Gothamist
A non-profit newsroom, powered by WNYC.
Gothamist
Listen Live
News
NYC Councilman: "Stop and Frisk Has Been An Abject Failure"
By
Lauren Evans
Published May 9, 2013
Modified May 9, 2013
Share
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Never miss a story
Email address
By submitting your information, you're agreeing to receive communications from New York Public Radio in accordance with our Terms .
By
Lauren Evans
Published May 9, 2013
Modified May 9, 2013
Share
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
We rely on your support to make local news available to all
Make your contribution now and help Gothamist thrive in 2026. Donate today
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
Stop-and-Frisk is, without question, one of the city's most polarizing police practices, so it comes as no surprise that the Museum of the City of New York was packed last night for a forum in which prominent New Yorkers gathered to discuss—and occasionally, bicker—about the tactic's effectiveness.
The four panelists—John Feinblatt, a chief advisor to Mayor Bloomberg; Franklin Zimring, UC Berkeley law professor and expert on New York City's crime reduction: Alex Vitale, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College; and Councilman Jumaane Williams, who knows a thing or two about getting stopped by cops—bandied various opinions on the benefits of stop-and-frisk as an effective crime fighting tool, versus its controversial execution.
Stop-and-frisk's most vigorous defender was, of course, Feinblatt, who was quick to mimic his boss and point out New York's crime statistics compared to other "megacities" like Washington, D.C. and Chicago.
“There were 419 murders last year in NYC. If we had the crime rate of Washington D.C., today instead of having 419 murders, we’d have something like 1,196 murders," he said. "If we had the crime rate of Chicago today, instead of having 419 murders, we’d have 1,489 murders."
He went on to attribute the city's dramatic drop in crime since the '80s to a shift from "community policing" to what he called "hot spot policing," which focuses police pressure on specific locations where crime is particularly high.
"Many people say 'Well, the way you bring down crime is locking up people.' We don’t believe that’s true in New York City today," he said. "If you go to the 1980s where community policing was sort of the predominant approach, and you had 16,000, almost 17,000 murders, and your peak average daily population in Rikers was almost 19,000," he said, adding that today, it's slightly more than 12,000.
Councilman Williams, an outspoken advocate against the department's abundant use of stop-and-frisk, argued that there exists no concrete connection between increased use of the measure and cessation of crime. Moreover, he said, officials are constantly shifting the explanation for the purpose of stop-and-frisk, first claiming it was a tool for removing guns from the street, then that it was to prevent shootings and finally, that it was to lower the murder rate.
"They show the numbers, and say 'Look what we’re doing,' but they don’t tell you the cost of what we're doing," he said. "Stop-and-frisk has been an abject failure."
Williams also added that more guns are taken off the street from police sponsored buy-backs than random stops, 50 percent of which are made on the basis of "furtive movements."
"I have Tourettes—all I do is make 'furtive movements,' " he joked.
Alex Vitale, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College, argued that the method is being overused. Many of the stops have no solid legal footing, he said, and rather than being based on "individualized reasonable suspicion," officers are simply blanketing specific areas, a practice the Supreme Court has ruled is unconstitutional.
"[The city] says 'Well, the stops mirror the race of alleged suspects in a serious crime.' But that’s not how the stops are being used. It’s not about stopping individuals who are believed to be wanted for a particular crime," he said. "It’s a broad, risk-based, place-oriented form of stopping, where officers are told, 'Go out and stop everybody in this place at this time of day who is, say, a young man. We need to have a more nuanced approach."
Williams acknowledged that he was not opposed to stop-and-frisk, as a tool, but rather, its overly aggressive implementation.
"It needs to be there so police officers can do their jobs," he said. But I’m against the current policy of stop, question and frisk that is not constitutional. It's not even a deterrent."
Tagged
crime
john feinblatt
jumaane williams
nypd
stop and frisk
original
Lauren Evans
Read more
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
Gothamist is funded by sponsors and member donations
MORE news
NY election results: Polls close soon for governor, congressional races
Voter turnout is trending up across much of New York state compared with 2022.
By
Jon Campbell
Published Nov 3, 2026 at 8:04 p.m. ET
Voting machine snafu may delay results in NY House race between Lawler, Conley
Both candidates are seeking a joint court order on how to count thousands of unscanned ballots.
By
Karen Yi
and
Jon Campbell
News
Voting machine snafu may delay results in NY House race between Lawler, Conley
Both candidates are seeking a joint court order on how to count thousands of unscanned ballots.
By
Karen Yi
and
Jon Campbell
Remote learning day for NYC schools means remote chance of learning, parents say
By
Jessica Gould
MTA posts record riders over Halloween, marathon week
By
Ramsey Khalifeh
Floyd Bennett Field gets $10M for project to reopen historic hangars
By
Rosemary Misdary
Never miss a story
Catch up on the most important headlines with a roundup of essential NYC stories, delivered to your inbox daily.
Sign upEmail address
By submitting your information, you're agreeing to receive communications from New York Public Radio in accordance with our Terms .