In 1958, Cincinnati, Ohio, became one of the first jurisdictions to implement a formal “stop-and-frisk” campaign. The program’s focus was on Avondale, a neighborhood that had in recent years become predominately Black following “white flight” and redlining. The Cincinnati Police Department required officers to meet a quota of stops every month and create a police file for each one. With those stop files pouring in, Cincinnati police built a database of people to target for criminalization based primarily on their race.

Nearly 70 years later, stop-and-frisk tactics continue around the country—with similar impacts.

What does stop-and-frisk mean?

Stop-and-frisk is a broad term used to describe police using a lower legal standard than probable cause—the threshold required to make an arrest—to temporarily stop, detain, question, and physically “frisk” someone to specifically look for weapons. The exact nature of the interaction varies; it can range from a quick stop to a lengthy (and sometimes violent) search.

Is stop-and-frisk legal?

Yes. In the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision, the United States Supreme Court found stop-and-frisk practices to be constitutional provided these criteria are met:

• The detaining officer must have a reasonable suspicion—based on specific facts and circumstances—that a crime has been or is about to be committed.
• To conduct a search, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The frisk must be limited to a search for weapons, not for general evidence.

Terry’s reasonable suspicion test creates a lower threshold than the probable cause standard an officer must typically meet to make an arrest.

In practice, however, many stop-and-frisk programs do violate constitutional rights. Although the Court in Terry did not mention racial profiling, later court decisions have made clear that Terry stops must also adhere to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. For instance, in 2013 landmark case Floyd v. City of New York, a federal court found that New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices were unconstitutional because they were racially discriminatory. The court also found that the city’s stops violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures because police often lacked reasonable suspicion of a crime. This ruling further noted that after officers stopped people, they often searched subjects for drugs or other contraband without legal grounds to do so.

Is stop-and-frisk a necessary tool to prevent crime?

No. Although there is some evidence that police pedestrian stops may reduce crime in specific high-crime areas, these tactics can negatively impact communities’ and individuals’ mental and physical health and relationships with police. The repercussions far outweigh the potential benefits for stop-and-frisk to be used as a legitimate tool to prevent crime.

Although proponents of stop-and-frisk say stops are necessary to find weapons and drugs, the reality is that these stops have miniscule “hit rates” and are seldom fruitful. In Washington, DC, only about one percent of stops between 2022 and 2023 resulted in the seizure of a gun. In New York City in 2008, that number was less than 0.2 percent. Conducting unnecessary stops that are highly unlikely to yield contraband both erodes trust in police and wastes public money.

Are stop-and-frisk policies dangerous?

Yes. People who have experienced a stop-and-frisk have frequently reported police violence. A 2013 Vera survey of young people who had been stopped at least once found that 45 percent reported an officer threatening them, and 46 percent experienced an officer using physical force against them. In some instances, encounters that began as a stop-and-frisk turned into a police killing, including the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo in New York and the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray in Baltimore.

Beyond physical violence, people have reported being verbally abused by officers who have detained them during a stop-and-frisk incident, threatening further violence and using racial slurs. Stop-and-frisk has also been known to cause psychological harm and erosions of trust between the public and police. Vera’s 2013 survey found that 88 percent of young people believed their neighbors did not trust the police, and only four in 10 said they would be comfortable seeking help from police if in trouble.

“Police intrusions can be quite scary [and], if not scary, at least humiliating and frustrating. So, I think we need to put a number on that emotional trauma and recognize how great that is in many communities,” Frank Baumgartner, a professor at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, told Vera. “Recognize that it is a little chink in the armor of democracy. There should be a little cost every time you search somebody and come up with nothing.”

Does stop-and-frisk have a racially disparate impact?

In cities nationwide, police have both stopped and used force against Black and Latinx people at disproportionately high rates, making it a direct threat to the safety and well-being of communities of color.

In Washington, DC, a 2024 ACLU analysis found that Black people made up more than 70 percent of those stopped and frisked in the prior two years, despite constituting only about 44 percent of the DC population. In Los Angeles, a 2008 study found that police were nearly three times more likely to stop Black people than white people. In Philadelphia in 2009, as stop-and-frisks in the city spiked, Black and Latinx people made up 90 percent of stops despite amounting to approximately 50 percent of the population. A 2003–2023 analysis of New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices found that 90 percent of people stopped by police were people of color, with Black people making up more than half of stops despite constituting less than a quarter of the population. Historically, New York Police Department (NYPD) officers have also been more likely to use force against people of color, themselves reporting use of force in at least 23 percent of stops of Black and Latinx people under the city’s robust stop-and-frisk program from 2004 to 2012.

While New York has seen recent declines in the number of Black and Latinx people stopped by the NYPD and in the disproportionate use of force against people of color as a result of the 2013 remedial orders from Floyd v. City of New York, this consistent bias in policing across the country exposes stop-and-frisk as a product of the racism inherent in the criminal legal system.

What can be done to reduce stop-and-frisk?

State and local leaders need to ensure that law enforcement transparency laws are in place, and officials need to compel police leadership to comply with them.

In 2024, New York City passed the How Many Stops Act, which requires a comprehensive accounting of all NYPD stops, encounters, and searches that were, or were not, consented to. It also passed the Right to Know Act in 2018, requiring in certain situations that police provide the reason for a stop, which helps prevent the kind of indiscriminate stops that have characterized some stop-and-frisk programs. Other cities and states that lack protections can and should pass similar legislation.

Stop-and-frisk does not yield the safety benefits of a legitimate law enforcement tool, and it is much too great a threat to civil liberties to be operating unchecked and in the shadows.