How Effective Is Police Stop and Search (Pace Act 1984)?

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

This essay will introduce two competing perspectives of policing, they are the orthodox and revisionist perspectives. This essay will then relate the orthodox and revisionist perspectives to the themes of lack of structure, industrialisation and finally hostility. It will then discuss whether the creation of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 was an effective solution to the changes within society as well as the challenges brought about through crime and disorder. The orthodox view is that the Metropolitan Police were, in fact, a rational decision made to adapt to the needs of the society. They argue that the establishment of the ‘new’ police was inevitable. The revisionist view would state that the ‘new’ police were not a rational decision. They believed that crime and disorder were not increasing, it was just that the ways of counting crime were largely different to previously. The revisionists also believe that the new system was in part beneficial for which to tackle issues that may have occasioned due to the new ‘dangerous class’ (Monkkonen, 1981, p147). In this essay, there will be reference made to the Brixton Riots in 1981 with a clear explanation as to how the orthodox and revisionist perspectives relate to modern policing activities.

Before the introduction of PACE 1984…‘sus’ laws were found to be used disproportionality towards black people. They were repealed in 1981 and after a series of riots across the country between 1980 – 1981, the Scarman report and the Royal Commission on Police procedures recommended a complete overhaul of the police. These recommendations led to the creation of the PACE Act 1984. As a result of the Mac Pherson Report it was recommended that all stops be recorded. This recording of stops has shown statistically that if you are black you are 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched. On 7 March 2011 the requirements for the police on how they record stop and search were changed, this reduced the number of items recorded during a stop and search

You are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, or imprisoned if you are a minority. Discriminatory police stops have reached great extent in recent years.

Although the original intent of the stop and frisk rule was to prevent crime, get guns off the streets, and increase public safety, the policy has turned into a racially bias program that stops innocent people and arrests those committing non-violent crimes by carrying marijuana. While the NYPD claims its stop and frisk policy is especially needed to get illegal guns off the street, just 0.15 out of each 100 stops over the last six years resulted in officers actually confiscating a firearm. That undeniably low figure is quite alarming when compared to the 40,000 New Yorkers who were arrested in 2008 for marijuana-related offenses, majority of them being black and Latino.

“There’s no evidence that the stop-and-frisk is lowering or suppressing homicide rates in NYC. Murders have dropped steadily in 1990,” says Chris Dunn, spokesperson for the NYCLU. He’s saying that stop and frisks have nothing to do with the drop in homicides, statistics show that in 2002 97,296 people were stopped and there were 587 homicides, the numbers in 2012 were 685,724 and 532. With almost a 600% increase in stops there is no reason that we should only have 55 less homicides. There is a reason though; police are stopping people simply because they’re a minority. Or perhaps it’s because they are wearing a hoodie in the summer or shorts in the winter, which is cause for reasonable suspicion. This leads to distrust for law

The Bradford riots in 1995, and other public outcries showed the growing animosity that was being felt toward the police by minority ethnic communities. Another factor, which led the opinions of minority ethnic citizens of the police to become additionally hostile, is the ever advancing statistical and research evidence of racism within the police force. In 1978 Stuart Hall et al showed most clearly how, largely on the basis of pre-existing stereotypes minority ethnic people (in particular black people) were being criminalized and subjected to extraordinary policing and punishment. Both these factors increased the feelings of hatred for the police amongst minority ethnic communities. This was then furthered by the subsequent failings of the Scarman report.

Racial Profiling of minorities and people of colour have stormed up many questions about our police force and the targeted suspects. Many wonder if suspects were targeted all

Back than and up until now we still see an abundance of crime rate on the streets from illegal possession to murder. Ex mayor Michael Bloomberg has implemented a policy called Stop and Frisk in 2002. Some say it worked some say it doesn’t, from a ten-year period data shows that more then 5 million stops were made on young African American men who just made 1.9 percent of the city’s population according to New York Civil Liberties Union. Many politicians say it was a racial policy but it took weapons and drugs off the street. Stop and frisk was more proactive instead of reactive which means Acting before a situation becomes a source of confrontation. Research shows that crime has dropped drastically in 2002-Present since stop and frisk was implemented. Did it work? Many say no and blame the lead in our drinking water, which we will get into later. I believe Stop and Frisk didn’t lower crime to the effectiveness that we all would want it to work.

"Relations between the police and minority groups are a continuing problem in many multiracial societies. Surveys consistently document racial differences in perceptions of the police, with minorities more likely than whites to harbor negative views." (Weitzer and Tuch, Race and Perceptions of Police Misconduct, 2004)

Apart from periodically publishing stop and search records, supervisors and managers of police force are now required to closely monitor such statistics and take timely actions if something wrong is being observed. Also stricter rules on stop and search have since been imposed, along with the requirement of police officers writing a detailed report on spot about every single incident which subjects to review seems helpful in improving police conduct (Fyfe 1979; Skogan and Frydl 2004 in Miller 2010). While stop and search practice has been somehow improved, racial discrimination can still be seen in stop and search statistics. The notion of “Black and minority ethnic groups, particularly black people, have for many years been disproportionately at the receiving end of police stop and search—a fact associated with profound community resentment towards the police” (Bowling and Phillips 2002 in Miller 2010) still largely applies today. Miller’s (2010) analysis indicate that black people are about 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched, while it is about 2 times more likely for Asians. Similar idea is seen in Bennetto’s (2009) report, which draws on police statistics that shows in 2009 “black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white”, worse than Miller’s analysis with the most recent figures in 2008. No official explaination is provided by Police, but Bennetto (2009) assumes this may be caused by simply discrimination of

The police stop and search power first came about in 1984 the aim of this act was to protect the rights of the public from the misconduct of police officers. some may argue that they are still not protected by this act.Scottish ministers are under renewed pressure to abolish controversial police stop-and-search powers, after United Nations human rights experts said they were potentially breaching international law.

There are three reasons for the disproportionate use of stop and search against members of minority ethnic groups. Firstly Police Racism; the Macpherson Report (1999), on the investigation of the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence, concluded that there was institutional racism within the Met.Police. Other people have also found there to be excessive racist attitudes among officers. Also Phillips and Bowling suggested that officers hold negative stereotypes about ethnic minorities. Such stereotypes are endorsed and upheld by the canteen culture.

It was also the case in the 1970’s where police were more likely to be subjected to racism than the broader society. It was supposed that racism was “expected, accepted and even fashionable” among the police (Smith and Gray 1985, p. 388-389). Even in the 1960’s ethnic minority groups were demonised. This had mainly affected the black population as they were the ones targeted by the media, criminal justice system and politicians. Additionally, as well as the black race, the Asians, Caribbean and Africans were also exposed to racial prejudiced police behaviour.

“In relation to exercising police powers, what are the legal, ethical and social issues that arise from the use of Stop and search powers?’ Throughout this essay it will be discussed about the legal, ethical and social issues which arise from the use of stop and search. The essay will also look at how human rights issues affect the powers of stop and search, the Scarman report as well as PACE. The idea behind stops and search is to give the police the power to legally search an individual and prevent them from causing harm to themselves or anyone else within a public place.