1
Growing up Policed in the Age of Aggressive Policing Policies
Brett G. Stoudt
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY
Michelle Fine
Graduate Center, CUNY
Madeline Fox
Graduate Center, CUNY
New York Law School Law Review
Draft v2
2
I. INTRODUCTION
Spray-painted atop an old tenement building in the East Village of Manhattan is a large
fossilized graffiti image of a tyrannosaurus rex that reads: “NYC EATS ITS YOUNG.” With its
ribs exposed and mouth open, this image represents symbolically what many young people in the
neighborhood already know intimately from their experiences: New York City is not an easy
place to grow up. Their social safety nets are being dismantled, the public institutions they rely
on everyday often fail them. In NYC, the high school dropout/push-out rates are far too high
while public school budgets are being slashed each year; neighborhoods are fast becoming
gentrified as the ever rising cost of rent makes it increasingly difficult for working class and poor
to raise families anywhere in the City; Countless NYC young people are without adequate
healthcare while a truly comprehensive health system in the U.S. is still only a future hope; the
logic of the welfare state is forever being attacked; and then there is the mounting police
presence. It is this public institution - the NYC Police Department, its aggressive policing
policies, and how these policies are related to youth experience – that we will take up here. In
this article we will explore what it is like to grow up policed in NYC.
The prison industrial complex has been and continues to be the cause of much discussion
and warranted concern (Schlosser, 1998). It is an increasingly privatized industry that is
incarcerating disproportionally young males of color at a rate that far exceeds other westernized
countries (Fabricant, 2011; Lerner & Small, 2008; Roberts, 2000). The “school-to-prison”
pipeline is a network of systems, policies, institutions and ideologies that push low-income urban
youth of color out of school and into the criminal justice system (Hirschfield, 2008; Raible &
Irizarry, 2010). The image of the unredeemable dangerous juvenile, represented throughout the
media, is underscored in reality through such policies as trying youth as adults in New York
3
State at the age of 13 for murder and 14 for other serious crimes (Fagan, 2008). Indeed, the New
York State Juvenile Justice System has been broken for a long time with a recidivism rate above
80% (Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice, 2009). With the mantra of reform in the air,
some much-needed change has been made and some strong participatory programs such as youth
run courts have been shown successful (see the 2011 New York Law School Symposium on
Juvenile Justice Reform in New York). However, much more work within the criminal justice
system needs to be done on behalf of and with the young people in NYC. One area in need of
reform for young people is the too-frequent point of contact that stands between them and
entrance into the criminal justice system: the police.
Since 1994, aggressive policing policies have been put into place by the NYPD and
former NYC Mayor Giuliani (and continued by Mayor Bloomberg) to, as they would put it, take
control of the high crime rates connected with such issues as the crack epidemic, extreme urban
poverty, and drug/gang violence, to name just a few. The driving principles of these policies
come from a theory of criminal behavior and crime reduction known as “Broken Windows”
(Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The theory argued that close police surveillance and “well-ordered”
maintenance of high crime urban environments would reduce criminal activity. Having zerotolerance for low-level crime (e.g. panhandling, public urination, public drunkenness, loitering)
and quickly mending visual representations of criminal activity such as “broken widows” or
graffiti was thought to prevent further defacement and escalation to more serious crimes. A wellmaintained environment signals law-abiding order and a sense of responsibility to the
neighborhood. Therefore, people who formerly retreated from community life out of fear would
now feel safe to actively participate again and also begin helping promote a secure and positive
environment (Fagan, 2002; Wilson & Kelling, 1982).
4
The resulting NYPD policing tactics that have derived from this theory have become
known as order-maintenance policing (OMP) or zero-tolerance policing (ZTP). Fagan (2002)
noted that early conceptualizations placed emphasis on alternatives to arrest such as education or
counseling as well as developing strong police-community collaborations to determine local
needs. The NYPD expression of Broken Windows moved away from the tenets of the theory by
choosing not to place a strong focus on the role of alternatives to arrest nor police-community
collaborations. Instead, greater emphasis is placed on heavy police surveillance of high crime
communities, neighborhood “needs” as determined through a problem-focused management
approach in conjunction with a real-time mapping database known as CompStat, and frequent
street stops of people suspected of committing crimes, with particular focus on uncovering
weapons (Fagan, 2002). This type of policing leads to an inordinate amount of arrests and
summons given for low-level crimes rendering vast amounts of people vulnerable to the criminal
justice system. Misdemeanor rates have skyrocketed particularly for marijuana possession
(Fabricant, 2011; Levine & Small, 2008).
NYPD‟s expression of “Broken Windows” rests upon a policing strategy known as “stop,
question and frisk.” The expansion of the 4th amendment to give police the ability to stop,
question, and frisk citizens was deemed constitutional in 1968 with Terry v. Ohio. The 4th
amendment protects citizens against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Until Terry v. Ohio,
police officers needed “probable cause,” generally issued by a warrant, to arrest citizens (Alioto,
2010). As a result of the Terry decision however, police officers - providing they could “point to
specific and articulable facts” and not “inarticulate hunches” - were allowed to temporarily
detain a citizen‟s freedom to ask questions and do so without a warrant or “probable cause” but
instead the lesser “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has, is, or about to be committed. If during
5
the stop the police officer believes s/he or others are in immediate danger a frisk can be made
followed by a search if objects that become known during the frisk are suspected to be a weapon
(Weeden, 1999; Terry v. Ohio, 1968).1
The Terry decision sought to protect police officers and enhance their ability to do an
effective job. “Terry Stops” were initially intended as exceptions to the rule, only used when
obtaining a warrant was impractical and put the officer or others in danger (Alioto, 2010).
Whether it is constitutionally justified was and remains debatable (Ross, 1969). However, since
this landmark decision, a series of cases have further defined just what “reasonable suspicion”
means and the original ruling looks conservative in comparison.
The power of police officers to stop citizens today far exceeds that of 1968. “Reasonable”
justifications for a stop now include nearly all minimal indication of criminal activity: living in
high crime areas, the time of day, ambiguously evasive or suspicious behavior, appearing like a
criminal, moving in and out of shadows, wearing heavy cloths in summer weather, fitting the
description of a reported suspect, exchanges with people in an area known for drug activity, and
in some cases, even racial profiling can be included as a factor leading to a stop. Nearly any
behavior or circumstance can be articulated as reasonable suspicion if it can be attached to the
potential for criminal activity. And what this ultimately means is that People of Color living in
1
Terry v. Ohio marks the minimum standard to which states must adhere. However, People v. De Bour (1976)
mandated, in theory, a more restrictive four-tiered standard for police stops in New York State. Each tier represents
progressively more intrusive contact with police. At the first level, police can request minimal information from a
citizen: their identity, why they are in the area and what their plans are. This is not considered detainment. Thus, the
citizen is free to leave without answering the questions and on these occasions, factors such as avoiding questions,
acting nervous upon questioning, or walking in a high crime neighborhood are not, by themselves, grounds for
reasonable suspicion. However, evasive behavior that takes place in a high crime neighborhood has been upheld in
court as grounds for reasonable suspicion. The second tier allows the police officer to ask the citizen more direct
questions beyond basic identity and plans although this is still not considered temporary detainment and the person
is free to leave if he or she wishes. The third tier is where the Terry v. Ohio decision comes in. This is a temporary
detainment based on reasonable suspicion that can be elevated to a frisk if there is concern of danger, which can be
elevated to a search if there is indication of a weapon only. The final tier is arrest, where probable cause of a crime is
established (Spitzer, 1999).
6
poor, generally high crime urban neighborhoods who are behaving in a manner that can be
perceived as “furtive” or “evasive” are perpetual suspects for police overreach (Butler, 2009;
Fyfe, 2004; Fabricant, 2011; Harris, 1994; Weeden, 1999).
Once a stop is made, the potential for further overreach continues. Nearly any reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity for a stop can create enough articulable fear/concern to warrant a
frisk since most criminals - it is reasoned - are known to carry weapons and could use them
against the officer. However, a more extensive search can only be pursued if the frisk leads to
feeling an object that resembles a weapon. It is, generally speaking, difficult to mistake drugs for
a weapon. Therefore, unless the suspect volunteers a search, uncovering drugs during a street
stop search would only be permissible if it was found in addition to a weapon (Fyfe, 2004;
Fabricant, 2011). However, volunteering a search is more common than one might think and
police are skilled at obtaining permission (see Levine and Small, 2008, p. 25)
From the NYPD‟s standpoint, aggressive policing policies may provide a number of
valuable advantages2. While it must be acknowledged that zero-tolerance policing has likely, to a
small degree, contributed to lowering crime, its direct contributions alone have been found to be
exceedingly minor compared to other factors such as structural disadvantage (Harcourt, 19981999; Harcourt & Ludwig, 2006; Rosenfeld, Fornango & Rengifo, 2007; Sampson &
Raudenbush, 1999). Whatever negligible impact frequent police stops may have at reducing
They provide the police with nearly unlimited street-level access to “suspicious” citizens, opportunities to find and
remove weapons or other contraband (largely drugs) from the streets, potential information about criminal activity
that could be useful in the future, and maybe most important from their perspective, the deterrence of forthcoming
criminal activity simply based on the pervasiveness of police presence (Ross, 1969). Those who endorse aggressive
policing policies, especially politicians and NYPD officials, argue that since implemented, crime rates have dropped
significantly making NYC one of the safest cities in the country (Corman & Mocan, 2005; Kelling & Sousa, 2001).
Also argued is that maintaining public order (such as a graffiti free environment) is a desirable aim even if a direct
relationship to lowering crime cannot be established since inconsequential offenses can accumulate into long term
harm (e.g., a single act of littering is trivial; many acts of littering is undesirable beyond a subjective threshold)
(Thatcher 1994).
2
7
crime, many believe the collateral damages are too great (see Fabricant, 2011) and may even be
criminogenic; exacerbating the police-community relations of some neighborhoods, increasing
mistrust of police, heightening the perception of racial discrimination by police, diminishing the
viability of community safety and making effective crime fighting unsustainable (Howell, 2008).
1.
In our work with youth and communities over the past 20 years, we have learned
that stop and frisk has borne substantial adverse collateral consequence for youth
of color, poverty and immigrant youth. Just post 9/11, in the midst of the „war on
terror,” Fine, Freudenberg, Payne, Perkins, Smith and Walzer (April 2003 59, 1,
“Anything Can Happen With Police Around”: Urban Youth Evaluate Strategies of Surveillance in
Public Places (pages 141–158)
Michelle Fine, Nick Freudenberg, Yasser Payne, Tiffany Perkins, Kersha Smith and Katya Wanzer
) documented extensive over-policing of young people of color and New York City.
Five years later we decided to replicate that study, and, at the same time, analyze analogous data
gathered by the NYPD on stop and frisk with youth. That is, we constructed and strategically
compared two data bases on youth-police relations, one designed largely by youth and adult
researchers (Polling for Justice, PFJ) the other designed entirely by NYPD researchers. In this
essay we “triangulate” the dual-sourced evidence to understand the landscape, dynamics and
implications of stop and frisk for a generation of urban youth growing up policed. Thus for the
remainder of this essay we draw upon these two distinct sets of data to ask what aggressive
policing has been like for young people in NYC. We use the NYPD Stop, Question & Frisk
dataset to examine NYC youth between the ages of 14 and 21 during the years 2008 and 2009.
This data will address police stops from the perspective of NYC police. We also use data from
the Polling for Justice (PFJ) study to examine NYC youth experiences (ages 14-21 from 2008-
8
2009) with education, criminal justice, and health. These quantitative and qualitative data will
address encounters with police from the perspective of NYC youth.
II. INCIDENCE AND FREQUENCY OF NYPD STOPS INVOLVIN YOUTH
“Stop and frisks” have continued to rise since former Mayor Giuliani implemented his
zero tolerance policing policies (Gelman, Fagan & Kiss, 2005; Jones-Brown, Gill & Trone,
2010). Although crime has remained relatively low and stable since 2003 in NYC, stops have
more than tripled since then and nearly all those stopped are neither arrested nor given a
summons. Thus, these stops are increasingly less effective and their purpose becomes even more
suspect (Fagan, Geller, Davies & West, 2010; Jones-Brown, Gill & Trone, 2010). In this section
we will examine - first from the perspective of NYC Police and then from the perspective of
NYC youth – the general, racialized and spatialized incidence and frequencies of police stops on
young people during a two year period.
