Recommendation area ▸

Pedestrian Stops

The Problem ▸

Every year 2.5 million people are subject to pedestrian stops by law enforcement agencies.[1] Pedestrian stops include stop-and-search, stop-question-and-frisk (referred to as a Terry stop, from the 1968 United States Supreme Court Case Terry v. Ohio), and street stops. Evidence supporting the effectiveness of pedestrian stops to improve public safety outcomes is mixed.[2] Research consistently demonstrated that law enforcement disproportionality stop racial and ethnic minorities and that extensive use of pedestrian stops can undermine police-community relations.[3] [4] [5] Although the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the constitutionality of Terry stops, it has also created limitations around their use. In Floyd v. City of New York, the Court found that the broad use of pedestrian stops may be unconstitutional if used in a way that violates the rights of individuals.[6]

What We Know ▸

Evidence suggests that police stop individuals of different racial groups at disparate rates

People of historically marginalized groups (especially African American individuals and people of Hispanic descent) are subjected to pedestrian stops at rates higher than White individuals[7] and in disproportionate numbers when accounting for their representation in the population.[8] One study examined patterns of stop and frisk data across New York City, New York neighborhoods found that neighborhood racial composition, poverty level, and the extent of social disorganization (e.g., households receiving public assistance, racial diversity) were stronger predictors of pedestrian stops than the neighborhood crime rates. The researchers concluded that the stop and frisk practice effectively was a strategy of “policing poor people in poor places.”[9]

Evidence of the effectiveness of pedestrian stops for crime control is limited

Police-initiated pedestrian stops infrequently lead to arrests, summons, or the seizure of weapons or other contraband.[10] [11] There is limited evidence that stop and frisk helps reduce gun crime.[12] A 2006 systematic review of directed police patrol interventions (including traffic and pedestrian stops) across high-crime areas in five U.S. cities found that, overall, increased stop and frisk practices resulted in an increase in seizures of illegal guns and reductions of gun crime in the targeted areas.[13] However, only one of the cities specifically reported using pedestrian stops alongside traffic stops, and they did not differentiate which strategy resulted in what percentage of gun seizures. Overall, there was no strong or converging evidence to support the effectiveness of pedestrian stops for gun crime reduction beyond the influence of traffic stops and other directed patrol strategies.

Pedestrian stops are not always conducted according to the law

Although pedestrian stops for crime control is supported by legal precedents[14], evidence shows that they are not always conducted according to constitutional standards.[15] [16] In 2004, researchers using field observations found that nearly one-third of searches conducted by officers were unconstitutional, and most of those did not have sufficient documentation in the description of the stop to be reviewed by courts or other oversight bodies to determine constitutionality.[17] In another study, the New York Office of the Attorney General, analyzing data collected by New York City police officers, found that the stops described on the reports violated constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.[18]

Pedestrian stops undermine perceptions of police legitimacy

In one study, young Black participants from St. Louis, Missouri, reflected on their experience when stopped by law enforcement, and a majority reported that they believed the officers stopped them without a legitimate reason to do so.[19] Another study examined the factors that contribute to perceived police legitimacy among young males in New York City. Findings showed that, compared to their White counterparts, Latino participants were less likely to perceive officers as legitimate, in part due to the frequency and intrusiveness of pedestrian and vehicle stops.[20] It is important to examine how pedestrian stops are conducted, as some researchers note that perceptions of justice and legitimacy are not based on the stop outcomes but rather how the police behave toward the stopped individuals.[21]

Procedural justice may help increase perceptions of legitimacy during pedestrian stops

Procedural justice training has been suggested to help foster legitimacy during pedestrian stops and other proactive policing activities.[22] [23] [24] When an officer treats the stopped individual with fairness and respect, the individual is more likely to view the police as legitimate and more likely to cooperate.[25] Some research has begun to examine whether vehicle stops conducted in a procedurally just manner are perceived more favorably compared to neutral stops or ones conducted in a manner opposite of procedural justice.[26] However, there is a lack of research specifically examining the impact of procedural justice training on pedestrian stops.

It is worth noting that some scholars remain skeptical of procedural justice as a solution to the challenges created by pedestrian stops. Procedural justice requires three components: trust (or the belief an individual has that the officer will act fairly in the future), standing (or the individual’s belief that the officer values the individual as a person and therefore behaves with politeness and respect), and neutrality (or the individual’s perception that they are not being discriminated against).[27] Pedestrian stops, however, may be based on police officers’ biased suspicions and, therefore, unlikely to be perceived by the stopped individual as neutral or unbiased. If pedestrian stops are perceived as being biased, it is unlikely they will be able to achieve high levels of perceived procedural justice.[28]

Council Recommendations ▸

Recommendation 44

Limit Pedestrian Stops

Pedestrian stops, which allow officers to temporarily detain, question, and search a person once constitutional thresholds have been reached, should be limited to those with a clear public safety impact. Although they have been associated with reduced violent crime and increased firearm recovery, overreliance is not only likely to harm police-community relationships, including the public’s perception of police legitimacy, but may also constitute a discriminatory pattern of practice and, thus, be unconstitutional.

