Federal Civil Litigation as an Instrument of Police Reform: A Natural Experiment Exploring the Effects of the Floyd Ruling on Stop-And-Frisk Activities in New York City

81 Pages Posted: 31 Aug 2016

See all articles by Michael White

Michael White

Arizona State University (ASU)

Henry F. Fradella

Arizona State University - School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Weston Morrow

University of Nevada, Reno

Doug Mellom

Arizona State University (ASU) - School of Criminology & Criminal Justice

Date Written: May 3, 2016

Abstract

Stop-and-frisk has emerged as a popular crime control tactic in American policing. Though stop-and-frisk has a long, established legal history, the recent experiences in many jurisdictions demonstrate a strong disconnect between principle and practice. Arguably, stop-and-frisk has become the next iteration of a persistent undercurrent in racial injustice in American policing, perhaps best demonstrated by the recent police killings of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray — all during stop-and-frisk encounters. Recent events have facilitated a national dialogue on police accountability and police reform, and federal civil litigation has been central to that discussion. Although federal court relief can be pursued through a variety of avenues (most frequently by individuals or class actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 14141), very little research has examined the impact of federal civil litigation on unconstitutional police practices. The current study examines the New York City confluence of racial injustice in policing, misuse of stop-and-frisk by officers, and federal civil litigation designed to precipitate police reform. Authors employ a natural experimental design to conduct a year-to-year comparison of stop-and-frisk activities and outcomes conducted by the NYPD in 2011, during the height of their stop-and-frisk program, and 2014, one year after a federal court deemed the program unconstitutional and ordered reforms. Results show substantial improvement in stop-and-frisk practices following the federal civil litigation, including reduced prevalence and geographic concentration, as well as increased rates of arrest and weapon and contraband seizures. Moreover, crime continued to decline in New York as the NYPD reformed its stop-and-frisk program. Even though racial disparities in those subjected to stops by the NYPD persist, the overall findings show positive progress in New York and highlight the role of federal civil litigation as an instrument of police reform.

Keywords: Stop-And-Frisk; Consent Decrees

Suggested Citation

White, Michael and Fradella, Henry and Morrow, Weston and Mellom, Doug, Federal Civil Litigation as an Instrument of Police Reform: A Natural Experiment Exploring the Effects of the Floyd Ruling on Stop-And-Frisk Activities in New York City (May 3, 2016). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2832337 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2832337

Michael White

Arizona State University (ASU) ( email )

Farmer Building 440G PO Box 872011
Tempe, AZ 85287
United States

Henry Fradella (Contact Author)

Arizona State University - School of Criminology and Criminal Justice ( email )

411 North Central Avenue, Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85004-0685
United States

Weston Morrow

University of Nevada, Reno ( email )

1664 N. Virginia St
Reno, NV 89557
United States

Doug Mellom

Arizona State University (ASU) - School of Criminology & Criminal Justice ( email )

411 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
188
Abstract Views
950
Rank
266,845
PlumX Metrics