From the Perspective of NYC Police
When it comes to police stops, it is important to recognize that youth in NYC are
disproportionally targeted as compared to other age groups. We examined the NYPD Stop,
Question & Frisk dataset for the years 2008 and 2009. These data were derived from the UF-250
report worksheets that police officers fill out after a large portion of the stops3. In order to
examine the experiences of NYC young people specifically, this dataset was further broken
down for only those between the ages of 14 and 21. During this two-year period, 1,121,470 New
3
Under NYPD policy, police are required to fill out the UF-250 forms only under certain conditions. 1. If an arrest
is made. 2. If force is to make the stop. 3. If a search and/or a frisk are conducted. 4. If the suspect does not identify
him/herself. If stops do meet one of these requirements, police officers are obligated to fill out the UF-250 form only
on a voluntary basis. Gelman, Fagan and Kiss (2005) reported that mandated stops represented 72% of the data
generated by the UF-250 with the rest of the data was non-mandated. Gelman, Fagan and Kiss found no differences
in their analyses between the mandated stops versus the non-mandated stops. Further analysis commissioned by
former Attorney General Sptizer (1999) government (attorney general investigation) has confirmed that the data
generated by the UF-250 forms do a good job at representing the population of NYC stops. However, it should also
be noted that people can be stopped more than once but the UF-250 does not document this.
9
Yorkers were stopped. Of these stops, 37% (416,350) were youth between the ages of 14-21 (see
Figure 1). Indeed, more than a third of the stops recorded occurred during this short, seven-year
age range. Yet, this age range only represents a tenth of the City population4. Though seldom
made explicit, “stop and frisk” is a policy heavily focused on the younger citizens in NYC.
Figure 1: Percentage of people who were stopped by NYPD in 2008-2009 (Ages 14-21 are highlighted)
**Ages <10 and >99 were deleted
Reasons for the Stop: Displayed in Appendix I are the reasons police reported stopping
young people in NYC during 2008-2009. On the UF-250 form, police could check off more than
one reason for the stop. Police officers reported stopping a young person because they “fit a
description” only 18% of the time; a relatively specific reason as compared to other reasons
listed. Furtive movements were the most common and arguably least specific reason given for
stopping young people (51%). When furtive movements were the sole recorded reason to make a
stop, it did not serve as a particularly strong indicator of crime; 88% of the young people stopped
for furtive movements only were neither arrested nor given a summons while 98% had neither
contraband nor weapons.
4
10% was calculated from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (Census) 3-year average. Ages 15-21 were
available (9%). The category “10-14 year olds” was divided by 5 as a rough estimate of the 14 year old population.
10
Police officers must be able to articulate their stops to a degree greater than a hunch.
Although furtive movements were the exclusive reason for a stop in only 3% of the total
incidences during these years, the frequency with which it emerged in combination with others
gave us pause because of its ambiguity. We were not alone in our concern of ambiguous reasons
for suspicion provided by officers (Maclin 1998; Thompson, 1999; Harris 1994; Lerner, 2006).
Jones-Brown, Gill and Trone (2010) reported that from 2007-2009 the use of furtive movements
as a reason to stop increased by 25%. Are the movements of some young people (e.g. race,
gender, sexual orientation), from certain communities, more likely to be identified as sneaky,
secretive or stealthy? Is this a catchall category that in practice can serve as a placeholder for
unarticulated, potentially biased, hunches?
On the back of the UF-250 form, police officers can indicate additional circumstances or
factors for making a stop. Three of the four most common additional reasons involved contextual
factors; factors not connected to the suspect at all (see Appendix I: asterisks mark the contextual
factors which include high crime area, time of day/week/season, location proximity and
sights/sounds). In fact, 73% of the stops on young people included contextual factors as at least
one of the reasons. Like furtive movements, it was infrequently listed as the only reason for a
stop (5%). And also like furtive movements, contextual factors alone were not strong indicators
of criminal activity by a suspect; 90.2% of the youth stopped were not arrested or given a
summons and 98.2% did not have a weapons or contraband. What does it mean to grow up as a
“potential criminal” because of the neighborhood you call home?
Figure 2 displays what happened to the young people during the stops (according to the
NYPD records). Young people were frisked during the majority of the stops in 2008-2009
(61%). In a quarter of the stops (26%) physical force was used. They were seldom searched, put
11
under arrest or given a summons. Weapons and contraband were very rarely found. The seeming
lack of success that nearly all the police stops have at uncovering criminal activity led us to
wonder if the momentary detainment of NYC citizens was an effective enough policing strategy
at uncovering and deterring crime as to warrant the loss of liberty it imposes on so many
innocent young people? We examined the “success” indicators made available more closely.
Figure 2: What occurred during the police stops of youth between the ages of
14-21 in 2008-2009
Frisked
61%
Used Physical Force
26%
Searched
9%
Arrest Made
5%
Summons Issued
5%
Contraband Found
2%
Weapon Found
1%
Police Protocol & Uncovering Weapons/Contraband: When police stopped youth for
questioning during 2008 and 2009, police found weapons and/or contraband only 3% of the time.
When weapons were found, they tended to be knives, cutting instruments or “other” weapons
(83.1% of the time) rather than weapons of a more serious nature (15.4% of the time guns were
found; 1.5% of the time both guns and knives or other weapons were found) (See Appendix I for
more detail). The purpose of the Terry v. Ohio decision and subsequent Supreme Court decisions
was to protect the immediate officer and community from potential danger. Yet, 97% of the
stops ultimately revealed to the officers that there was nothing representing significant personal
or community danger.
12
Figure 3 reveals the percentage that contraband, guns, or knives/other weapons were
uncovered in relationship to the escalation of engagement the police had with the young suspect.
In the official stop and frisk patrol guide of the NYPD (effective 05/13/02), the definition of a
stop is “to temporarily detain a person for questioning.” The definition of frisk is “a running of
the hands over the clothing, feeling for a weapon.” The definition of a search is “to place hands
inside pocket or other interior parts of clothing to determine if object felt is a weapon.”
Procedurally, police officers are told to:
“1. Stop a person and request identification and explanation of conduct.
a. If not in uniform, identify yourself as a police officer.
2. Frisk, if you reasonably suspect you or others are in danger of physical injury.
3. Search, if frisk reveals object which may be a weapon.
4. Detain suspect while conducting investigation to determine whether there is probable
cause to make an arrest”
Figure 3: The percentage of youth who were found to have contraband, guns or
knives if they were stopped, frisked and searched.
11%
9%
2%
2%
0.2%
If Stopped
If Frisked
Contraband
If Searched If Stopped
2%
0.3%
If Frisked
1%
If Searched If Stopped
2%
If Frisked
If Searched
Gun: Pistol, Rifle, Assault Weapon,
Knife & Other: Knife, Cutting
Machine Gune
Instrument or Other Type of Weapon
Of those young people ultimately searched by police, contraband was found only 11% of
the time, guns only 2% of the time, and knives or other weapons only 9% of the time. Yet, as the
13
patrol guide indicates, a police officer can escalate to a frisk only if they believe that they or
others are in danger and a search can only occur if the frisk revealed something indicating a
weapon. Of those young people searched, more than half (56%) were searched due to the
appearance of a hard object (See Appendix II). It seems reasonable to expect effective policing
strategies, particularly strategies that give officers with such close proximity to suspects, to
provide police with more “success” then 831 guns over a two year period when, for example, on
a single fall Saturday in 2008, five Harlem churches collected 744 weapons in a no questions
asked buyback program paying $200 per gun. It was further reported that this day, in
combination with three previous days, collected a total of 2,279 weapons (New York Daily
News, 10/31/08).
Innocent Stops and Heavy Burdens: The fourth direction in the NYPD patrol guide tells
police officers to detain suspects until they can determine whether an arrest should be made.
Another option for police officers is to issue a summons. The New York Civil Liberties Union
(NYCLU) defined stops that lead to neither summons nor arrests as “innocent stops” (nyclu.org).
Nearly all of the young people stopped in 2008-2009 were innocent (90%). What does it mean
for so many innocent youth in NYC to be so heavily surveilled? Police stops, particularly when
the suspect is innocent, are not only experienced by an individual but also witnessed by
neighbors, they become stories told by family members and friends; police stops reverberate
locally throughout NYC communities (see infra Section IV).
14
Table 1: Top 10 Precincts Stopping Youth (out of 76 precincts)
Precinct Contact*
1. East New York, Brooklyn (75)
2. Ocean Hill-Brownsville, Brooklyn (73)
3. St. George, Staten Island (120)
4. Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn (79)
5. Mott Haven/Melrose, Bronx (40)
6. East Harlem, Manhattan (23)
7. West Harlem, Manhattan (32)
8. Elmhurst, Queens (110)
9. Kensington, Brooklyn (70)
10. Morris Heights, Bronx (44)
Minimum
Median
Maximum
Precinct Stop
Precinct Demographics**
Success Rates*
%
%
Median % Who % High
Innocent Free From Household
Are
School
Weapons or Income
White Dropout
Contraband ($2009)
Precinct Crime Rank***
Lower Rank = More Crime
Total Violent Property
Crime Crime Crime
Rank Rank
Rank
Stop Per
Minutesa
%
Physical
Force
Used
46 min
50 min
75 min
93 min
99 min
101 min
102 min
111 min
113 min
117 min
13.6%
19.0%
21.7%
20.1%
27.1%
15.7%
48.2%
27.8%
42.3%
60.1%
92.6%
93.4%
91.9%
87.9%
90.5%
88.4%
86.2%
93.7%
93.9%
94.4%
96.6%
98.7%
97.6%
97.7%
98.1%
97.5%
96.7%
98.2%
98.7%
98.0%
$42,073
$35,463
$61,790
$33,939
$24,092
$77,545
$41,213
$48,596
$65,929
$32,834
17.0%
5.2%
56.3%
17.9%
24.8%
35.2%
10.1%
43.1%
45.4%
10.2%
15.1%
16.6%
10.4%
16.0%
25.5%
18.8%
15.6%
22.1%
11.4%
23.1%
1
10
26
18
24
64
50
25
12
11
1
2
25
9
8
32
24
20
14
3
5
36
31
29
45
70
64
25
16
35
46 min
100 min
117 min
13.6%
24.4%
60.1%
86.2%
92.3%
94.4%
96.6%
97.9%
98.7%
$24,092
$41,643
$77,545
5.2%
21.4%
56.3%
10.4%
16.3%
25.5%
1
21
64
1
12
32
5
33
70
*2008-2009 NYPD Stop, Question & Frisk Data (ages 14-21)
**2005-2009 American Community Survey (Census): retrieved from infoshare.org
***2010 NYPD CompStat Data with higher crime ranked lower. For example, compared to all other precincts, the East New York precinct ranked first in violent crime.
a The “stop per minutes” was calculated by dividing the number of minutes that exist over two years(1,051,200) by the number of stops that were reported with young people over 2008 and
2009 in each precinct. For example, in the East New York precinct, a stop on a young person was reported by police approximately once every 45 minutes (1,051,200/22,957=45.8).
15
Table 2: Top 10 Precincts Not Stopping Youth (out of 76 precincts)
Precinct Contact**
76. Midtown Manhattan (17)
75. Central Park, Manhattan (22)
74. Tribeca/Wall Street, Manhattan (1)
73. West Greenwich Village, Manhattan (6)
72. Midtown North (18)
71. Greenpoint, Brooklyn (94)
70. Chinatown/Little Italy (5)
69. Park Slope, Brooklyn (78)
68. Upper West Side, Manhattan (20)
67. Chelsea, Manhattan (10)
Minimum
Median
Maximum
Precinct Stop
Precinct Demographics***
Success Rates**
%
%
Median % Who % High
Innocent Free From Household
Are
School
Weapons or Income
White Dropout
Contraband ($2009)
Precinct Crime Rank****
Lower Rank = More Crime
Total Violent Property
Crime Crime Crime
Rank Rank
Rank
Stop Per
Hoursa
%
Physical
Force
Used
33 hrs
33 hrs
19 hrs
17 hrs
15 hrs
15 hrs
14 hrs
13 hrs
12 hrs
11 hrs
28.3%
15.2%
22.0%
20.5%
35.3%
19.5%
23.1%
12.0%
22.0%
30.6%
87.1%
88.4%
89.0%
87.6%
89.7%
91.0%
87.0%
93.9%
83.1%
88.9%
95.1%
97.2%
95.8%
97.8%
96.0%
97.2%
96.0%
98.3%
97.5%
95.2%
$106,057
-$137,953
$110,436
$92,381
$58,927
$44,411
$85,488
$115,528
$90,826
82.3%
-68.7%
84.1%
75.4%
84.8%
*14.5%
71.1%
83.4%
75.1%
2.5%
-4.7%
3.6%
3.4%
11.7%
35.0%
8.3%
3.0%
7.0%
56
76
32
29
3
61
58
67
57
51
74
76
70
63
57
66
64
69
71
61
37
76
10
10
2
51
49
57
41
42
11 hrs
15 hrs
33 hrs
12.0%
22.0%
35.3%
83.1%
88.7%
93.9%
95.1%
96.6%
98.3%
$44,411
$92,381
$137,953
14.5%
75.4%
84.8%
2.5%
4.7%
35.0%
3
57
76
57
68
76
2
42
76
*71.8% identified as Asian.
**2008-2009 NYPD Stop, Question & Frisk Data (ages 14-21)
***2005-2009 American Community Survey (Census): retrieved from infoshare.org
****2010 NYPD CompStat Data with lower crime ranked higher. For example, compared to all other precincts, the Central Park precinct ranked last in violent crime.
a The “stop per hours” was calculated by dividing the number of hours that exist over two years(17,520) by the number of stops that were reported with young people over 2008 and 2009 in
each precinct. For example, in the Midtown Manhattan precinct, a stop on a young person was reported by police approximately once every 33 hours (17,520/527=33.2).
16
Police stops of youth are not distributed evenly across NYC police precincts. Table 1 lists
the top 10 police precincts with the most stops on young people ages 14-21 during 2008-2009.
These 10 precincts made up 31% of all the youth stops recorded during this time but also 28% of
all the innocent stops and 30% of all the stops free from weapons or contraband during this time.
As Table 1 reveals, they tend to be lower income communities, majority people of color, with
high rates of high school non-completion and also high rates of crime. These communities have a
real need for effective policing strategies. However, the police stops in these communities are
both extremely frequent and nearly always unsuccessful at uncovering weapons/contraband or
stopping individuals whose behavior warrants a summons or arrest. On the other hand, the top 10
police precincts least likely to stop youth (Table 2) made up only 3% of all of the youth stopped,
2% of all the innocent stops, and 3% of all the stops free from weapons or contraband during this
time period. They tend to be majority white and upper income communities with lower rates of
high school drop-out and crime. However, it is important to recognize that police stops in these
wealthier, majority white communities are no less likely (and in fact, slightly more likely) to
result in an arrest, summons, finding weapons or uncovering contraband.
One major difference between these two sets of communities is the sheer frequency with
which youth in low-income neighborhoods of color come in contact with police as compared to
youth growing up or spending time in whiter, higher-income communities. Of additional concern
is the amount of physical contact with police that youth experience in some of the neighborhood
precincts. Research conducted by Terrill and Resig (2003) found that police making stops in high
crime and poor neighborhoods are more likely to use physical force even after controlling for
suspect behavior and other potentially confounding factors. Appendix II lists the type and
frequency of physical contact with police. Of the five police precincts in NYC during 2008-2009
17
where physical contact occurred in over 40% of the stops on youth, three were low-income
neighborhoods listed in Table 1. Stops for one precinct, Morris Heights in the Bronx (precinct
44), led to physical contact in 60% of the stops. While the median difference in the percent of
physical contact between these sets of communities is negligible(Table 1 vs. Table 2), the
volume of contact deserves special attention: From 2008 to 2009, 33,854 stops on young people
led to physical contact with police in the ten most highly active precincts (of which 86.9% were
innocent) versus only 2,541 of the stops in the least active precincts led to physical contact (of
which 75.1% were innocent). The weight of physical contact falls on those most vulnerable in
every other sector of youth development – economic, educational, housing and health (see Fox
and Fine, 2011).
What does it mean for young people who have not behaved in a way warranting arrest or
summons to come in contact with police physically? This is a striking question when looking
specifically at the types of physical force used and recorded (see Figure 4). Nearly 20% of the
young people who were pepper sprayed were not arrested or given a summons. Similarly, 60%
of the stops where police pointed their gun at the young person and 65% of the stops where
police drew their gun, the suspect was innocent. These are severe moments of contact felt by the
individual young person, and also the onlookers in the community, family and friends who linger
after the police have moved on.
Figure 4: The percentage of young people who were innocent (no arrest or
summons) but police offers used physical force during their stop.
18
Pepper spray
18.5%
Handcuffing suspect
Baton
Suspect against wall/car
Pointing firearm at suspect
Drawing firearm
Suspect on ground
27.4%
39.1%
48.7%
59.9%
64.9%
81.5%
Hands on suspect
Other (describe)
85.8%
90.2%
Of course, as official data, we interpret this material provided by the NYPD cautiously.
The UF-250 report worksheets were filled out by police officers. And the dataset does not allow
us to make claims about cause and effect. Yet, the analyses thus far – from the perspective of the
police - do not provide strong direct evidence that “stop and frisks” on young people are
effective policing strategies. Missing from this discussion are the perspectives of young people in
NYC. To complement the NYPD data, we draw on a citywide youth survey conducted to
understand these dynamics from the perspective of youth in NYC.
From the Perspective of NYC Youth
Polling for Justice (PFJ) was a participatory action research (PAR) project 5 designed by a
research collective of youth and adults. Its focus was on youth experiences (ages 14-21) of
(in)justice; not only with policing and criminal justice but also experiences across education,
family/home life, health, violence, sexual activity and drug/alcohol use. This was an
interdisciplinary collaboration among faculty and students at the City University of New York,
youth advocates, public health researchers, lawyers, educators and a committed group of youth
co-researchers whomet regularly for over two years. Asurvey co-constructed by youth and
5
Others have noted how valuable PAR can be, particularly when pursuing criminological research (Dupon, 2008).
19
adults, combining standardized items with home grown questions, followed up with a series of
focus groups. (see Fine, Stoudt, Fox, & Santos, 2010; Stoudt, Fox, & Fine, 2011 for details of the
research).6 See Appendix III for the demographic breakdown for the PFJ survey.
PFJ began in February 2008. At our first gathering, more than 40 youth arrived. They
were recruited from diverse contexts: activist organizations, public schools, detention centers,
LGBQ youth groups, they included youth in foster care, undocumented youth and private school
students. The youth were also joined by a diverse set of adults: educators, representatives of the
NYC department of mental health and hygiene, immigrant family organizers, lawyers, youth
workers, psychologists, geographers, sociology, psychology and education doctoral students.
Youth and adults were recruited because of their distinct experiences, knowledges, and forms of
expertise. They all gathered in the basement at the Graduate Center of the City University of
New York ready to partner as co-researchers to design a large scale, citywide research project.
During this first, two-day intensive research camp, four signs were hung on four doors,
and each participant chose which room to contribute their expertise. In one room people were
working on issues of education and schooling, in another safety and violence, in a third youth
experiences with health care, and in the fourth room the focus was on criminal justice. It is the
last room we will focus on here. In that room, a group gathered to take on the task of deciding
how the survey should ask NYC youth about experiences with police. After scouring existing
6
Data were collected using a snowball and purposive sample over two waves (a long version and shortened version
of the survey). Youth were sampled over a six month period beginning in 2008 and ending in 2009. Surveys were
distributed electronically and in hard copy by graduate students and youth researchers at street fairs, community
organizations, town hall meetings. More than 1,000 NYC youth between the ages of 14 and 21 took the survey.
Participants‟ racial demographics resembled the NYC public high school population (see Appendix V). Fifty-six
participants were excluded from the sample for not adequately filling in the survey (e.g. nearly all of their responses
were left blank or it was evident they were not answering authentically). Another three participants were excluded
from the sample because they did not live in NYC or fit within the age criteria.
20
instruments and surveys, the group – particularly the young people - found the existing resources
insufficient and instead wanted to create new, original questions that better reflected their own
lived knowledge and experiences. In collaboration with adult researchers, they developed a
matrix of detailed items addressing police contact such as: “Have you ever been told by police to
move in a disrespectful way?” “Have you ever been given a summons/ticket?” “Have you ever
been arrested?” “Have you ever been touched inappropriately by police?” In this room, various
kinds of expertise blended, clashed and ultimately heightened the expert validity of the PFJ
survey and our understanding of youth experiences with police.
Following their first days of intensive work, the survey went through many revisions,
with input from the broad group of youth researchers, graduate students, faculty, and also from
youth organizers, community members, public health professionals, and city officials. Through
the lengthy survey revision process, as we re-worded and re-worked the survey over six months,
the questions about youth interactions with the police remained intact. In the final version, young
people were asked, “in the past 6 months, have any of the following happened to you (check all
that apply).” The 12 questions included a section for “in school” and “out of school” as a way to
acknowledge that NYC police officers are now inside schools, and as much a part of the NYC
youths‟ educational experiences as they are part of their outside, neighborhood experiences (see
Appendix IV for the set of questions)
As research team, a smaller group of youth and adults explored the basic descriptive
statistics for each question addressing contact with police. Through an iterative, inductive
process we call “stats-n-action,” we chose to organize the 12 questions into conceptually relevant
themes; the two broadest categories representing positive experiences with police in the last six
months and then negative experiences with police in the last six months (see Appendix IV for the
21
specific breakdown). As Table 5 reveals, nearly half (48%) of the young people who took the
PFJ survey reported negative experience of some kind with police in the last six months. It is
important to recognize that we also found that slightly more than a third (34%) of the young
people reported positive police experience. In addition, when we look closer at the 481 young
people who had a negative experience with police in the last six months, nearly all of them
reported a negative verbal experience, almost half a negative legal experience, slightly more than
a third reported a negative physical experience and a quarter had negative experiences that were
sexual in nature.
Figure 5: Contact with Police Aggregated and Disagregated
84%
48%
47%
34%
I. Positive
Police
Experience
34%
II. Negative a. Negative b. Negative
Police
Verbal Police Legal Police
Experience Experience Experience
Police Contact
c. Negative
Physical
Experience
25%
d. Negative
Sexual Police
Experience
Negative Police Contact Disaggregated
(% within Negative Police Experience)
Negative Police Contact Disaggregated: We organized the “negative police experience”
category into even more detailed conceptual categories, which represents a significant area
missing in the “Stop and Frisk” data that the PFJ survey allowed us to explore. These four
categories were supported by some of the quotes we received from open-ended items on the
survey as well. Negative verbal police experience, the most commonly reported category, was
reported by 41% of the total young people who took the survey. Overall, a third of the total
sample (33%) reported being told to move by police disrespectfully inside or outside of school
(“I was forced to move from waiting for someone.”) and slightly more than 10% were threatened
22
or called a name by police. A 17 year-old Latina female described her experience with police
walking to school:
“I was walking to school one morning and some kids were running away from the
officers and because he could not catch them he grab me and told me I would get a ticket.
When I asked why he responded, "shut up little brat". I felt that I had no say and that I
was trapped in a cage for no reason whatsoever.”
Almost a quarter of the young people who took the survey had a negative legal
experience with police (23%). Nearly 20% received a summons/ticket, 10% were arrested and
3% were picked up on a “Person in Need of Supervision” (PINS) violation. The latter is a
particularly important addition to “legal experience” for youth since a PINS violation puts the
young people in the system, making it increasingly likely that more severe disciplinary action
will be taken in the future. The statistics are made more complicated when hearing about the
incident from the young person‟s perspective. For example, one 16-year-old immigrant male
who identified as white explained, “I got arrested for trespassing. I‟m not a bad person and I
don‟t deserve a criminal record. I meant no harm, I just wanted to see something out of
curiosity.” Another young person, a 16-year-old Latino from Brooklyn, described how quickly
events could escalate, “I saw an old black lady get harassed by a police officer. And I
approached the police officer to ask what was going on and at that moment he arrested me as
well.”
Of particular concern for young people was their physical contact with police. This
comes as little surprise given the amount of physical contact revealed in the NYPD data. About
16% of the youth who took the survey reported negative physical contact with police in the
previous six months. This category was specifically defined by frisks (14%) and strip searches
23
(6%). A 16 year-old multi-racial female described how physical contact with police evolved
from simply playing inside:
“We (all of my friends) were playing tag and like someone called the cops. My best
friend was only 15 and he does look a little older. They slammed him against the wall
because the building we were hiding in had a smell of weed and they thought he had
something to do with it. Me and my friends don‟t do drugs and like, to see that, I‟m kind
of scared of cops and feel they are not here for us.”
For this person, aggressive police engagement not only led to physical police contact towards her
friend but also had a deleterious impact on her attitudes towards police. We will use PFJ data to
take a closer look at this potentially distressing consequence in a subsequent section.
Though infrequent, a most alarming result was the sexual contact reported by young
people. Slightly more than a tenth of the sample (12%) reported a negative sexual police
experience. This was derived from two questions that included receiving sexual attention (9%)
and being touched inappropriately (7%). A 17-year-old Black male who identified as gay told of
a sexualized incident with police he and his best friend endured:
“Well, my best friend and I was walking and a group of police walked by and it just so
happen her and I was sucking on dollar ice pops so they were long and the police said, „I
like the way y‟all sucking on them icy. Y‟all should come in the park and suck on us.”
And I flipped but my friend pulled me away because she knew I was about to act like
they didn‟t have those blue uniforms on.”
Similar results were found by a survey conducted by Fine, et al. (2003) where police had
sexually harassed a significant proportion of young girls. Any sexual misconduct by police,
24
especially on youth, is obviously a serious breach of trust by a representative of the state. This is
an issue that deserves much closer exploration.
Positive Experiences With Police: The PFJ data helped us take a disaggregated look at
negative police experiences. However, not all experiences with police are negative. In fact,
young people spoke about positive experiences with police as well, “I don‟t know, cops treat me
just fine. Not all cops are bad. I pretty much trust the police.” The PFJ survey also helped us to
gain exploratory insight into this side of the police contact spectrum. While 9% of the young
people who took the PFJ survey reported positive experiences with police only, another 26%
reported both positive and negative experiences with police. About a fourth (24%) reported that
they were helped by a police officer and 17% were given a second chance by police officers in
the last six months. Experiences with police are complicated. While the strong presence of
police in certain communities can be experienced antagonistically, effective policing in high
crime neighborhoods is also wanted and relied upon. In a later section we will take a closer look
the ways that positive experiences with police are connected with attitudes towards police.
School Experience: While most police contact was reported outside of school in the PFJ
survey, contact was also reported in school and represents the third significant area of youthpolice contact the PFJ data allowed us to explore. Just as zero-tolerance policies and aggressive
police presence has permeated the NYC streets, so have they permeated the NYC public schools
as part of the “SchoolSafe” initiative (Rabinowitz, 2006). NYCLU reported that in the Fall of
2008, 5,055 school safety agents (SSAs) were located in NYC‟s public schools and another 191
armed NYPD police officers were located in “impact schools,” those schools with the highest
crime rate (and also those schools largely populated with poor youth of color). This represents
the 5th largest police force in the country (nyclu.org)
25
Those interested in aggressive policing need also look inside schools (NYCLU, 2007).
We found that 27% of the PFJ respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “In my
school I have had negative interactions with School Safety Agents.” In the last six months, 14%
of the respondents had negative interactions with police inside school. One student described, “In
my school, the safety officers are mean all the time and they don‟t treat us fairly.” Indeed, the
most commonly reported experience in school (9%) is to be told to move disrespectfully. Two
percent of the students (21 youth) reported being arrested in school, another 12 youth were given
a summons, and 15 reported that they were strip searched in school. Again, the work by Fine et
al (2003) produced similar results. They found over a third of their sample reported that they did
not feel safer with police or security guards in their school.
The SSA and NYPD presence shifts school discipline issues, traditionally handled
internally by teachers, administrators or parents/guardians, into law enforcement issues that can
quickly unfold into juvenile justice system issues (Rabinowtiz, 2006). The metal detectors can
easily become points of confrontation and humiliation. A 19-year-old Latina girl who attends a
public school in Bushwick explained:
“I had brought my cell phone to school and went through scanning and one of the SSA‟s
snatched my cell phone away from me and I sat under a table until I got my cell phone
back. After awhile they threw me on the floor by force and made me hit my head on the
table, handcuffed me, and put it tight, and dragged me across the hall, up the stairs and
into the principal‟s office. …the SSA wanted to arrest me but it didn‟t happen because
the teachers and the principal didn‟t let it happen.”
26
This student was lucky not to be arrested. Zero-tolerance policies criminalize youth while often
leaving teachers little room for rehabilitative discretion on how to deal with misbehavior (Raible
& Irizarry, 2010).
Zero-tolerance policing – now even in public schools (Rabinowitz, 2006) and apartment
buildings (Fabricant, 2011) - have greatly increased the likelihood that young people will come
in contact with the criminal justice system as they grow up in NYC. While much has been
academically written about aggressive policing, what has been missing from the conversation is a
specific focus not only on youth but also with youth. Though we do not mean to minimize how
serious and potentially life-threatening street stops are from the police officer‟s perspective (See
Spitzer, 1999, p. 68-69), we are concerned for young people in NYC - particularly living in poor
communities of color - and what it means to grow up with such unprecedented levels of
surveillance. In the next section we explore in more detail disparities in NYPD contact with
young people.
III. RACIAL DISAPARITIES IN NYPD CONTACT WITH YOUNG PEOPLE
In Terry, v. Ohio, the Supreme Court Justices were acutely aware of how their decision
might affect race relations; records suggest that they were careful not to make this court case
about race. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education fund lawyers were denied time during
oral arguments to testify with their evidence that Black people were disproportionally effected by
“stop and frisk” laws. The Court‟s decision was written, with but a few exceptions, to be largely
race-neutral (Barrett, 1998; Thompson, 1999). Although the Court required, in their decision,
that “stops must be articulable facts – not hunches” (Terry v. Ohio, 1968), many have argued that
elements of racial bias or profiling, at least in part, often enter into the decision-making of police
and that ambiguous - though articulated - reasons for a stop leave room open for articulated
hunches that are to some smaller or larger degree and to some acknowledged or unacknowledged
27
extent, due to racial stereotypes (Maclin 1998; Thompson, 1999; Harris 1994; Lerner, 2006,
Rudovsky 2001; Schwartz 1995-1996; Weeden 1999; Johnson, 1983; Commission on Civil
Rights, 2000; Spitzer, 1999; Gelman, Fagan and Kiss, 2005; Fagan, Geller, Davies and West,
2010; Center for Constitutional Rights, 2008; Jones-Brown, Gill and Trone, 2010). Generally,
attempts to measure “differential stops” have provided evidence that racial disparity in police
stops and post-stops does exists between Black and Hispanic people as compared to White
people. However, the extent of the difference, where and under what circumstances tends to
differ depending on the approach used for analysis and also what benchmarks are used
(Ridgeway 2007; Ridgeway & MacDonald, 2010)7.
While court cases such as Wren v United States (1996) have opened the door for the
explicit use of race to make a police stop, New York State, as established in Brown v. Oneonta
(1999), does not allow race to be a factor in stopping people unless the suspect resembles a
specific description to which race is noted. In the wake of the high profile Amadou Diallo
shooting by the controversial NYPD Street Crime Unit and with support from the Spitzer (1999)
report, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argued in Daniels v. City of New York that
the Street Crime Unit was racially biased and unconstitutional. An agreement was reached in
2003. The judge ordered the closure of the Street Crime Unit and in addition, the NYPD was
made to release a racial profiling policy that specifically disallowed such practices not only in
7
The benchmarks – while all flawed - are the comparisons that allow the researcher to determine if the racial
differences that do occur are likely due to a racial bias or instead the more direct consequence of other factors. Some
common benchmarks include the racial population where census demographics are compared to the proportion of
stops by race. Precinct crime rate is used to account for some races who tend to disproportionally live in higher
crime neighborhoods, which will increase the likelihood of contacting police. Some races, it is argued, are more
likely to be stopped by police due to fitting the description of a criminal suspect. And finally, specific contextual
circumstances of any single stop such as time of day, geographic location, day of week, month of year, to name a
few is often considered (Ridgeway 2007; Ridgeway & MacDonald, 2010).
28
regards to race but also other factors such as sexual identity (Jones-Brown, Gil & Trone, 2010;
CCR, 2008). The policy, in part, reads:
The Department prohibits the use of racial profiling in law enforcement. Racial profiling
is defined as the use of race, color, ethnicity or national origin as the determinative factor
initiating police action. … Officers are also reminded that the use of characteristics such
as religion, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation as the determinative factors
for taking police action is prohibited. …While performing their duties, members are
reminded that this policy in no way precludes them from taking into account the reported
race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, gender, gender identity, or sexual
orientation of a specific suspect in the same way the member would use pedigree
information, e.g., height, weight, age, etc., about specific suspects. (NYPD Policy
Regarding Racial Profiling effective 3/13/02)
CCR has since filed another suit against the NYPD in 2005, Floyd v. New York City, that
continues to argue that racial disparities exist not only for stops, but also during what occurs after
stops. The case is still pending.
Much of the discussion of racial profiling has to do with the concern that police officers‟
intentto be racially biased.Paulhamus, Kane and Piquero (2010) argued that researchers should
move away from using the term “racial profiling,” which implies intent, and instead use the term
“differential stops” since it focuses on what the data can actually reveal. Yet, as it is important to
note, Ridgeway and MacDonald (2010) make clear that, “Even if police decisions of whom to
stop, search, and detain are not intentionally biased, they may be structurally discriminatory.
Patrolling differently in high-crime neighborhoods may place a disparate burden on minorities
but may not reflect actual bias in police decision making…” (p. 199) While intent is significant
29
perhaps in law, the burden of proof for social psychologists is in the differential, racialized,
classed and sexualized effects of stop and frisk. The question of disproportionate burden of stop
and frisk on youth and communities of color, and as you will see on LGBT youth, is a serious
issue for public policy.The data in this section, in both volume and proportional differences,
illustrate that an uneven distribution across the city exists by race; but not only race. Other
demographic differences are revealed as well. Like the previous section above, we will start from
the perspective of the NYPD and then move to the youth perspective.
From the perspective of NYPD
This section will look specifically at race and gender proportionally. However, regardless
of the proportion, it is helpful to keep in mind the raw volume of stops throughout the city. If a
stop happened between 2008-2009 on young people ages of 14-21, they were almost certainly
Black or Hispanic youth and nearly always male (see Appendix V for racial and gender
breakdown of those stopped by police as compared to the public high school demographics).
Throughout New York City at this time, only 10% of the stops were on White youth and only
7% were on females. Though males make up those nearly always directly affected, it is their
entire network of family and friends – including their mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters,
girlfriends and a whole host of diverse women in their lives who are also vicariously impacted by
these stops. So it is necessary to highlight that the weight of aggressive policing in NYC rests
nearly entirely on communities of color, both men and women. We next explore the proportional
racial and gendered differences on stops, physical contact after the stop, and legal outcomes from
a search (see Table 3).
Reasons for Stops: Earlier in this manuscript, we examined two concerning reasons
police officers initiated a stop on youth: the ambiguous “furtive movements” and contextual
30
factors having nothing to do with characteristics of the young person. Both were common
reasons used by police officers in combination with other reason; however, we were also focused
specifically on when these were the only reason given for initiating a stop. In this section, we
explore the reasons further by combining them into a single category; a slightly more inclusive
look at what Harris (1994) called, “location plus evasion” cases. Sixteen percent of the time,
young people were stopped for “furtive movements only”, “contextual factors only” or “furtive
and context only.” Disproportional racial differences were uncovered. White and Asian/Pacific
Islander youth were less likely to be stopped for the combination of these two vague reasons as
compared to Black and Latino/a youth.
Stops Inside Housing: Disproportional racial differences were uncovered when we
examined where stops occurred. The majority of the youth stops occurred outside (78%) in the
public however, 22% of the stops occurred inside. Black (27%) and Hispanic (20%) youth were
twice as likely to be stopped inside as compared to White youth and Asian youth (9% and 11%
respectively). When those youth stopped inside were examined more specifically, those who
were Black and Hispanic were far more likely to be stopped inside housing as compared to those
who were White and Asian (see Table 3). The data suggests that Black and Latino youth are less
likely to be able to enjoy the comfort and privacy of home, than White and Asian youth, free
from police interference. Operation Clean Halls is a New York City policy that allows aggressive
policing to enter publicly subsidized housing and likely contributes heavily to these results.
Physical Contact: Proportional differences between race and gender exist when
examining stops that escalate to physical contact by police. Males who were stopped by police
were more likely to experience physical force by police and more than twice as likely to be
31
frisked by police as compared to females. White youth were far less likely likely to be frisked
and to experience physical force as compared to Black and Hispanic youth.
Legal Outcomes: Despite disproportional racial and sometimes gender differences, no
meaningful differences were uncovered in legal outcomes. Youth stopped by police were equally
likely to be innocent regardless of their race or gender. Youth stopped by police were equally
likely to not be found possessing a weapon and/or contraband regardless of their race or gender.
The race of suspects in this dataset was determined by the police officer filling out the
form. We cannot tell from this data the suspect‟s own racial identity (or gendered identity for
that matter) nor do we have indication of youth who identify as multi-racial. We also do not have
information about sexual identity. For these important distinctions, we explore our PFJ data and
with it, a look at proportional disparity from multiple demographic standpoints as well as
multiple categories of police contact.
Table 3: Racial Breakdown by Police Stops and Post-Stop Activities
Context
Frisked
Physical
and/or
Force
furtive
Gender
Female
21.8%
31.8%*
15.6%
(6,074)
(8,874)
(4,340)
Male
15.7%
63.5%
27.1%
(59,871)
(242,157)
(103,261)
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American
17.8%
62.4%
27.0%
(38,864)
(136,248)
(59,016)
Latino/a or Hispanic
15.7%
64.5%
28.1%
(20,207)
(83,146)
(36,221)
Other
16.0%
57.6%
25.2%
(2,480)
(8,953)
(3,920)
Asian or Pacific Islander
10.1%
55.9%
20.5%
(1,339)
(7,445)
(2,735)
White
10.3%
48.0%
18.9%
(4,126)
(19,333)
(7,607)
Stopped
inside
housing
No arrests No weapons
or
or
summons contraband
43.6%
(4,420)
41.4%
(33,398)
86.2%
(24,033)
89.8%
(342,716)
98.1%
(27,368)
97.4%
(371,739)
48.6%
(28,366)
32.0%
(8,412)
33.4%
(888)
16.3%
(236)
12.7%
(439)
90.0%
(196,495)
88.8%
(114,577)
91.1%
(14,152)
89.2%
(11,871)
89.4%
(35,979)
97.7%
(213,232)
97.2%
(125,400)
98.2%
(15,261)
97.3%
(12,951)
97.1%
(39,054)
*These numbers represent the percentage of those youth within each demographic category (row) and their recorded experiences with
police (columns). For example, of those females stopped by police between 2008-2009, 31.8% were frisked as compared to 63.5% of the
males who were stopped.
From the perspective of NYC Youth
32
Race & Gender: The aggregated and disaggregated experiences with police from the PFJ
data were examined by gender and race (see Table 4). Results showed comparable but not
always identical and sometimes additional results to the NYPD data. Like the NYPD data, the
PFJ data suggested that males were proportionally more likely to have negative (and also
positive) contact with police. Males were more likely to report negative verbal contact and three
times more likely to report physical contact with police in the last six months than females.
Similarly, Asian and White young people were proportionally less likely to have negative police
experiences as compared to Latino/a, African American and Multi-Racial youth.
Unlike the NYPD data, male respondents who took the PFJ survey were nearly twice as
likely to report legal issues. It is also important to note from the PFJ data that young people who
identified as multi-racial (not a category in the NYPD data) had the most negative contact with
police over the disaggregated categories (they also had the most positive contact). Additionally,
unlike the NYPD data, Asian youth rather than White youth tended to have the lowest amount of
negative (or positive) contact with police. And finally, while the NYPD data for those who were
identified as Hispanic tended to be similar to and sometimes proportionally higher than Black
youth, in the PFJ data, those who identified themselves as Hispanic tended to appear
proportionally not too different from White youth. The complexity of racial identity and a police
officer‟s perception of race (e.g. light skin Hispanic versus dark skin Hispanic) make these
distinctions important to consider.
Sexual Orientation: The aggregated and disaggregated experiences with police from the
PFJ data were also examined by self-defined sexual orientation (see table 4). This was a category
not included in the NYPD data. Of great surprise and concern are the differences that emerged
between those youth who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning (LGBQ) compared
33
to straight youth. The LGBQ youth who took our survey were much more likely to have negative
experiences with police (and slightly less likely to report positive experiences). LGBQ youth
were proportionally more likely to have negative legal contact, verbal contact, physical contact
and most concerning, more than twice as likely to report negative sexual contact with police in
the last six months. These results led us to conduct a series of data driven focus groups to learn
more about these experiences.
In these focus groups, young people who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer,
questioning and/or transgendered were asked to interpret, for and with us, the PFJ data. As the
participants poured over findings about negative interactions between youth and police, they
discussed their anger in response to experiences like getting ticketed on the subway for putting
their feet on a seat, sitting in a playground after dark, or getting harassed for wearing the wrong
clothes (“gay wear”) in the wrong neighborhood. Some described feeling disrespected by police
while others described police as a normalized part of their everyday. One focus group participant
explained that more young people might not speak up about their experiences due to
heterosexism:
“Let‟s say, okay, I was, I‟m walking out on the street with my girlfriend and a cop
grabs me inappropriately, how would that sound? Like, I think that‟s how people
think. Like how would that sound if I told somebody? Like, yeah, we were
walking down the street, I was walking down the street with my girlfriend. It‟s
gonna stop right there. You were walking down the street with your girlfriend?
People are not gonna care. Like, why were you walking down the street with a
girl?”
34
The participants in the focus groups discussed their critique of these realities, their desire for
safer spaces, and greater acceptance from friends, families, teachers, and communities (Brewster,
Billies & Hyacinthe, 2010).
Table 4: Demographics Disaggregated By Experiences With Police: % (f)
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Legal
Verbal
Sexual
Physical
Police
Police
Police
Police
Experience Experience Experience Experience
Gender
Female
16.8%*
33.0%
11.3%
8.6%
(107)
(210)
(72)
(55)
Male
32.2%
52.4%
12.9%
28.5%
(113)
(178)
(44)
(97)
Race/Ethnicity
Asian, South Asian, Pacific
11.7%
21.5%
7.4%
7.4%
Islander
(19)
(35)
(12)
(12)
White
21.0%
37.0%
14.8%
11.1%
(17)
(30)
(12)
(9)
Latino/a or Hispanic
24.2%
38.7%
9.0%
16.1%
(75)
(120)
(28)
(50)
Black, African American,
24.3%
46.7%
14.3%
17.8%
African Caribbean
(78)
(150)
(46)
(57)
Multi-Racial
29.5%
55.2%
17.1%
24.8%
(31)
(58)
(18)
(105)
Sexual Orientation
Straight
21.3%
38.9%
10.2%
15.1%
(189)
(345)
(90)
(134)
LGBQ
34.3%
53.7%
27.8%
24.1%
(37)
(58)
(30)
(26)
Negative
Police
Contact
Positive
Police
Experience
41.9%
(267)
58.1%
(370)
29.7%
(189)
43.5%
(148)
26.4%
(43)
43.2%
(35)
47.4%
(147)
55.1%
(177)
62.9%
(66)
26.4%
(43)
29.6%
(24)
34.8%
(108)
34.3%
(110)
47.6%
(50)
46.5%
(412)
61.1%
(66)
35.1%
(311)
28.7%
(31)
*These numbers represent the percentage of those youth within each demographic category (row) and their police experiences (column)
For example, of those females in the PFJ sample, 16.8% reported having a negative legal experience with police in the last six months as
compared to 32.2% of the males in the sample.
Whether stops are racially – or sexually -- motivated or biased, we cannot definitively
know from this data. We cannot tell to what extent racial profiling is intentionally occurring. We
assume that some police officers are racially biased but that most are trying to do their job with
honor and competence. A serious public policy concern emerges, however, once we examine the
systematic and systemic burden that disproportionally lands on some youth, Black Latino and
LGBT, with nearly all of them innocent What impact does growing up with disparities in
policing have on young people‟s attitudes towards the NYPD and the criminal justice system?
We will explore this question in the next section.
35
IV. THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GROWING UP POLICED
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court Justices rejected the perspective that being stopped
and detained against a person‟s will was a generally inconsequential experience:
It is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure [stop and frisk] performed in public by
a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised,
is a “petty indignity.” It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may
inflict great indignity and around strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken
lightly….Even a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe,
though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security, and it must surely be an
annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience. (Terry v. Ohio, 1968)
The Court was also aware of the potential problems the Terry v. Ohio decision might have on
community relationships with police, particularly with communities of color. In weighing the
concerns on both sides, Chief Justice Warren acknowledged that some argued the expansion of
the fourth amendment to more easily allow police stops would “only serve to exacerbate policecommunity tensions in the crowded centers of our Nation‟s cities” (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).
Strong police-community relationships are fundamental to safe, democratic,
participatory communities and to effective crime fighting. Fear of police does not produce a
sense of safety and in fact seems to diminish the likelihood that those in need will seek help from
police, or offer help to the police in their investigations. Much more fundamental is the question
of legitimacy, trust and respect. Youth and adultsneed to find the authority of the state – the
police, the laws, and the criminal justice system – “legitimate enough” to voluntarily obey the
rules and engage in community life with a sense of comfort.And for those who do engage in
criminal activity, the relatively small police force, in order to do their job in a timely and
36
effective manner, need the larger community‟s help in the form of cooperation such as reporting
crimes, providing valuable information, serving on neighborhood watches, or participating in
police-community meetings. Indeed, these are the very foundations of strong community
policing (Tyler 2004; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler and Fagan 2010; Resig & Parks, 2004).
The importance of this issue has led to a great deal of research on people‟s attitudes
towards police; their willingness to support police and their overall sense of legitimacy towards
police. These are complex relationships that are not simply marked by blanket hatred or blind
endorsement. There are multiple factors that contribute to attitudes towards police including
cumulative experiences (Brunson 2007), context (Weitzer, 2010), socioeconomic status (Weitzer
& Tuch, 2002) and, of course, race (Hurst & Frank, 2000; Fine, et al., 2003; Carr, Napolitano &
Keating 2007). Growing up policed is a developmental issue that threatens to fray the threads of
our fragile democracy inherited by youth who may feel more unsafe with heavy police presence,
on the streets, in the subways, in their public housing and in their schools. These young people
who need and deserve respectful policing, are not only fearful that police involvement can
accelerate violence, but they vulnerable to community and police harassment.. It is indeed vital
to examine the psychological impact of aggressive surveillance on young people in NYC. This
section will explore the factors influencing the social psychology of heavily policed youth
including race, sexual identity, and the quality of direct contact with police as well as indirect
contact.
Racial and Sexual Identity
We used the PFJ data to begin exploring four indicators asking about youth attitudes and
emotions towards police and the criminal justice system. Appendix VI shows the disaggregation
of the four attitude indicators by the respondents‟ racial identities. The majority of the young
37
people who took the PFJ survey reported never feeling stressed or worried about the police or the
criminal justice system, only a fifth reported feeling comfortable turning to police when having a
problem or hard time, and about half agreed that “the police in NYC protect people like me.” A
concerning trend occurred when considering race.
One particularly influential factor commonly reported in the literature is racial identity.
People of color, especially those who identify as Black and Latino/a, are more likely to perceive
police unfavorably as compared to those who identify as White (Fine, et al., 2003; Hurst & Frank
2000; Brunson 2007; Solis, Portillos, & Brunson, 2009). The data from PFJ indicated that White
and Asian youth (61% and 63% respectively) were more likely to agree that “police in NYC
protect young people like me” as compared Latino/a (52%), Black (41%), and Multi-Racial
youth (40%). This might be expected since the probability of police contact – as previously
revealed by the NYPD data - and the subsequent risk of entering the criminal justice system
tends to be far greater for Black and Latino/a youth as compared to White and Asian youth. Yet
surprisingly, Black (74%) and Latino/a youth (75%) were more likely to report they are never
stressed about the criminal justice system as compared to White youth (58%) and to a smaller
degree, Asian youth (68%). Evidence reported by Rosenbaum et al (2005) lends support to these
findings.
Similarly, the focus groups with LGBQ youth described earlier also revealed a sense of
normalziation by some young people:
“It‟s like an everyday life in the city. It‟s like cops are mean, we just have to deal
with because it‟s really like, there‟s really not much I can do with arguing with a
cop. So it‟s like move on and keep on going, and it‟s everyday. So it gets to the
point where you no longer, it‟s not as shocking to us anymore. It just goes away
38
after a while, you know, you walk it off, you watch TV, take a shower, and then
it‟s like, okay, just another day in New York City.”
We both speculate and worry about the potential normalization and desensitization for some
youth of color and in some communities who share the greatest burdens of aggressive policing.
The legitimating of police and the voluntary cooperation of community members in maintaining
our laws are important to the health of our democracy but not at the expense of becoming
complicit to unjust practices; not at the expense that aggressive policing – policing that too often
infringes on our constitutional rights - come to be seen as normalized, even desirable or at least
unchangeable.
Appendix VI also displays the disaggregated data for the four attitude indicators by
gender and sexual orientation. Of particular noteworthiness and a valuable contribution to this
literature, are the attitudes in our sample expressed by those youth who identified as lesbian, gay,
bisexual or questioning (LGBQ). More than half of the sample of LGBQ youth reported feeling
stressed or worried to some extent by police as compared to straight youth. Not surprisingly,
straight youth were nearly twice as likely to express feeling comfortable to some degree turning
to police (21%) as well as feeling the police “protect young people like me” (53%) compared to
youth who identified as LGBT (12% and 26% respectively). These findings in combination with
the results reported earlier by LGBQ youth, reveal a seldom researched but highly concerning
trend for this marginalized community of NYC young people. Our data suggest that greater
attention is needed on this issue.