[NOTE: A pedestrian “Terry stop” or “Stop, question, frisk,” is different from a general contact between an officer and a member of the community.]

Recommendation 45

Improve Training on Pedestrian Stops

Officers and supervisors must receive regular training to ensure that pedestrian stops are performed in a way that is constitutional, respectful, effective, and not overused.

Recommendation 46

Implement Mandatory Data Collection for Pedestrian Stops

Key data regarding pedestrian stops must be recorded, analyzed, and reported to the public. Data should include time and location, demographics of the person stopped, justification for the stop, whether a protective pat down or search was used, and if actions were taken (e.g., citation or arrest) as a result of the stop.

Recommendation 47

Include Community Input in Establishing Strategies for Pedestrian Stops

Goals, policies, and strategies for pedestrian stops must be established with community input, clearly articulated, and tied to larger goals that place the highest value on police-community relations and respect for individuals.

Recommendation 48

Develop and Implement Pedestrian Stop Monitoring and Accountability Strategies

Strategies to monitor the racial and ethnic impact of pedestrian stops must be developed and implemented to prevent disparate outcomes. The behavior and actions of officers during pedestrian stops should be routinely observed and audited, and officers should periodically review body-worn camera footage and the bases and outcomes of the stops to ensure that their actions follow federal, state, and local laws; agency policies; and the tenets of procedural justice. An evaluation of pedestrian stop activity in the aggregate and over time should be performed to ensure there is no racial and ethnic disproportionality, paying particular attention to the larger effects of pedestrian stops on the community. Any evidence of disparity should be addressed.

Recommendation 49

Communicate Pedestrian Stop Strategies, Policies, and Data to the Community

Strategies, policies, and stop activity data should be reported to the community. Community input should be solicited and, where appropriate, incorporated into policies and procedures regarding the use of pedestrian stops as a public safety strategy.

Further Research ▸

More rigorous studies that specifically look at the effectiveness of pedestrian stops for contraband seizures and crime control are needed. Current research is limited in design variation, analytical strategies, and long-term assessments.[29]

Research is needed to develop officer training that reduces the use of pedestrian stops, improves their crime prevention value, and supports safe and effective police-community interactions. Some research suggests that more intensive training in procedural justice and constitutional law can positively impact police effectiveness and reduce harmful police-community interactions.[30]

Some researchers believe that pedestrian stops can work as a police tactic contingent on a supervisor’s frequent monitoring of officer performance for signs of biases, through reviewing body-worn camera video footage, for example.[31] Evidence from the New York City Department’s Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) training suggests that supervisors will engage in officer monitoring strategies post-training.[32] Future research should examine the effectiveness of monitoring and intervention of officer behavior while conducting pedestrian stops, including the long-term sustainability of such monitoring strategies.

Research is needed to determine if additional communication about policing strategy with affected communities can positively impact police-community relations. Warranted or not, pedestrian stops intrude on residents’ affairs. When there is some agreement that police intervention is necessary, police activity may be perceived as more legitimate. For instance, in neighborhoods with significant gang activity, residents may understand and accept the need for increased pedestrian stops to improve public safety. However, if there is a lack of communication, police may lose legitimacy, trust and/or the respect of the community.[33] Research to determine if communication impacts outcomes, and if so, how it will better inform these decisions.

Citations ▸

[1] Davis, E., Whyde, A., & Langton, L. (2018). Contacts between police and the public, 2015. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

[2] See Greene, J. R. (2012). Police field stops: What do we know, and what does it mean? In N. La Vigne, P. Lachman, A. Matthews, & S. R. Neusteter (Eds.), Key Issues in the Police Use of Pedestrian Stops and Searches: Discussion Papers from an Urban Institute Roundtable. Urban Institute.

[3] Ferrandino, J. A. (2018). The effectiveness and equity of NYPD stop and frisk policy, 2003–2014. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(2), 119-135.

[4] Shedd, C. (2012). What about the other 99%? The broader impact of street stops on minority communities. In N. La Vigne, P. Lachman, A. Matthews, & S. R. Neusteter (Eds.), Key Issues in the Police Use of Pedestrian Stops and Searches: Discussion Papers from an Urban Institute Roundtable. Urban Institute.

[5] Tyler, T. R., & McCarthy, G. (2012). The impact of stop and frisk policies upon police legitimacy. In N. La Vigne, P. Lachman, A. Matthews, & S. R. Neusteter (Eds.), Key Issues in the Police Use of Pedestrian Stops and Searches: Discussion Papers from an Urban Institute Roundtable. Urban Institute.

