Stop-and-Frisk and Trust in Police in Chicago

This working paper examines some of the consequences of stop and frisk as a law enforcement strategy. This is important because stop and frisk has become the crime-prevention strategy of choice in American policing. It is seen as increasing the perception among potential offenders that they face a high risk of being apprehended if they commit a crime or are carrying contraband, and thus reduces offending. This working paper examines some of the possible collateral consequences of turning to an aggressive stop and frisk style of policing. One is that – from the point of view of the citizens involved – these stops may seem unwarranted. Even in crime hot spots most people, most of the time, are just going about their daily lives, and the ability of the police to accurately select suitably hot people from among them is very limited. Another collateral consequence is that stops may be unfairly distributed. A risk is that their apparent race, age, social class and gender may provide the principal flags by which officers identify hot people for investigation. Third, the collateral damage of a stop and frisk crime prevention strategy may include undermining the legitimacy of the police, and perhaps that of the state. All of these potential consequences of stop and frisk are examined using a new survey that probed for reports of encounters with the Chicago police. Stop-and-Frisk and Trust in Police in Chicago This working paper examines some of the consequences of stop and frisk as a law enforcement strategy. This is important because stop and frisk has become the crime-prevention strategy of choice in American policing. Stop and frisk embodies the theory of general deterrence. The idea is that a relentless focus on presumably ”hot people” concentrated in crime “hot spots” increases the risks involved in carrying drugs or weapons. This in turn will deter crimes that stem from holding contraband, including shootings and drug dealing. In this view, stop and frisk increases the perception among potential offenders that they face a high risk of being apprehended if they commit a crime or are provisioned to do so, and thus reduces offending. Of course, there may be collateral consequences of turning to an aggressive stop and frisk style of policing, and that is the focus of this working paper. One possible consequence is that – from the point of view of the citizens involved – these stops may seem unwarranted. Even in crime hot spots most people, most of the time, are just going about their daily lives. The ability of the police to accurately select suitably hot people from among them is very limited, further reducing the “hit rate” for seizing contraband and making arrests. These rates are typically quite low, so the risk of unwarranted intrusion into people's lives seems a real one. Another collateral consequence is that stops may be unfairly distributed. The vision of stop and frisk underlying the law and decisions of courts in the United States is that they are preceded by careful surveillance and a nuanced analysis of the situation by experienced officers who are wise to criminal opportunities near the scene and the ways of those who are up to no good there. This was the understanding of policing evidenced by the US Supreme Court in one of its leading endorsements of stop and frisk, Terry v Ohio (1968). But when stop and frisk as a policy scales to hundreds of thousands of encounters per year in a single city, and when the pressure from management is for volume and not their quality, few may be emulating the good police work of Officer McFadden in front of the jewelry store on his regular beat in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. Instead, a risk is that their apparent race, age, social class and gender may provide the principal flags by which officers identify hot people. Third, the collateral damage of a crime prevention strategy generating large numbers of unwarranted stops of persons targeted for being who they are may include undermining the legitimacy of the police, and perhaps that of the state. Legitimacy is one of the fundamental cornerstones of democracy. It underlies obedience to the law and to the directions of the authorities who protect it. It keeps them from needing on officer on every corner to secure order. If by their actions police undermine their own legitimacy – including by heedlessly sweeping through neighborhoods in a thin blue line – the broader political consequences of SQF could be significant. * This research was supported by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The survey described here was conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, directed by Jennifer Parsons.