Quality of Direct Contact
While race and other demographic factors contribute to attitudes towards police,
researchers have also produced evidence that the quality of recent and direct contact with police
39
contributes heavily to attitudes (Carr, Napolitano & Keating 2007; Brunson 2007; Rosenbaum et
al., 2005). Certainly direct and negatively perceived police contact has impact on unfavorable
attitudes (Hueber, Schafer, Bynum 2004; Hurst and Frank, 2000) however, researchers also
found data that direct and positively perceived experiences can have favorable effects on
attitudes (Schuck, Dennis & Rosenbaum 2005; Bradford, Stanko & Jackson 2009, Tyler & Fagan
2010). Furthermore, there may be a difference between direct contact – not only through
personal experience but also observing police activity in the neighborhood or hearing about
police activity from friends and family – and no contact at all where attitudes are more likely to
be derived from abstract social representations (e.g. media) (Schuck, Dennis & Rosenbaum,
2005).
As a result of this work, we used the PFJ survey to further examine how attitudes towards
police might be connected with the type of contact young people have had with police. Using the
questions from the survey asking about interaction with police, four categories were created:
young people who have had no contact with police in the last six months, young people with
only positive contact, young people with both positive and negative contact and finally, young
people who only had negative contact with police in the last six months. These categories were
then compared to four indicators asking about youth attitudes and emotions towards police and
the criminal justice system.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 illustrate how the quality of recent contact with police may be
associated with anxiety towards the police and the criminal justice system. The majority of the
sample of young people who took the PFJ survey reported never feeling stressed or worried
about the police. However, those who had no contact with police in the last six months were
more likely to share this sentiment (82%) then their peers who had negative contact but also
40
positive contact with police (63%) and even more so then those young people who only reported
negative contact with police in the previous six months (57%). The youth least likely to report
never feeling stressed about police were those who had only positive contact with police in the
last six months. A similar pattern was revealed when youth were asked about the criminal
justice system. Most reported not feeling stressed or worried about the criminal justice system
but this sentiment was more likely to be felt by those who had no contact with police (85%) in
the last six months and increasingly less likely depending on their positive or negative contact
with police.
Figure 8: Percent of respondents who reported they were
never stressed or worried about police.*
81.8%
84.8%
Figure 9: Percent of respondents who reported they were
never stressed or worried about the criminal justice
system.*
84.8%
62.5%
76.1%
68.4%
56.6%
No contact with Positive contact Both positive and Negative contact
police
with police only negative contact with police only
with police
56.6%
No contact with Positive contact Both positive and Negative contact
police
with police only negative contact with police only
with police
*These questions were only asked in the long form edition of the PFJ survey and therefore have smaller sample sizes.
The PFJ survey also asked youth the extent to which they believed the NYPD protected
young people and whether they felt comfortable turning to police when having a problem or hard
time (Figure 10 & Figure 11). Youth who reported no contact with police in the last six months
were more likely to agree that “police in NYC protect young people like me” (61%) as compared
to youth who reported both positive and negative contact with police (40%) and youth who
reported only negative contact with police in the last six months (31%). Young people who only
had positive contact with police were the most likely to perceive the NYPD as protecting young
people like them (68%). An interesting pattern was revealed for the degree to which young
41
people felt comfortable turning to police (or school safety agents) when having a problem or
hard time. Most young people reported not feeling comfortable turning to police. However, those
who had positive contact with police in the last six months were more likely to feel comfortable
as compared to those young people who had no contact or only negative contact with police.
Figure 10: Percent of respondents who agreed that, “in
general, the police in NYC protect young people like
me.”
61.3%
68.2%
40.3%
No contact with
police
Figure 11: Percent of respondents who felt comfortable,
to some degree, turning to police (or school safety
agents) when having a problem or hard time.
31.4%
Positive contact Both positive and Negative contact
with police only negative contact with police only
with police
18.1%
27.9%
25.4%
16.2%
No contact with Positive contact Both positive and Negative contact
police
with police only negative contact with police only
with police
Brunson (2007, 2010) has argued for the importance of hearing the individualized
experiences and specific narratives of youth-police relationships as opposed to most studies that
tend to be focused on the aggregated numbers. In our survey we asked young people to, “Tell us
about a time when you witnessed or experienced an injustice/unfairness that upset you.” There
were a variety of open-ended responses. Some young people expressed frustration that clerks and
security guards assumed them criminals because of their race or religion or age. For example an
18-year-old African American male respondent wrote, “A doorman in a convenience store
accused me of stealing a bag of chips, because of my race, clothes, and due to the fact that I had
a book bag, when in fact I took nothing.” Some wrote of being followed around stores such as
this 16-year-old Latina female, “When I walked into a Verizon store the security guard followed
me around.” Still others, like this 17-year-old American female of Southeast Asian decent,
witnessed a pattern of heavy surveillance at the airport, “My mother was searched thoroughly in
the airport because she wore a hijab.” And of course, young people expressed feeling
42
criminalized by the NYPD, such as this young female immigrant, “Cops all over the Bronx - ALWAYS looking at groups of youth as if we‟re about to make trouble.” What are the
developmental and societal implications of young people growing up fitting the description of a
criminal; to be so interchangeable that they are suspected of committing a crime simply because
of how they look, where they live, or where they shop?
A little more than a third (35.1%) of those who responded to our question about
witnessing or experiencing injustice specifically provided narratives referring to police. It was
the largest single thematic category. Reading these narratives helped us to catch a firsthand
glimpse of the psychosocial experiences connected with growing up aggressively policed,
particularly from but not only from youth of color. For example, a young White male described
feeling both harassed and embarrassed by his contact with police:
When walking in Penn Station, a group of friends and I were stopped by a police officer
who searched us all and called our parents to verify that we were not running away (even
though we didn‟t have luggage and we were on our way to bowling). It was needless,
unprovoked harassment and embarrassment.
Police contact can seem unexpected and confusing for young people who did nothing to warrant
a stop except fitting the description. A 17-year-old Black female living in the Bedford Park
Precinct section of the Bronx wrote of being stopped by police with her two friends:
One time when I was walking with my friends to get something to eat, a police car pulled
up and they demanded I.D. But we were so confused. They then told us that we had fit
the description of 3 girls that got into a fight. We were standing in the cold for about a
half an hour. They then took down our info and just let us go.
Some of the stories young people told, like these, referenced their own personal experiences
43
(28%). Others provided narratives of injustice about their friends (24%) and families (10%). Our
fear is that in some communities youth are not only growing up policed, but also growing up as
relatively helpless witnesses to police harassment. In conttast to the familiar “See something, say
something,” these young people are learning that when the police are involved -- trying to help a
friend is dangerous business, risking arrest oneself.
Vicarious Experiences
Some research found that while direct experience is certainly an important factor, indirect
vicarious experiences can have equal or even greater impact on attitudes towards police (Hurst &
Frank 2000; Brunson 2007; Rosenbaum et al., 2005). Indeed, the confusion, the fear, the
embarrassment and of course, the anger felt from what many young people commonly perceived
as police harassment, are not individually held for long. They quickly become shared
experiences that vibrate across the young person‟s network of friends and family, even strangers
and acquaintances. Take as an example this Black female living in the Bay Ridge Precinct of
Brooklyn describing the frustration she felt for her younger brother:
My lil‟ brother was harassed and searched by the police for wearing the color red because
they thought he was in a gang. And he‟s so sweet and innocent; he plays football for his
school and gets good grades - the total opposite of me. I was highly pissed off when I had
found out he had been harassed.”
Many also described witnessing what they perceived were injustices experienced by others
(34%) in their neighborhood, on the street, inside their buildings, at school, etc that they may not
even know. For example, a 16-year-old African American female, living in Central Harlem, who
was simply tired of “watching kids my age get stopped on the streets by cops suspecting them to
commit a crime.” Or this 19-year-old female living in Queens who was able to reflect upon what
44
it means to be White and not suspected of wrongdoing as compared to some of her peers:
I've seen kids of color stopped from leaving the school building by security guards to
check their id's (when they were done for the day and were permitted to leave the school),
whereas I, as a white student, was questioned only once when leaving the building and
have walked out of the building (past security guards) on several occasions when I should
have been in class.
Attitudes towards police are not only informed by one‟s own experience, stories told by
friends and family, or witnessing activity in the neighborhood, attitudes are also informed by the
media (Weitzer, 2002). For example, in response to our question about witnessing/experiencing
injustice, one young person told us, “When I see on television or read in the newspapers that
people are stopped because of their race.” Many youth respondents to this question simply stated
“Sean Bell. ” Sean Bell was shot in 2006 by a group of undercover police officers firing fifty
times. Bell‟s was a high profile case as the shooting took place on the day of his bachelor party.
During the time of our PFJ study, three of the five officers brought up on charges were acquitted.
The story affected youth attitudes even if they never experienced or witnessed injustice firsthand,
such as this 16-year-old Black female, “I never experienced injustice, but the Sean Bell case
effected me.”
This thematic analysis demonstrates the multiple sources from which young people can
feel injustice and in this case generate their attitudes towards police. It reinforces the very public
impact of frequent police stops that largely occur in the open and in ways that can echo across
communities, particularly poor communities of color. These stops are individually felt, yes, but
they also are felt across social and media networks; from uncles at the dinner table, friends at
recess, the local news, or simply walking home from school and witnessing yet one more person
45
frisked by police. However, not all stops are police initiated. What about when young people
need the police?
Seeking Police for Help
Young people‟s relationships to police are complicated. While their contact with police is
often unsolicited, there are times when young people want and need help from police
(Rosenbaum et al., 2005; Fine et al., 2003; Hurst & Frank, 2000). However, the narratives we
collected suggested that these points of contact can be unsatisfying. Take, for example, this 19year-old Latino who lives in the Bronx, “I got robbed last year in front of a school. After 30
minutes, I called the cops and I told them, but all they did was take me in and ask me questions.
They did nothing else to help me. I felt it wasn‟t fair.” Another – a 16-year-old Asian female
who lives in Queens - found the police to be unresponsive, “2 years ago when our car was stolen
and we called the police and the police end up coming after 2 hr when police should come in 1
min as soon the call was made, but that they end up coming late and we never found our car.” In
times of need, some felt the police were racially biased and assumed guilt such as this example
given by 16-year-old Asian male who lives in Queens:
My mom got into a car accident and I was also in the car. The other car was at fault to
anyone on the street. We were the ones hit by the other car. The police arrived about 5
minutes later and went straight to the other car. The officer talked with the “white”
people in the vehicle. …My mom got very angry because the police officer didn‟t come
to the car that was hit and told her to get her license and all out without even asking if she
was okay.
Experiences like these can lead young people to determine that involving the police is more
likely to escalate the problem then resolve it. For example, during a serious scuffle between
46
groups of adults and youth, despite needing police assistance, one of the young people, trying to
defend a friend in need, ran away as police arrived because he knew, “from past history the cops
don‟t really treat him well.”
Illegitimacy and Insecurity
Given how often stops occur and how frequently those stopped are innocent, it is
understandable that some young people, such as this Latino immigrant, felt that police are above
the law, “cops get away with everything.” Given the high rates of physical police contact, it is
not surprising that some young people like this 17-year-old Asian immigrant perceived the
NYPD as using needless or excessive physicality, “police officers using extreme force to put
down civilians who just wanted to speak out.” A general sense that police are discriminatory was
a commonly referenced theme among young people of color such as this Black female, “often in
NYC you find officers who racially profile.” A 15-year-old female Pakistani immigrant wrote: “I
saw a white policeman abusing a black man for no reason! And that was not right. It pissed me
off. It made me think that they can do it to me too or anyone from my race.” Youth perceptions
of illegitimacy towards police activity and feelings of insecurity rather than safety when police
are around deserve further exploration in NYC.
Young people, particularly young people in heavily policed neighborhoods, are not
unsophisticated about their assessment of police. They do not dismiss police outright and they
see the value and necessity of police (Carr, Napolitano & Keating, 2007). However, the
perception of police legitimacy and the desire to cooperate with police are dependent on
interpreting the police as procedurally just. Young people need to see the police as a racially
unbiased organization that is fair, neutral, and consistent in their surveillance. They need to view
police practices as essentially effective at stopping criminal activity and as having the best
47
interest of the community and its citizens in mind. Furthermore, they need to perceive the police
as treating them with respect and in a way that allows them to live a life with dignity. This
includes feeling heard; being able to express grievances or their side of the story without feeling
devalued (Tyler, 2004; Sunshine & Tyler 2003)
Meiners (2003) speculated that aggressive policing tactics might undermine young
people‟s trust in police, more likely expose them to the justice system, and in the process fray the
very fabric of our democracy. Our data certainly supports his fear that some young people are
likely to mistrust police. The heavy police surveillance on young people and the illegitimacy of
and insecurity towards the police/criminal justice system as perceived by certain young people in
our sample may in fact facilitate criminal activity to the extent that police officers need to partner
with people in the community to effectively fight crime (Howell, 2008; Tyler, 2004). This is
even more concerning when considering that nearly all of the young people stopped are innocent.