[6] Floyd v. City of N.Y. - 959 F. Supp. 2d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

[7] Dunn, C., & Shames, M. (2019). Stop-and-Frisk in the de Blasio Era. New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU).

[8] Andrew Gelman, Jeffrey Fagan & Alex Kiss (2007). An Analysis of the New York City Police Department's “Stop-and-Frisk” Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102:479, 813-823, DOI: 10.1198/016214506000001040

[9] Fagan, J., & Davies, G. (2000). Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City. Fordham Urban. Law Journal, 28, 457.

[10] Tyler, T. R., Fagan, J., & Geller, A. (2014). Street Stops and Police Legitimacy: Teachable Moments in Young Urban Men’s Legal Socialization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(4), 751–785. doi:10.1111/jels.12055

[11] Jones‐Brown, D., Gill, J., & Trone, J. (2010). Stop, question, & frisk policing practices in New York City: A primer. John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

[12] McGarrell, E. F., Chermak, S., Weiss, A., & Wilson, J. (2001). Reducing Firearms Violence Through Directed Police Patrol. Criminology and public policy, 1(1), 119-148.

[13] Koper, C. S., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2006). Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: A systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of experimental criminology, 2(2), 227-261.

[14] Terry v. Ohio (ruled that pat-down searches were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment if the police could demonstrate enough reasonable suspicion); La Vigne, N., Lachman, P., Matthews, A., & Neusteter, S. R. (2012). Key Issues in the Police Use of Pedestrian Stops and Searches. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/25781/412647-Key-Issues-in-the-Police-Use-of-Pedestrian-Stops-and-Searches.PDF

[15]Skogan, W. G., & Meares, T. L. (2004). Lawful policing. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 66-83.

[16] Heffernan, W. C., & Lovely, R. W. (1990). Evaluating the fourth amendment exclusionary rule: The problem of police compliance with the law. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 24, 311.

[17] Gould, J. B., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2004). Suspect searches: Assessing police behavior under the U.S. Constitution. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(3), 315-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00046.x

[18] Fagan, J., & Davies, G. (2000). Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City. Fordham Urban. Law Journal, 28, 457.

[19] Brunson, R. K., & Miller, J. (2006). Young black men and urban policing in the United States. British journal of criminology, 46(4), 613-640.

[20] Tyler, T. R., Fagan, J., & Geller, A. (2014). Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men's legal socialization. Journal of empirical legal studies, 11(4), 751-785.

[21] La Vigne, N., Lachman, P., Matthews, A., & Neusteter, S. R. (2012). Key Issues in the Police Use of Pedestrian Stops and Searches. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/25781/412647-Key-Issues-in-the-Police-Use-of-Pedestrian-Stops-and-Searches.PDF

[22] Horowitz, J. (2007). Making every encounter count: Building trust and confidence in the police. National Institute of Justice Journal, 256(1), 8-11.

[23] Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2014). Pulled over: How police stops define race and citizenship. University of Chicago Press.

[24] Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vovak, H., Zastrow, T., Braga, A. A., & Turchan, B. (2022). Reforming the police through procedural justice training: A multicity randomized trial at crime hot spots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(14), e2118780119. https://doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.2118780119

[25] Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9175-2

[26] Johnson, D., Wilson, D. B., Maguire, E. R., & Lowrey-Kinberg, B. V. (2017). Race and perceptions of police: Experimental results on the impact of procedural (in) justice. Justice Quarterly, 34(7), 1184-1212.

[27] Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). Academic Press.

[28] Blanks, J. (2015). Thin blue lies: How pretextual stops undermine police legitimacy. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 66, 931.

[29]Koper, C. S., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2006). Police crackdowns on illegal gun carrying: A systematic review of their impact on gun crime. Journal of experimental criminology, 2(2), 227-261.

[30] Weisburd, D., et al (2022). Reforming the police through procedural justice training: A multicity randomized trial at crime hot spots.

[31] Fradella, H., & White, M.D. (2019, December 5). ‘Stop-and-frisk’ can work, under careful supervision. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/stop-and-frisk-can-work-under-careful-supervision-127785

[32] Worden, R. E., McLean, S. J., Engel, R. S., Cochran, H., Corsaro, N., Reynolds, D., ... & Isaza, G. T. (2020). The impacts of implicit bias awareness training in the NYPD. The John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety, Inc. and The Center for Police Research and Policy at the University of Cincinnati. https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/Research%20Center/NYPD%20Implicit%20Bias%20Report.pdf

[33] La Vigne, N., Lachman, P., Matthews, A., & Neusteter, S. R. (2012). Key Issues in the Police Use of Pedestrian Stops and Searches. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

[34] Petersen, K., Weisburd, D., Fay, S., Eggins, E., Mazerolle, L. (2023). Police stops to reduce crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews.