerable inequalities in areas such as education, housing, and labor. However, inequalities

in areas of law enforcement are particularly concerning considering law enforcement are the

primary mechanism by which populations enter the legal system, which can limit access to

opportunities and resources needed for social mobility–thus further contributing to inequalities

in education, housing, and labor (see Alexander 2012).

Notwithstanding the efforts to assess the effectiveness and lawfulness of stop-and-frisk, recent

reviews have not included some recent research that includes the use of these practices against

racial and ethnic immigrants. Understanding how stop-and-frisk has affected racial and ethnic

immigrants is worth including in reviews of stop-and-frisk, considering the growth of research

involving crime and immigrants that largely f inds that immigration does not result in higher

levels of crime (Butcher and Piehl 1998; Davies and Fagan 2012; Kubrin and Ousey 2009;

Martinez et al. 2010; Sampson 2008). Such f indings would trump the notion that aggressive

use of stop-and-frisk would be necessary to combat crime among immigrants because they pose

no criminal threat to native-born populations. It is also worthy of inclusion considering the

fear of deportation and language barriers (Culver 2004; Menjívar and Bejarano 2004)–thus

dissuading them from making contact with police. This requires us to acknowledge that their

experiences with stop-and-frisk may be different than native-born populations. Finally, such

work is important because it allows us to go beyond the traditional Black-White, Latino(a)-

White, Black-Latino(a) comparisons by forcing us to consider ethnic studies of stop-and-frisk

policies.

This review begins with a history of stop-and-frisk that explores how it went from a tool to

protect off icers during investigations to a tool to stop crime and segues into a review of contem-

porary racial and ethnic debates of stop-and-frisk in New York City.

1It then broadens our un-

derstanding of stop-and-friskfs racially and ethnically disparate enforcement by critically

evaluating the use of stop-and-frisk on racial and ethnic immigrants using two recent studies

conducted in New York City. It argues that stop-and-frisk debates will not be advanced with-

out understanding of the relationship between stop-and-frisk and racial and ethnic immigrants.

Finally, some suggestions for the future of stop-and-frisk research are considered.

Stop-and-frisk: from ofﬁcer protection to crime control

Terry v. Ohio(1968), which established“stop-and-frisk,”concluded that law enforcement can

stop citizens they reasonably suspect have committed, are committing, or about to commit a

crime. Further, law enforcement may frisk, or pat down, the outer clothing for weapons if they

suspect citizens to be armed and dangerous. Because frisks are only allowed under certain

conditions, not all stops lead to frisks. Essentially, the Court (Supreme Court) ruled that stop-

and-frisk is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches

and seizures, while at the same time advancing police investigatory abilities. Finally, the Court

showed considerable support for the safety of police off icers in allowing for frisks, establishing

frisk as a measure that ensures off icers are safe during investigations (Terry v. Ohio1968).

As Fagan and Davies (2000) point out, moving from allowing off icers to investigate suspected

crimes and frisk suspected criminals for safety reasons, to a stop-and-frisk policing strategy to

reduce crime, is ironic. Factors that contributed to this transformation were increased judicial

support of crime control measures, the War on Drugs, and scholarly persuasion. First, in order

for police to be able to perform“Terrystops,”stops involving stop-and-frisk, they must have the

legal support to do so. Among the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist’s reign (1986–2005) is par-

ticularly cautionary to the legacy of stop-and-frisk (Steiker 2013). Pufong and Kluball (2009)

reviewed 26 stop-and-frisk cases during the Rehnquist Era, f inding the Court consistently

showed conservative support for usage of stop-and-frisk. A few standout cases includeHiibel

v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Humboldt County(2004), which validated state statutes re-

quiring citizens to identify themselves upon law enforcement request so long as the stop was

premised on reasonable suspicion, andIllinois v. Wardlow(2000) justifying stop-and-frisk based

on the location of the stop among other factors. Pro-policing stances of the Rehnquist era

mirrored enhanced sentencing statutes that sided with crime control over civil liberties, helping

fuel the get-tough-on-crime approach synonymous with the War on Drugs (Alexander 2012).

