But Bratton’s views on stop-and-frisk may be considerably different from those of his new boss. In May of this year, I profiled Shira Scheindlin, the federal judge who presided over the class-action lawsuit that challenged the N.Y.P.D.’s stop-and-frisk policies. In the course of reporting that piece, I interviewed Bratton, and we discussed stop-and-frisk in some detail.
Bratton emphatically endorsed stop-and-frisk as a police tactic. “First off, stop-question-and-frisk has been around forever,” he told me. “It is known by stop-and-frisk in New York, but other cities describe it other ways, like stop-question-and-frisk or Terry stops. It’s based on a Supreme Court case from 1968, Terry v. Ohio, which focussed very significantly on it. Stop-and-frisk is such a basic tool of policing. It’s one of the most fundamental practices in American policing. If cops are not doing stop-and-frisk, they are not doing their jobs. It is a basic, fundamental tool of police work in the whole country. If you do away with stop-and-frisk, this city will go down the chute as fast as anything you can imagine.”
We also discussed the current controversy over stop-and-frisk under Raymond Kelly, Bloomberg’s Police Commissioner. “What you have right now is a controversy in which nobody really understands what they are fighting about,” Bratton said. “Stop-and-frisk is not a tool solely to look for guns. Unfortunately, both the Mayor and the Police Commissioner refer to it that way, and that’s a problem because so few guns are recovered. But so what? The vast majority of stops are for a wide variety of things. Is someone drinking a can of beer on the corner? You want to stop that behavior. If somebody is aggressively panhandling on the street, urinating against a building. Is there somebody that you suspect is casing a building? Or is that two guys just locked out of their apartment? Police officers notice what may be a burglary. Of course they should be noticing and investigating. There are countless examples of what you want police to do.”
Bratton said stop-and-frisk reflected his broken-windows approach to police work. “This approach is the perfect example of what the city refused to do for thirty years, starting in 1960,” he said. “They stopped basically policing. The police were no longer engaging in controlling behavior in the streets and fare evasion in the subways. You have to take action against minor offenses. It has to be done respectfully, and it has to be done consistently, as Kelly has articulated, time and again. But it has to be done.”
In emphasis, if not in precise meaning, Bratton’s approach to stop-and-frisk was very different from that of his new boss. It’s obviously a subject that Bratton knows very well. In our conversation, I corrected him about Terry v. Ohio; I told him that the decision was from 1967, not 1968. After I hung up, though, I checked. Bratton was right about the date.
Original Article
Source: newyorker.com
Author: Jeffrey Toobin
No comments:
Post a Comment