A court-appointed federal monitor said Monday that New York City’s reliance on the strategy known as “stop and frisk”, aimed at curbing gun crime in the Big Apple, is affecting Black and Hispanic communities and violating the law.
As replacements for the anti-crime groups that the NYPD abolished in 2021, the Neighborhood Safety Teams, according to monitor Mylan Denerstein, are participating in “unconstitutional policing” by stopping and frisking an excessive number of individuals without cause.
In one police precinct, just 41 percent of stops, 32 percent of frisks and 26 percent of searches were authorized, Denerstein claimed. He also stated that 97% of those the teams have stopped are Black or Hispanic – which may be related to the fact that the policing teams operate in 34 neighborhoods that make up 80% of the violent crime in the city, which are mostly communities inhabited by minorities.
In spite of their training and experience, officers “overall appear to be stopping, frisking, and searching individuals at an unsatisfactory level of compliance. Too many people are stopped, frisked, and searched unlawfully”, Mr. Denerstein said.
City officials, however, said they “have serious concerns” with Denerstein’s methodology, according to a spokesperson for Mayor Eric Adams. Officers assigned to the Neighborhood Safety Teams “have enhanced training and oversight to ensure we are not only keeping New Yorkers safe, but protecting their civil liberties as well,” spokseman Fabian Levy said, adding that “any unconstitutional stop is unacceptable, and we will strive to do better for New Yorkers every day.”
Mr. Levy also claims shootings have decreased since the Neighborhood Safety Teams were established. According to NYPD data published by the New York Civil Liberties Union, however, Black and Hispanic persons continue to be the focus of the great majority of stops, accounting for 89% of all stops in 2022.
During his campaign, Mayor Eric Adams, who is the second African American to hold the position in the city’s history, had called the stop-and-frisk tactic “a perfectly legal, appropriate and constitutional tool, when used smartly”, admitting that it could reduce crime “without infringing on personal liberties and human rights.”