Proactive-policing strategies began to get scholarly attention as increased crime rates followed

Terry(Epp et al. 2014). Wilson and Boland (1978) were among the f irst to argue that we shift

from random patrol to aggressive community approaches that maximize interactions and obser-

vations. However, the seminal piece done by Wilson and Kelling (1982) introducing the theory

of“broken windows”provided the justif ication for aggressive policing strategies in low income

communities. The broken windows theory of crime posits that quality-of-life crimes, such as

vandalism, changes the physical character of an area but may result in social disorder and more

932 Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future

supplement harsher sentencing practices and broader police authority from legal actors, with a

tougher policing initiative, broken windows policing (Alexander 2012).

Under broken windows policing, if social disorder leads to more serious crime, then arrests

should be targeted at low-level offenses that visibly convey social disorder such as loitering,

drinking in public, pan handling, and prostitution (Kelling and Cole 1996; Silverman 1999).

This style of policing took center stage in New York City during the 1990s and was coined

“quality-of-life policing”(Bratton and Knobler 1998; Spitzer 1999). Within quality-of-life

policing, the NYPD had a few goals, two of which were to combat low-level disorder and

to stem gun violence. To achieve these goals, the NYPD encouraged stop-and-frisk to get guns

off the streets and maintain order (Daniels v. City of New York2003; Spitzer 1999).

Racially and ethnically disparate enforcement of stop-and-frisk in New York

Beginning in the 1990s, the use of stop-and-frisk became a primary mechanism to combat low-

level disorder and to stem gun violence in New York City (Daniels v. City of New York2003;

Spitzer 1999). Once in place, it was not long before stop-and-frisk’s racial and ethnic conse-

quences came to light, helping shed initial insights into the racial and ethnic inequalities faced

in the use of stop-and-frisk. After two high prof ile cases of police misconduct on African-

Americans involving complaints of police harassment and the physical assault of Abner Louima

and the killing of Amadou Diallo, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer released a report

on the use of stop-and-frisk. Among the f indings:

The NYPD“stopped”9.5 blacks for every one“stop”which resulted in the arrest of a black, 8.8 His-

panics for every one“stop”that resulted in the arrest of a Hispanic, and 7.9 whites for every one“stop”

that resulted in the arrest of one white…After accounting for the effect of differing crime rates, during

the covered period, blacks were“stopped”23% more often than whites, across all crime categories…

Hispanics were“stopped”39% more often than whites across crime categories. (Spitzer 1999, IX–X)

The mounting evidence of racial discrimination led toDaniels v. City of New York(2003), which

alleged racial bias in the patterns of stop-and-frisk.Danielsultimately led to a consent decree,

mandating the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policies and tactics be remediated, and continually

monitored to assess the extent of racial inequality due to stop-and-frisk (DanielsStipulation of

Settlement 2003).

Contemporary racial and ethnic stop-and-frisk debates

Post-Danielsracial and ethnic stop-and-frisk debates focus solely on legality–predominantly

whether stop-and-frisk violates Fourteenth Amendment protections against racial and ethnic

discrimination. Statistics such as those in Figure 1 are used as context for legalistic debates. From

2004 to 2012, Blacks and Latino(a)s were signif icantly more likely to be stopped than Whites,

constituting 83% of stops. For frisks, the majority of those are also racial and ethnic minorities:

57.3% are Black, 32% are Latino, and 3% are Asian (Avdija 2014). However, Blacks in New

York City constituted roughly 23% of the population, Latino(a)s 29% of the population, and

Whites 33% of the population (NYC Planning 2011). Thus, Black and Latino(a)s were stopped

and frisked more than their proportion of the city’s population (see also Fagan 2010).

Advocates defend disparities by suggesting they ref lect higher crime rates among racial and

ethnic minorities and that police are dispersed where the crime happens–within racial and

ethnic communities and not in white communities (Bratton and Knobler 1998; MacDonald

Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future 933

apples,”that stop racial and ethnic minorities at rates signif icantly above those of their peers

(Ridgeway 2007). Countering these arguments, Fagan (2010, 21) f inds that“both in the neigh-

borhoods and among individuals, Black and Hispanic persons in New York City in 2010–12 are

more likely to be stopped than are White citizens after controlling for crime, the concentration

of police, and local social conditions.”This evidence suggests that the racial inequality in the use

of stop-and-frisk cannot be explained simply by a few problem off icers or the amount of crime

that is committed by racial and ethnic minorities but is more suggestive of a systemic racialized

enforcement of stop-and-frisk.

