Total Pageviews

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

STATISTICS: Stop and Frisk

courtesy  http://epic.org/privacy/stopandfrisk/

 

New York's Stop-and-Frisk Database and Privacy

Introduction

New York State Criminal Procedure law Article 140.50 allows a police officer to stop, question and frisk a person s/he reasonably suspects has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor. During a stop, the officer may demand the individual’s name, address, and an explanation of his/her conduct. If an individual is stopped, questioned and frisked, an officer fills out a "stop-and-frisk report," a UF-250 form. The UF-250 Form requires officers to document personal information such as the individual’s name, address, age, gender, race and physical description. Even if an individual is not arrested, such personal information is then retained by the Police Department and recorded in a database.
In February 2010, the New York Police Department (NYPD) released data on stop-and-frisks for 2009. In 2009, 575,304 Stop, Question and Frisk Reports were made, an 8 percent increase from the stops recorded in 2008. Fifty-seven percent of the stops resulted in pat-downs or frisks, and 9 percent in searches. There were 7,612 weapons recovered, up 9.2 percent from the 6,970 recovered in 2008. Six percent of stops resulted in arrests, which is close to the 5 percent that resulted in arrest in 2008. Summons were issued in 6.2 percent of stops in 2009, compared to 6.4 percent in 2008. African-Americans were the subjects of 55 percent of the stops (53 percent in 2008) and were 66 percent of the violent crime suspects (68 percent in 2008). Hispanics were 32 percent of the stop subjects (33 percent in 2008) and were 27 percent of the violent crime suspects (24 percent in 2008). Whites were 10 percent of the stop subjects (11 percent in 2008) and 5 percent of the violent crime suspects (5 percent in 2008). Lastly, Asians were 3 percent of the stop subjects and 2 percent of the violent crime suspects, which was the same in 2008.

Background

The New York City Council expressed concern after the NYPD released 2006 statistics on stop-and-frisks. The NYPD recruited the RAND Center on Quality Policing to analyze the data. Subsequently, the RAND Center issued a report analyzing data from 2006. The report found that the 506,491 stops documented in 2006, was quite large, implying six stops for every 100 residents of New York City. Only ten percent of these stops resulted in an actual arrest or summons. Lastly, African Americans were stopped in 53 percent of the incidents, Hispanics in 29 percent and Whites in 11 percent.
In July 2007, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) made a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to the NYPD to disclose information in its electronic database detailing police stops. On May 29, 2008, the Supreme Court of the State of New York ordered the NYPD to disclose this information. From this data, the NYCLU found that in 2004, 315,483 New Yorkers were stopped and 279,754 (89 percent) were innocent. In 2005, 399,043 New Yorkers were stopped and 351,842 (88 percent) were innocent. In 2006, 508,540 New Yorkers were stopped and 458,104 (90 percent) were innocent. In 2007, 468,732 New Yorkers were stopped and 407,923 (87 percent) were innocent.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a class action lawsuit against the NYPD and City of New York (Floyd v. City of New York) on January 31, 2008, alleging racial profiling and unconstitutional stop-and-frisks. In Floyd, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the NYPD to provide its stop-and-frisk data from 1998 through the first half of 2008 to the CCR. From this data, the CCR made the following preliminary findings: From 2005 through the first half of 2008, the NYPD made 1,648,769 stops, 81 percent of which were stops of African-Americans and Latinos, and 11 percent were of Whites. Between 2005 and June 2008, a total of 775,428 stops made resulted in frisks. From this number 85 percent were African-American and Latino and 8 percent were White. From 2005 through June 2008, arrest rates remained low for all racial groups.

NYPD's Database and Privacy

From 2005 to 2009, the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk procedures increased, leading to the collection of more personal information on individuals who are innocent of any crime. EPIC has opposed identification requirements for individuals where probable cause is lacking. In November 2001, EPIC, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and 14 legal scholars filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) in Watchtower Bible v. Stratton, arguing that an ordinance requiring door-to-door petitioners to obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand violates the right of anonymity inherent in the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Additionally, EPIC submitted a statement (PDF) in March 2007 to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary cautioning against new photo identification requirements for federal elections. Without evidence of an actual problem, such requirements could discourage legal voters. More recently, on March 3, 2010, EPIC filed an amicus curiae brief in Doe v. Reed, arguing that forced disclosure of the names of citizens who have signed petitions for ballot initiatives would subject signatories to the risk of retribution, that signing petitions constitutes anonymous speech, and that signing petitions is similar to casting a vote and should be protected accordingly. Furthermore, the NYPD's practice of collecting personal information in a stop, question and frisk situation also relates to similar privacy issues raised in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, a case adjudicating whether individuals must identify themselves to law enforcement officers.
The NYPD's retention of stop, question and frisk data results in the collection of New Yorkers' personal information, which is then subject to dissemination to other government agencies and fusion centers. For more information on fusion center data collection and privacy risks, see: EPIC v. Virginia Department of State Police: Fusion Center Secrecy Bill. Collection of personal information data by the NYPD also raises concerns over disclosure of this information to third parties
Whenever government agencies collect personal information, the systems are at risk for data breaches. Sensitive information could be hacked, lost or disseminated. For example, in June 2006, personal information, including Social Security numbers, data about 1.1 million active-duty military personnel, was stolen from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In May 2006, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) lost a hard drive containing biographic data (Social Security numbers) and financial data on 100,000 employees. EPIC has also documented that government databases are riddled with errors, and that dissemination of inaccurate information can harm citizens. In Herring v. US, the police searched and arrested Bennie Dean Herring based on incorrect information in a government database. Furthermore, in 2003, the Justice Department administratively discharged the FBI of its statutory duty to secure the accuracy and completeness of criminal records maintained in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. EPIC's amicus brief (PDF) in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, discusses how existing information systems, such as the NCIC, act as systems of public surveillance even though they are filled with errors.

Resources

News Articles

Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)