We are particularly worried about the potential normalization that aggressive policing may have
on some young people in heavily policed communities. However, an interesting though
exploratory relationship emerged between positive contact with police and attitudes towards
police. Though cause and effect cannot be determined, it is worth noting and potentially
speculating about the more favorable associations positive contact with police had, even as
compared to having no contact with police.
V. CONCLUSION
Young people living on the economic and unfortunately racialized and sexualized
margins of society are particularly vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of public institutions;they
are, however, seldom included in the discussionabout policy, what needs to change, and in what
ways those changes should happen. Young people in our city have an enormous amount of
48
expertise to share. Polling for Justice (PFJ) was a project designed to create spaces through
research and advocacy so that young people would have opportunities to share their
knowledge.and inform debates about School Safety Agents, sex education, community
policing… In the process they told us what it was like growing up policed in NYC. The NYPD
dataset and the PFJ dataset – borne of very different perspectives – sadly confirm each other in
significant ways. At its most sweeping, these data cumulatively reveal that young people
between the ages of 14-21 during the years 2008-2009 were experiencing a great deal of police
contact, largely negative with implications well beyond the stop. More particularly, we gained
insight into what it means for many youth in NYC to grow up as perpetual suspects because of
their age, how they look or where they live. The analyses we produced in this paper support
several tentative conclusions:
Young people in NYC are growing up policed. Many young people are in contact with
police on the streets, in their apartment buildings, and even in their schools. The quality of
contact varies and can be positive but too often it escalates into negative experiences with, for
example, verbal, physical and sometimes even sexual contact. Yet, according to the NYPD,
nearly all of the young people stopped were not arrested, given a summons, carrying a weapon,
or holding contraband. In other words, nearly all of these young people were innocent.
Some groups and communities are disproportionally burdened with police surveillance.
Young people of color, males and youth who identify as LGBQ were more likely to have contact
with police. Young people in largely poor, under-educated communities of color were also more
likely to deal with aggressive policing. It makes sense that these communities would have more
police presence because they also tend to be the communities with higher violent crime rates.
49
Yet, the “stop and frisk” strategy is largely unsuccessful at stopping young people who are
directly engaging in criminal activity8.
Momentary detainment with police extends longer than the experience itself. Young
people‟s attitudes towards police and the criminal justice system are complicated. Many want to
have reliable and fair police officers to depend on. They are not unquestionably opposed to
police presence. Yet, for many of the young people, what they witness or experience in practice
are over-surveillance, harassment, excessive aggressiveness and discrimination. Most of the
young people - particularly young people of color and LGBQ youth - did not feel comfortable
seeking a police officer for help and some said they feared seeking help because the situation too
often escalated in undesirable ways. Contact with police is not usually private but witnessed by
neighborhoods and shared with family and friends. Attitudes are not only derived from the
quality of experience from direct contact but also the vicarious, indirect experiences and
observations of others.
***
At the time when “stop and frisk” policies were new and heavily debated, many
supported the Terry v. Ohio decision while acknowledging the delicate balance and the ultimate
responsibility on police to behave in good faith and with constrained responsibility to the public
(Inbau and Thompson, 1968; Platt, 1969). On the bench, Justice Douglas was the sole dissenting
voice in the Terry decision (Butler, 2009).
To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the
totalitarian path…. If the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick
8
Though it must be noted that our data do not reveal if and to what extent heavy police surveillance helps to
indirectly deter crime; an area of research in need of pursuit. However, Richard Rosenfeld has recently produced
evidence that suggests aggressive policing policies have not indirectly decreased crime in NYC.
50
him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him
in their discretion, we enter a new regime.
Justice Douglas believed the Terry decision was unconstitutional according to the Fourth
Amendment‟s long-standing historical precedent of probable cause. He worried that to search
and seize without receiving a warrant using the much lesser standard of probable cause gave
unjustified power to the state at the expense to its citizens‟ freedoms. Most importantly, Justice
Douglas recognized the dangers of placing too much authority in the police‟s ability to make
subjective, on-the-spot judgment about who/what may be criminal.
Even though Justice Douglas was ultimately alone in his dissent on the bench, he was not
alone among legal scholars and politicians (Corman, 1969, Raphael, 1968, Schoenfeld, 1965).
Corman (1969), a US congressman, concerned with “black-white relations” and “the role of the
police in the ghetto” (p. 579), wrote against the Terry decision and the impact “the abrasive
nature of so much police-ghetto resident contact” (p. 583) would have on poor and Black
communities. He argued the need to take a larger more critical view:
“We are not going to be rid of the problem of crime by increasing the size of our police
forces, the number of our jail cells, or by improving the efficiency of our courts. Much
more will be required. Insofar as crime and its increasing rates can be attributable to the
ghetto and the discrimination and neglect that hems people in there, so it will continue to
grow until we find some means of tearing the walls that separate people. What this
involves of course, is an enormous effort to reduce unemployment, to improve
educational opportunities, to upgrade housing conditions and transportation facilities, and
to revise our welfare system. Most difficult of all, it means reducing social and economic
51
discrimination, much of it deliberate, but much unconscious, which has produced a subclass of people in this country.”(584-585)
The data revealed in this article, in combination with a large amount of scholarship
produced on this issue, support Justice Douglas‟ foresight that the new regime is upon us. For
some young people in some neighborhoods it appears that totalitarianism does exist. We believe
the original intent of Terry v. Ohio has shifted too heavily against personal liberty. We interpret
the current aggressive policing policies as too ineffective to warrant continued and frequent
harassment of young people in New York City; the direct and collateral damages are too great,
the costs bore disproportionally by marginalized groups and communities of color too severe.
More than forty years later, Congressman Corman‟s argument isprophetic, especially as neoliberal policies increasingly widen the gap between the richest and poorest (Fine and Ruglis,
2008; Harvey, 2007): to battle crime we need to build strong communities, address historic and
structural inequities that feed crime and generate with communities effective policing strategies
that treat people – especially youth - with dignity.
The young people in NYC are growing up policed. It should be asked if the current
practices of aggressive policing warrant the costs – of liberty, of insecurity, of mistrust. Douglas
felt a decision with the magnitude of Terry v. Ohio “should be made only after a full debate by
the people of the country.” We have now had nearly a decade experiment with “broken
windows” policing tactics. Perhaps the individual police officers do not intend to discriminate
racially or on the basis of sexual orientation. But now that the cumulative and disaggregated
data are in, the evidence gathered by police and youth are indisputable. The burden of stop and
frisk falls heavily on Black and Brown communities and LGBT youth. The question of intent
now asks,.
52
Do we as a nation have the collective intent to consider strategically the evidence of
racialized stop and frisk policies, or will we exercise the collective intent to ignore the evidence?
On behalf of our youngest citizens, a public and political debate is deserved and long
over-due.
References
Alioto, N. R. (2009). Unreasonable differences: The dispute regarding the application of
terry stops to completed misdemeanor crimes. St. John’s Law Review, 83(3), 945-976.
Barrett, J. Q. (1998). Deciding the stop and frisk cases: A look inside the Supreme
Court‟s conference. St. John’s Law Review, 72, 749-844.
Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., & Jackson, J. (2009). Contact and confidence: Revisiting the
impact of public encounters with the police. Policing and society, 19(1), 20-46.
Brewster, K., Billies, M., and Hyacinthe, Z. (2010). Presentation: LGBTQ youth
experiences with police in neighborhoods, subways, and to and from school. Syracuse University
Queering Education Research Institute (QuERI) Roundtable on LGBTQ Issues in Education.
New York, NY.
Brunson, R. K. (2007). “Police don‟t like black people:” African-American young men‟s
accumulated police experiences. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(1), 71-101.
Brunson, R. K. (2010). Beyond stop rates: Using qualitative methods to examine racially
biased policing. In Rice, S. K. & White, M. D. (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and
Essential Readings (pp 221-238). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Butler, P. (2009). “A long step down the totalitarian path”: Justice Douglas‟s great
dissent in Terry v. Ohio. Mississippi Law Journal, 79, 9-33.
53
Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops and here is why:
A Qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology,
45(2), 445-480.
Center for Constitutional Rights (2008). Racial Disparity in NYPD Stops-and-Frisks: The
Center for Constitutional Rights Preliminary Report on UF-250 Data Obtained for 2005 through
June 2008.
Corman, J. C. (1969). Law enforcement in the administration of justice. William and
Mary Law Review, 10, 579-585.
Fabricant, C. M. (2011). War crimes and misdemeanors: Understanding “zero-tolerance”
policing as a form of collective punishment and human rights violation. Drexel Law Review, 3,
373-414.
Fagan J. (2008). Juvenile crime and criminal justice: Resolving border disputes. The
Future of Children, 18(2), 81-118.
Fagan, J. (2002). Policing guns and youth violence. The Future of Children, 12(2), 133151.
Fagan, J.A., Geller, A., Davies, G. & West, V. (2010). Street stops and broken windows
revisited: The demography and logic of proactive policing in a safe and changing city. In Rice, S.
K. & White, M. D. (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings (pp 309348). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Fine, M., Freudenberg, N., Payne, Y., Perkins, T. Smith, K., & Wanzer, K. (2003).
“Anything can happen with police around”: Urban youth evaluate strategies of surveillance in
public spaces. Journal of Social Issues, 59(1), 141-158.
54
Fine, M., Stoudt, B., Fox, M., & Santos, M. (2010). The uneven distribution of social
suffering: Documenting the social health consequences of neo-liberal social policy on
marginalized youth. The European Health Psychologist, (12), 30-35.
Fyfe, J. (2004). Stops, frisks, searches, and the constitution. Criminology & Public
Policy, 3(3), 379-396.
Gelman, A., Fagan, J, & Kiss, A. (2007). An analysis of the NYPD‟s stop-and-frisk
policy in the context of claims of racial bias. Journal of American Statistical Association,
102(479), 813-823.
Harcourt, B. (1999). Reflecting on the subject: A critique of the social influence
conception of deterrence, the broken windows theory, and order-maintenance policing New York
style. Michigan Law Review, 97, 291-389.
Harcourt, B. & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City
and a five-city social experiment. The University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1), 271 – 320.
Harris, D. A. (1994). Factors for reasonable suspicion: When black and poor means
stopped and frisked. Indiana Law Journal, 69, 659-688.
Howell, K. B. (2009). Broken lives from broken windows: The hidden costs of
aggressive order-maintenance policing. New York University of Law and Social Change, 33,
271-329.
Huebner, B. M., Schafer, J. A. & Bynum, T. S. (2004). African American and white
perceptions of police services: Within- and between- group variation. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 32, 123-135.
Hurst, Y. G. & Frank, J. (2000). How kids view cops: The nature of juvenile attitudes
toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 189-202.
55
Inbau, F. E. & Thompson, J. R. (1968). Stop and frisk: The power and the obligation of
the police. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89(4), 1445-1447.
Johnson, S. L. (1983). Race and the decision to detain a suspect. The Yale Law Journal,
93(2), 214-258.
Jones-Brown, D., Gill, J., & Trone, J. (2010). Stop, Question & Frisk Policing Practices
in New York City: A Primer. John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Lerner, C. S. (2006). Reasonable suspicion and mere hunches. Vanderbilt Law Review,
59, 407-473.
Maclin, T. (1998). Terry v. Ohio‟s fourth amendment legacy: Black men and police
discretion. St. John’s Law Review, 72, 1271-1321.
Meiners, S. (2003). A tale of political alienation of our youth: An examination of the
potential threats on democracy posed by incomplete “community policing” programs. University
of California Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy, 7, 161 – 205.
New York Civil Liberties Union (2007). Criminalizing the Classroom: The OverPolicing of New York Schools.
New York Daily News Staff Writer (October 31, 2008). Peace by piece: New York‟s gun
buyback program makes for safer streets.
New York Police Department Patrol Guide: Stop and Frisk. Effective 5/13/02.
New York Police Department Operations Order: Department Policy Regarding Racial
Profiling. Effective 3/13/02
Paulhamus, M., Kane, R., & Piquero, A.R. (2010). State of science in racial profiling
research: Substantive and methodological considerations. In Rice, S. K. & White, M. D. (Eds.),
56
Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings (pp 239-260). New York, NY: New
York University Press.
People v. De Bour, 40 NY 2d 210 (1976)
Platt, M. D. (1969). The limits of stop and frisk-questions unanswered by terry. Arzizona
Law Review, 10, 409-437.