There are also substantial racial inequalities experienced across suspect crime types. While

marijuana usage has been found to be equal across racial and ethnic groups, or in some cases

higher among Whites ( Johnston et al. 2005; National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2007;

Saxe et al. 2001),“off icers stop Blacks on suspicion of marijuana possession at a rate of 14.83

per 1,000 population, while Hispanics are only stopped 5.41 times per 1,000 population, and

Whites are stopped only 1.96 times per 1,000 population”(Geller and Fagan 2010, 23). For

suspected violent and weapons crimes, Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic Black, and Hispanic

White New Yorkers were three times more likely than their white counterparts to be stopped

and frisked relative to each group’s participation in these types of crimes (Gelman et al. 2007).

Hit rates, or the rate at which physical evidence of a crime is seized perTerrystop, based on

race and ethnicity is also used in legal debates. Between 2004 and 2012, Blacks represented 2.3

million of all stops, Latino(a)s 1.4 million, and Whites only 435,000. However, there were 143

stops per seizure for Blacks, 99 stops per seizure for Hispanics, and 27 stops per seizure for

Whites (Figure 2). Given the low hit rates for racial and ethnic minorities, stop-and-frisk oppo-

nents argue stops against racial minorities cannot be reasonably justif ied. Overall, empirical

evidence f inds stop-and-frisk violates the Fourteenth Amendment (Fagan 2010, 2012; Fagan

et al. 2010; Gelman et al. 2007), and ten years afterDaniels, a civil liberties victory was won

inFloyd v. City of New York(2013). The court ruled that the NYPD violated Fourteenth

Amendment protections against racial and ethnic discrimination.

Stop-and-frisk and racial/ethnic immigrants

A larger gap in racial and ethnic pedestrian stops that needs to be given attention is racial and

ethnicimmigrants. The literature has at least been able to tackle issues related to whether immi-

gration is related to crime, showing that immigration is not positively related to crime (Butcher

Figure 1NYPD stops by race, 2004–2012. Adapted with permission from Mother Jones.

934 Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future

Sampson 2008). Such f indings would trump the notion that stop-and-frisk would be necessary

to combat crime among immigrants because they pose no criminal threat to native-born

populations. Immigrants, however, encounter their own unique challenges with police, such

as fear of deportation and language barriers (Culver 2004; Menjívar and Bejarano 2004), that

would prevent them from making contact with police. This requires us to acknowledge their

experiences with stop-and-frisk may be different than native-born populations and specif ically

whether similar racial and ethnic inequalities in stop-and-frisk are observed among immigrant

populations.

Davies and Fagan (2012) found that in New York City, overall enforcement, stops, and

arrests disproportionately fall on racial and ethnic immigrant communities despite lower levels

of crime in these areas. After comparing racial and ethnic immigrant groups, Latin and Asian

immigrant neighborhoods were associated with higher enforcement ratios and lower crime

rates, but this was not found to be statistically signif icant. Total and violent crime rates are

lower, and enforcement was lower in areas where foreign born persons of African descent

are higher. White immigration also showed lower enforcement and lower crime rates, but

the effects are not that strong. This protective effect may be due to White immigrants in

New York City settling in areas with low crime rates and greater access to economic wealth

and resources. In explaining the disproportionate levels of enforcement in immigrant neigh-

borhoods overall, Davies and Fagan (2012) note that law enforcement may be acting on a

neighborhood immigrant stigma where off icers interpret disorder and crime to be high

among immigrant neighborhoods allowing for coercive police practices. They also note that

immigrant communities tend to be adjacent to high crime areas where higher levels of

enforcement can spillover to immigrant communities. Nonetheless, higher levels of enforce-

ment in immigrant communities in New York City do not appear to be justif ied based on their

levels of crime.

Figure 2The New York City Police Department’s hit rate by race, 2004–2012. Adapted with permission from Mother Jones.

Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future 935

something off icers may very well know and take advantage of. Education on pedestrian stops

may largely ref lect immigrant comparisons to their relationship to police and criminal justice

systems from their countries of origin (Culver 2004; Kirk et al. 2012; Menjívar and Bejarano

2004; Rengifo and Fratello 2014; Wachholz and Miedema 2000). In learning how to deal with

police, immigrants are likely to learn through experiences with police, or legal socialization

(Fagan and Tyler 2005), which in turn may shape their perceptions (Davis and Hendricks

2007; Davis et al. 1998; Vidales et al. 2009). Rengifo and Fratello (2014) found that among

those stopped by police in New York City, f irst-generation immigrants are more likely to

perceive the police as effective, and second-generation immigrants perceive police as less

legitimate. However, they did f ind that among all groups (i.e. native born, f irst generation,

second generation), that less fair perceptions of stops are associated with more negative percep-

tions of effectiveness. So, while f irst-generation immigrants may tend to hold more positive

perceptions of police, these perceptions can erode after having spent some time in America

and having more interactions with police (Davis and Hendricks 2007; Kirk Et al. 2012;

Menjívar and Bejarano 2004; Rengifo and Fratello 2014), and in the context with stop-

and-frisk.

Conclusion

In questioning the processes guiding why police stop racial and ethnic immigrants more than

white immigrants, we should also highlight the context. If Latino immigrant groups are stop-

and-frisked more, is this due to attempts to combat undocumented immigrants? If racial and

ethnic Muslim immigrant groups are stop-and-frisked more, is this due to attempts to combat

terrorism, or wouldTerrystops for immigrant groups simply be due to“Brown Threat,”or post

9/11 portrayals of Latino(a)s and Middle Eastern Muslims as dangerous to social and economic

well-being (see Rivera 2014)? For example, Vidales et al. (2009) found that Latino(a)s held

more negative perceptions of the police, f ind the police less helpful, feel less accepted in the

community, are less likely to report crimes, and have more contacts with police after an attempt

to have local Costa Mesa police enforce immigration laws. Using context, they were able to

draw conclusions about negative perceptions of police that would not have been explained

otherwise. Context not only informs why certain groups would be targeted but would inform

the specif ic techniques used to target them. Overall, racial and ethnic studies on stop-and-frisk

are still in its early stages, and post-Danielsresearch has potential to draw attention to other

critical areas. We should continue to explore processes guiding pedestrian stops that allow us

to understand how police can make and carry out stops (see Fagan and Geller 2015; Gau

2013; Kessler 2009). For example, we need to continue to address stop-and-frisk, but we should

also consider conducting research on consensual encounters. Consensual encounters allow

off icers to approach anyone to talk to them, to ask questions, or request to search persons and

their belongings without reasonable suspicion. Because consensual encounters are guided by

voluntary actions of the citizen, the Fourth Amendment does not apply should someone

willingly consent to questioning, searches, or frisks. Furthermore, while citizens are free to leave

during consensual encounters, one survey of 406 Boston residents falsif ies the idea that citizens

would feel free to leave, shows that even citizens that are aware they are free to leave are still

likely to feel as though they are not, and shows that these outcomes are fairly equal across all

racial and ethnic categories (Kessler 2009). Thus, attention on stop-and-frisk must confront

the totality of ways police can approach citizens.

Also, we need more comprehensive data on the use of stop-and-frisk to draw def initive

national conclusions on racially and ethnically disparate enforcement of stop-and-frisk. While

936 Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future

Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Seattle all use stop-and-frisk to combat crime.

While preliminary data have been available from these cities, we do not have comprehensive

data sets on these cities for scholarly use. Furthermore, we need racial and ethnic distinctions

in stop-and-frisk outcomes beyond Black-White and Latino(a)-White comparisons. These

distinctions alone become problematic because police may be underreporting the amount of

Latino(a)s they stop by noting Latino(a)s as either White or Black (American Civil Liberties

Union Foundation of Massachusetts 2014). Better reporting of race and ethnicity would help

substantially and should be a priority if we are going to adequately evaluate stop-and-frisk, as

Asians and Latino(a)s are the fastest growing racial and ethnic populations in the United States

(Brown 2014). Finally, more data would advance discussions of the social inequality faced by

racial and ethnic minorities due to law enforcement tactics and the consequences of such

inequality.

Short Biography

Jose Torres is a PhD candidate in Sociology at Virginia Tech. His research broadly examines the

areas of urban policing, community policing, policing and social control, police effectiveness,

and race/ethnicity and policing. His current projects include residential perceptions of banish-

ment in public housing, testing the effectiveness of banishment in public housing, and using

agent-based modeling to test the effectiveness of eliminating race-based sentencing disparities.

