A CHICAGO gang’s recent fatal beating of a young man has brought na tional attention to the problem of urban violence. From President Obama on down, everyone is searching for a solution. Here in New York, however, some continue to push for abandonment of the approaches behind our record crime reductions over the past two decades.
One prominent proposal is that the police should cease making street stops of criminal suspects.
The critics note that the NYPD stops, questions and frisks half a million people a year — yet only about 10 percent of these encounters lead to an arrest. What they miss is that arrests aren’t the point.
Police authority to stop and frisk isn’t limited to instances where there is probable cause to make an arrest. The law requires only that a search be reasonable — and for good reason.
Since the rise of cities in the 19th century, courts have upheld stop-and-frisk tactics on the grounds that police have the right to initiate investigations of suspicious activity — and in doing so, for their own protection, are allowed to pat down suspects for weapons.
The 1968 Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio arose out of a stop-and-frisk in Cleveland. In the ruling upholding the search, Chief Justice Earl Warren, a revered civil libertarian, explained that because “American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence,” a police officer has the right to ensure that “the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him.”
In that case, an officer saw two men who “didn’t look right,” so he focused his attention on them. He observed them repeatedly peer into a store window, walk away and return to the same store. Suspecting that they might be planning a holdup, he stopped them — and a frisk disclosed that both were carrying guns. They were convicted and sentenced to prison. Warren ruled that the officer’s actions were lawful.
Police have a right and duty to deter crime and apprehend criminals. An important tool for doing so is their ability to conduct reasonable stops and frisks. To urge them to discontinue the program is the same as telling them to stop protecting the public from criminals.
Another example of fuzzy thinking about law enforcement is the notion that only violent criminals should be imprisoned. By this logic, Bernie Madoff should be walking the streets today. Other white-collar crooks and corrupt public officials would have no reason to fear going to jail. Yet this was a prime argument for the recent drastic reduction in penalties under New York state’s drug laws.
Actually, advocates claimed that drug offenders are nonviolent criminals. That may be true for drug users, but it ignores the nature of the drug business.
In the ’80s, drug gangs took over and maintained control of New York City’s streets by violence. In their heyday, they murdered not only each other but also many innocents, including young children. Drug gangsters were the chief cause of the wave of violence that swamped the city, pushing the number of murders to a record 2,245 in a single year.
Since the ’90s, police enforcement, including vigorous use of stop-and-frisk tactics, has reclaimed the streets for the public. This year, the murder toll is expected to be in the 400 range — or about a fifth what it was 20 years ago.
Under the recently revised drug laws, many dealers may be released from jail early or avoid prison by pleading that they’re simply addicts. Let us hope that the judges and parole boards won’t be fooled by phony pleas. The legal system should show mercy to true addicts while continuing to lock up drug gangsters.
New Yorkers would be wise to reject ill-advised solutions to crime problems. Instead, we should continue to lead the country in carrying out programs that work — like vigorous enforcement of the law against gunmen and drug gangs.
Thomas A. Reppetto is a former president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City.