Rabinowitz, J. (2006). Leaving homeroom in handcuffs: Why an over-reliance on law
enforcement to ensure school safety is detrimental to children. Cardozo Public Law, Policy &
Ethics Journal, 4, 153-194.
Raible, J. & Irizarry, J. G. (2010). Redirecting the teacher‟s gaze: Teacher education,
youth surveillance and the school-to-prison pipeline. Teaching and teacher education, 26, 11961203.
Raphael, S. (1968). “Stop and frisk” in a nutshell: Some last editorial thrusts and parries
before it all becomes history. Alabama Law Review, 20(2), 294-307.
Reisig, M. D. & Parks, R. B. (2004). Can community policing help the truly
disadvantaged? Crime & Delinquency, 50(2), 139-167.
Ridgeway, G. (2007). Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police
Department’s Stop, Questions, and Frisk Practices. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
Ridgeway, G. & MacDonald, J. (2010). Methods for assessing racially biased policing. In
Rice, S. K. & White, M. D. (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings
(pp 180-204). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Roberts, D. E. (2000-2001). Criminal justice and black families: The collateral damage of
over-enforcement. The University of California, Davis Law Review, 34, 1005-1028.
57
Rosenbaum, D., Schuck, A. M., Costello, S. K., Hawkins, D. F. & Ring, M. K. (2005).
Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quarterly,
8(3), 343-365.
Rosenfeld, Fornango & Rengifo (2007). The impact of order-maintenance policing of
New York City homicide and robbery rates: 1988-2001. Criminology, 45(2), 355-384.
Ross, B. (1969). Stop and frisk: Invasion of privacy without probable cause. University of
San Francisco Law Review, 4, 284-308.
Rudovsky, D. (2001). Law enforcement by stereotypes and serendipity: Racial profiling
and stops and searches without causes. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional
Law, 3, 296-366.
Sampson, R. J. & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public
spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3),
603-651.
Schlosser, E. (December 1998).The prison-industrial complex. The Atlantic Monthly, 5177.
Schuck, A. M. & Rosenbaum, D. P. (2005). Global and neighborhood attitudes toward
the police: Differentiation by race, ethnicity and type of contact. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 21(4), 391-418.
Schwartz, A. (1996). “Just take away their guns”: Hidden racism of Terry v. Ohio.
Fordham Urban Law Journal, 23, 317-375.
Shoenfeld, M. (1966). The “stop and frisk” law is unconstitutional. Syracuse Law
Review, 17, 627-641.
58
Solis, C., Portillos, E. L., & Brunson, R. K. (2009). Latino youths‟ experiences with and
perceptions of involuntary police encounters. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 623, 39-51.
Sptizer, E. (1999). The New York City Police Departments “Stop and Frisk” Practices.
Office of the New York State Attorney General.
Stoudt, B, Fox, M, & Fine, M. (in press, expected 2011). Awakening injustice in a new
century. In P. Coleman & J. De Wolfe (Eds.), Conflict, Interdependence and Justice: The
Intellectual Legacy of Morton Deutsch. Springer Press.
Sunshine, J. & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in
shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(2), 513-548.
Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice (2009). Charting A New Course: A
Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice in New York State. Vera Institute of Justice.
Terrill, W. & Reisig, M. D. (2003). Neighborhood context and police use of force.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(3), 291-321.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Thacher, D. (2004). Order maintenance reconsidered: Moving beyond strong causal
reasoning. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 94(2), 381-414.
Thompson, A. C. (1999). Stopping the usual suspects: Race and the forth amendment.
New York University Law Review, 74, 956-1013.
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 593, 84-99.
Tyler, T. R. & Fagan, J. A. (2010). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the
police fight crime in their communities? In Rice, S. K. & White, M. D. (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity,
59
and Policing: New and Essential Readings (pp 84-117). New York, NY: New York University
Press.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2000). Police Practices and Civil Rights in New York
City. Washington, DC.
Weeden, D. (1999). It is not right under the constitution to stop and frisk minority people
because they don‟t look right. University of Arkansas Little Rock Law Review, 21, 829-844.
Weitzer, R. (2002). Incidents of police misconduct and public opinion. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 30, 397-408.
Weitzer, R. (2010). Race and policing in different ecological contexts. In Rice, S. K. &
White, M. D. (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings (pp 118-139).
New York, NY: New York University Press.
Weitzer, R. & Tuch, S.A. (2002). Perceptions of racial profiling: Race, class, and
personal experience. Criminology, 40(2), 435-456.
Williams, G. H. (1991). The Supreme Court and broken promises: The gradual but
continual erosion of Terry v. Ohio. Howard Law Journal, 34, 567-588.
Wilson, J. Q. & Kelling, G. L. (March 1982). Broken windows: The police and
neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 29-38.
60
Appendix I
Reasons for Being Stopped
Furtive movements
Actions indicative of “casing” victim or location
Fits description
Actions indicative of acting as a lookout
Other reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (specify)
Suspicious bulge/object (describe)
Actions indicative of engaging in violent crimes
Actions Indicative of engaging in drug transaction
Wearing clothes/disguises commonly used in commission of crime
Carrying objects in plain view used in commission of crime (e.g. slip jim/pry bar, etc.)
f
210,704
118,564
76,371
75,470
68,553
43,843
39,806
36,497
23,032
7,107
%
50.6%
28.5%
18.3%
18.1%
16.5%
10.5%
9.6%
8.8%
5.5%
1.7%
Additional Reasons for Being Stopped
**Area has high incidence of reported offences of type under investigation
**Time of day, day of week, season corresponding to reports of criminal activity
Changing direction at sight of officer/flight
Evasive, false or inconsistent response to officer‟s questions
**Proximity to crime location
Ongoing investigations, e.g. robbery pattern
Report from victim/witness
Suspect is associating with persons known for their criminal activity
Other (describe)
**Sights and sounds of criminal activity, e.g. bloodstains, ringing alarms
**Contextual factors
f
235,035
164,473
116,256
86,085
87,251
56,970
54,496
18,862
12,541
8,505
%
56.5%
39.5%
27.9%
20.7%
21.0%
13.7%
13.1%
4.5%
3.0%
2.0%
61
Appendix II
Reasons for frisk (% of those frisked)
- Furtive movements
- Violent crime suspected
- Refusal to comply with officer‟s direction(s) leading to reasonable fear for safety
- Suspicious bulge/object (describe)
- Inappropriate attire – possibly concealing a weapon
- Actions indicative of engaging in violence crimes
- Other reasonable suspicion of weapons (specify)
- Knowledge of suspect‟s prior criminal violent behavior/use of force/use of weapon
- Verbal threats of violence by suspect
f
173,673
57,788
43,851
42,166
40,111
31,056
14,590
6,509
2,402
%
68.1%
22.7%
17.2%
16.5%
15.7%
12.2%
5.7%
2.6%
0.9%
Type of physical force used? (% of those physical force used on)
- Hands on suspect
- Suspect on ground
- Handcuffing suspect
- Suspect against wall/car
- Other (describe)
- Pointing firearm at suspect
- Drawing firearm
- Baton
- Pepper spray
f
97,633
16,056
13,684
2,124
1,474
1,410
732
64
54
%
89.2%
14.7%
12.5%
1.9%
1.3%
1.3%
0.7%
0.1%
0.0%
Reasons for search (% of those searched)
- Hard object
- Other reasonable suspicion of weapon (specify)
- Outline of weapon
- Admission of weapons possession
f
20,697
14,472
2,612
1,189
%
55.5%
38.8%
7.0%
3.2%
Type of weapons found: (% of those who had weapons)
- Knife/Cutting Instrument
- Other (Describe)
- Pistol/Revolver
- Rifle/Shotgun
- Assault Weapon
- Machine Gun
f
3,170
1,030
754
41
30
6
%
65.6%
21.3%
15.6%
0.8%
0.6%
0.1%
62
Appendix III
Demographics
Gender
Female
Male
Trans(gender/sexual)
f
709
372
13
%
64.8
34.0
1.2
Sexual Orientation
Straight
LGBQ
979
121
89.0
11.0
Born in the U.S.
Yes
No
870
223
79.6
20.4
Race & Ethnicity
Black (African American or Caribbean)
Latino/a or Hispanic
Asian, South Asian or Pacific Islander
Multi-Racial
White
Other
354
340
183
116
93
14
32.2
30.9
16.6
10.5
8.5
1.3
NYC Borough
Brooklyn
Manhattan
Bronx
Queens
Staten Island
351
275
212
204
13
33.3
26.1
20.1
19.3
1.2
63
Appendix IV
Prevalence & Type of Police Contact
In the past 6 months, have any of the following
happened to you? (check all that apply)
School
Outside
Total
f
%
f
%
f
%
I. Positive Police Experience
55
5.5
317
31.7
344
34.4
I was helped by a police officer
I was given a "second chance" by a police officer
II. Negative Police Contact
43
15
143
4.3
1.5
14.3
212
160
450
21.2
16.0
45.0
240
169
481
24.0
16.9
48.1
a. Negative Legal Police Experience
34
3.4
214
21.4
227
22.7
I was arrested
I got a ticket/summons
I was picked up for a PINS (person in need
of supervision) violation
b. Negative Verbal Police Experience
21
12
6
2.1
1.2
0.6
88
176
29
8.8
17.6
2.9
101
184
34
10.1
18.4
3.4
113
11.3
369
36.9
406
40.6
I was told to move by the police in a
disrespectful way
I was threatened and/or called a name by
the police
I was stopped by police for questioning
c. Negative Sexual Police Experience
89
8.9
286
330
33.0
23
2.3
101
10.1
116
11.6
30
28
3.0
2.8
217
107
21.7
10.7
229
120
22.9
12.0
I received "sexual attention" from the police
A police officer crossed the line (touched
inappropriately) while searching me
d. Negative Physical Police Experience
18
16
1.8
1.6
77
55
7.7
5.5
89
65
8.9
6.5
41
4.1
139
13.9
161
16.1
30
15
168
3.0
1.5
16.8
125
45
539
12.5
4.5
54.0
143
56
570
14.3
5.6
57.1
I was frisked (patted-down)
I was strip searched
III. Overall Contact with Police (Positive
and/or Negative)
28.6
64
Appendix V
Total NYPD Stops:
Ages 14-21*
Gender
Male
Female
Unknown
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American
Latino/a or Hispanic
White
Other
Asian or Pacific Islander
f
381,578
27,888
6,884
f
218,260
128,998
40,237
15,543
13,312
%
91.6%
6.7%
1.7%
%
52.4%
31.0%
9.7%
3.7%
3.2%
NYC Dept. of
Education: High
School Students**
f
%
153,731 51.2%
146,491 48.8%
--f
%
101,056 33.7%
116,770 38.9%
37.546
12.5%
1,175
0.4%
43,675
14.6%
*2008-2009 NYPD Stop, Question & Frisk Data (ages 14-21)
**2007-2008 NY Public High School Student Population (grades 9 th through 12th representing ages 14-21)
http://schools.nyc.gov/stats/register/Ethnicity.asp
65
Appendix VI
Percent of
respondents who
reported they were
never stressed or
worried about
police.*
Gender
Female
Male
Race/Ethnicity
White
Asian, South Asian, Pacific
Islander
Latino/a or Hispanic
Black, African American,
African Caribbean
Multi-Racial
Sexual Orientation
Straight
LGBQ
Percent of
Percent of
Percent of respondents
respondents who
respondents who who felt comfortable,
reported they were
agreed that, “in
to some degree,
never stressed or general, the police in turning to police (or
worried about the NYC protect young school safety agents)
criminal justice
people like me.”
when having a
system.*
problem or hard time.
75.6%**
(273)
64.2%
(104)
75.6%
(273)
67.9%
(110)
49.8%
(311)
50.5%
(167)
17.8%
(124)
24.9%
(88)
63.2%
(12)
71.4%
(45)
79.7%
(153)
68.5%
(135)
52.6%
(30)
57.9%
(11)
68.3%
(43)
74.5%
(143)
74.1%
(146)
70.2%
(40)
60.5%
(49)
63.0%
(102)
52.4%
(161)
41.2%
(127)
39.6%
(40)
15.2%
(14)
20.7%
(37)
20.1%
(66)
20.0%
(68)
18.1%
(21)
73.7%
(353)
48.1%
(25)
73.5%
(352)
67.3%
(35)
52.7%
(456)
26.4%
(28)
20.9%
(198)
11.8%
(14)
*These questions were only asked in the long form edition of the PFJ survey and therefore have smaller sample sizes.
**These numbers represent the percentage of those youth within each demographic category (row) and their responses to the four
questions (columns). For example, of those females in the PFJ sample, 75.6% reported they were never stressed or worried about police
as compared to 64.2% of the males in the sample.