Jose holds an MA in Criminal Justice from Norfolk State University.

Notes

Correspondence address: Jose Torres, Virginia Tech, 560 McBryde Hall (0137), 225 Stanger Street, Blacksburg, VA 24061,

USA. E-mail: [email protected]

1New York City provides the most comprehensive stop-and-frisk data to draw conclusions. Other cities such as Los

Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Newark also report stop-and-frisk data. There are limitations in assessing

their data as they relate to pedestrian stops. Los Angeles combines pedestrian and trafﬁc stops (Ayres and Borowsky 2008).

Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Newark data are based on small sample sizes, or analyses are notﬁnalized to draw

deﬁnitive conclusions (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Illinois 2015; American Civil Liberties Union

Foundation of Massachusetts 2014; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Pennsylvania 2015; Ofer and

Rosemarin 2014).

References

Alexander, Michelle. 2012.The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Illinois. 2015.“Stop and Frisk in Chicago.”ACLU of Illinois. URL: http://

www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACLU_StopandFrisk_6.pdf (Last Accessed 03 February 2015).

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts. 2014.“Black, Brown, and Targeted: A Report on Boston

Police Department Street Encounters from 2007–2010.”ACLU of Massachusetts. URL: https://www.aclum.org/

sites/all/ﬁles/images/education/stopandfrisk/black_brown_and_targeted_online.pdf (Last Accessed 03 February 2015).

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Pennsylvania. 2015.“Plaintiffs’Fifth Report to Court and Monitor on Stop

and Frisk Practices.”ACLU of Pennsylvania. URL: http://www.aclupa.org/download_ﬁle/view_inline/2230/198/

(Last Accessed 03 February 2015).

Avdija, Avdi. 2014.‘Police Stop-and-Frisk Practices: An Examination of Factors that Affect Ofﬁcers’Decisions to Initiate a

Stop-and-Frisk Police Procedure.’International Journal of Police Science & Management16:26–35.

Ayres, Ian and Jonathan Borowsky. 2008.A Study of Racially Disparate Outcomes in the Los Angeles Police Department.ACLUof

Southern California. URL: http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayres/Ayres%20LAPD%20Report.pdf (Last Accessed 03

February 2015).

Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future 937

Bratton, William and Peter Knobler. 1998.Turnaround: How America’s Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic. New York, NY:

Random House.

Brown, Anna. 2014.“U.S. Hispanic and Asian Populations Growing, but for Different Reasons.”Pew Research Center.

URL: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/26/u-s-hispanic-and-asian-populations-growing-but-for-dif-

ferent-reasons/ (Last Accessed 01 February 2015).

Butcher, Kristin F. and Anne Morrison Piehl. 1998.‘Recent Immigrants: Unexpected Implications for Crime and

Incarceration.’Industrial & Labor Relations Review51:654–679.

Culver, Leigh. 2004.‘The Impact of New Immigration Patterns on the Provision of Police Services in Midwestern

Communities.’Journal of Criminal Justice32:329–344.

Daniels Stipulation of Settlement. 2003.“Daniels v. City of New York, No. 99 Civ 1695, U.S. Dist. Court S.D.N.Y.”

URL: http://ccrjustice.org/ﬁles/Daniels_StipulationOfSettlement_12_03_0.pdf (Last Accessed April 01, 2015).

Danielsv.City of New York, No. 99 Civ. 1695 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Davies, Garth and Jeffrey Fagan. 2012.‘Crime and Enforcement in Immigrant Neighborhoods Evidence from New York

City.’The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science641:99–124.

Davis, Robert C., Edna Erez and Nancy Avitable. 1998.‘Immigrants and the Criminal Justice System: An Exploratory

Study.’Violence and Victims13:21–30.

Davis, Robert C. and Nicole Hendricks. 2007.‘Immigrant and the Law Enforcement. A Comparison of Native-Born and

Foreign-Born Americans’Opinions of the Police.’International Review of Victimology14:81–94.

Eitle, David, Stewart J. D’Alessio and Lisa Stolzenberg. 2002.‘Racial Threat and Social Control: A Test of the Political,

Economic, and Threat of Black Crime Hypotheses.’Social Forces81:557–576.

Epp, Charles R., Steven Maynard-Moody and Donald P. Haider-Markel. 2014.Pulled Over: How Police Stops Deﬁne Race and

Citizenship. Chicago: University Chicago Press.

Fagan, Jeffrey. 2010.“Report of Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D. Expert Rep., Floyd v. New York, No. 08 Civ. 1034, U.S. Dist. Court

S.D.N.Y.”

URL: https://ccrjustice.org/ﬁles/Expert_Report_JeffreyFagan.pdf (Last Accessed April 01, 2015).

Fagan, Jeffrey. 2012.“Second Supplemental Report of Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D. Expert Rep., Floyd v. New York, No. 08 Civ.

1034, U.S. Dist. Court S.D.N.Y.”URL: http://www.ccrjustice.org/ﬁles/FaganSecondSupplementalReport.pdf (Last

Accessed April 01, 2015).

Fagan, Jeffrey and Garth Davies. 2000.‘Street Stops and Broken Windows: Terry, Race, and Disorder in New York City.’

Fordham Urban Law Journal28:457–504.

Fagan, Jeffrey and Amanda Geller. 2015.‘Following the Script: Narratives of Suspicion in Terry Stops in Street Policing.’

University of Chicago Law Review82:51–88.

Fagan, Jeffrey, Amanda Geller, Garth Davies and Valerie West. 2010.‘Street Stops and Broken Windows Revisited: The

Demography and Logic of Proactive Policing in a Safe and Changing City.’Pp. 309–348 inRace, Ethnicity, and Policing:

New and Essential Readings. New York: New York University Press.

Fagan, Jeffrey and Tom R. Tyler. 2005.‘Legal Socialization of Children and Adolescents.’Social Justice Research18:217–241.

Floydv.City of New York, No. 08 Civ. 1034 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).

Gau, Jacinta M. 2013.‘Consent Searches as a Threat to Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy: An Analysis of Consent

Requests During Trafﬁc Stops.’Criminal Justice Policy Review24:759–777.

Geller, Amanda and Jeffrey Fagan. 2010.‘Pot as Pretext: Marijuana, Race, and the New Disorder in New York City Street

Policing.’Journal of Empirical Legal Studies7:591–633.

Gelman, Andrew, Jeffrey Fagan and Alex Kiss. 2007.‘An Analysis of the NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy in the Context of

Claims of Racial Bias.’Journal of the American Statistical Association102:813–822.

Hiibelv.Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Humboldt County, et al., 542 U.S. 177 (2004).

Illinoisv.Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000).

Johnston, Lloyd D., Patrick M. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman and John E. Schulenberg. 2005.“Monitoring the Future:

National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1997–2005

”. Volume 1: Secondary School Students. U. S. Department of Health

and Human Services: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

Kelling, George L. and Catherine Cole. 1996.Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities.

New York: Martin Kessler Books.

Kent, Stephanie L. and David Jacobs. 2005.‘Minority Threat and Police Strength from 1980 to 2000: A Fixed-Effects

Analysis of Nonlinear and Interactive Effects in Large U.S. Cities.’Criminology43:731–760.

Kessler, David K. 2009.‘Free to Leave? An Empirical Look at the Fourth Amendment’s Seizure Standard.’The Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology99:51–88.

Kirk, David S., Andrew V. Papachristos, Jeffrey Fagan and Tom R. Tyler. 2012.‘The Paradox of Law Enforcement in

Immigrant Communities Does Tough Immigration Enforcement Undermine Public Safety?’The ANNALS of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science641:79–98.

Kubrin, Charis E. and Graham C. Ousey. 2009.‘Immigration and Homicide in Urban America: What’s the Connection.’

Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance13:17–32.

938 Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future

MacDonald, Heather. 2009.‘New York’s Indispensable Institution: The NYPD’s Crime Fighting Sparked the City’s

Economic Revival and is Essential to its Future.’City Journal. URL: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/nytom_nypd.

html (Last Accessed May 01, 2015).

Martinez, Ramiro, Jacob I. Stowell and Matthew T. Lee. 2010.‘Immigration and Crime in an Era of Transformation: A

Longitudinal Analysis of Homicides in San Diego Neighborhoods, 1980–2000.’Criminology48:797–829.

Meares, Tracey L. 2014.‘The Law and Social Science of Stop and Frisk.’Annual Review of Law and Social Science10:335–352.

Menjívar, Cecilia and Cynthia Bejarano. 2004.‘Latino Immigrants’Perceptions of Crime and Police Authorities in the

United States: A Case Study from the Phoenix Metropolitan Area.’Ethnic and Racial Studies27:120–148.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 2007.“Illicit Drug Use, by Race/Ethnicity, in Metropolitan and Non-

Metropolitan Counties: 2004 and 2005.”Ofﬁce of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration.

NYC Planning. 2011. NYC 2010: Results from the 2010 Census. Department of City Planning, New York, NY. URL:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/census/census2010/pgrhc.pdf (Last Accessed 08 August, 2015).

Ofer, Udi and Ari Rosemarin. 2014.“Stop-and-Frisk: A First Look Six Months of Data on Stop-and-Frisk Practices in

Newark.”ACLU of New Jersey. URL: https://www.aclu-nj.org/ﬁles/8113/9333/6064/2014_02_25_nwksnf.pdf (Last

Accessed 03 February 2015).

Parker, Karen F., Brian J. Stults and Stephen K. Rice. 2005.‘Racial Threat, Concentrated Disadvantage and Social Control:

Considering the Macro-Level Sources of Variation in Arrests.’Criminology43: 1111–1134.

Pufong, Marc G. and Charles Kluball. 2009.‘Government and Individual Liberty: The Rehnquist Court’s Stop and Frisk

Decisions.’Politics & Policy37:1235–1280.

Rengifo, Andres F. and Jennifer Fratello. 2014.

‘Perceptions of the Police by Immigrant Youth Looking at Stop-and-Frisk

and Beyond Using a New York City Sample.’Youth Violence and Juvenile Justicedoi:10.1177/1541204014547591.

Ridgeway, Greg. 2007. Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police Department’s Stop, Question, and Frisk

Practices. Technical Report TR-534. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Rivera, Christopher. 2014.‘The Brown Threat: Post-9/11 Conﬂations of Latina/os and Middle Eastern Muslims in the US

American Imagination.’Latino Studies12:44–64.

Rosenfeld, Richard and Robert Fornango. 2014.“The Impact of Police Stops on Precinct Robbery and Burglary Rates in

New York City, 2003–2010.”Justice Quarterly31:132–58.

Sampson, Robert J. 2008.‘Rethinking Crime and Immigration.’Contexts7:28–33.

Saxe, Leonard, Charles Kadushin, Andrew Beveridge, David Livert, Elizabeth Tighe, David Rindskopf, Julie Ford and

Archie Brodsky. 2001.‘The Visibility of Illicit Drugs: Implications for Community-Based Drug Control Strategies.’

American Journal of Public Health91:1987–1997.

Silverman, Eli B. 1999.NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Smith, Dennis and Robert Purtell. 2008.“Does Stop and Frisk Stop Crime? Lessons from New York City’s Record Setting

Crime Decline.”Presented to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM). November 6, 2008.

Spitzer, Elliot. 1999. The New York City Police Department’s“Stop and Frisk”Practices. Ofﬁce of the New York State

Attorney General. URL: www.oag.state.ny.us/press/reports/stop _frisk/stop_frisk.html (Last Accessed May 19, 2015).

Steiker, Carol S. 2013.‘Terry Unbound.’Mississippi Law Journal82:329–358.

Terryv.Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Vidales, Guadalupe, Kristen M. Day, and Michael Powe. 2009.‘Police and Immigration Enforcement: Impacts on Latino(a)

Residents’Perceptions of Police.’Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management32:631–653.

Wachholz, Sandra and Baukje Miedema. 2000.‘Risk, Fear, Harm: Immigrant Women

’s Perceptions of the“Policing

Solution to Woman Abuse”.’Crime, Law and Social Change34:301–317.

Wilson, James Q. and Barbara Boland. 1978.‘The Effect of the Police on Crime.’Law & Society Review12:367–90.

Wilson, James Q. and George Kelling. 1982.‘The Police and Neighborhood Safety: Broken Windows.’Atlantic Monthly

249(3): 29–38.

Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future 939

ofSociology Compassisthe property ofWiley- Blackwell anditscontent maynot

copied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's

express

writtenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for

individual

use.