Blog
Aggressive Enforcement Tactics and Allegations of Overreach
Contents
Aggressive Enforcement Tactics and Allegations of Overreach
Law enforcement agencies have a tough job – they need to enforce the law and maintain public order, but they also need to do it in a fair and just way. However, some aggressive tactics used by police have led to allegations of overreach and violations of civil liberties. This article will look at some of these tactics, the arguments for and against them, and their potential impacts.
Stop and Frisk
Stop and frisk refers to a practice where police stop, question and frisk pedestrians or drivers they consider suspicious. This became a common tactic in New York City, where police conducted over 608,000 stops in 2019. Critics argue this leads to racial profiling, with Black and Hispanic people disproportionately targeted. They also say it violates the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Supporters argue stop and frisk is an effective way to get illegal guns off the street and prevent crime. They say police have the legal right to briefly detain someone based on reasonable suspicion of a crime. But judges have ruled police need more justification for a frisk than just looking suspicious. Overall, stop and frisk seems to have little impact on crime rates.
Broken Windows Policing
This approach focuses on enforcing low-level “quality of life” offenses like vandalism, public drinking, or turnstile jumping. The idea is that cracking down on small disorders prevents an atmosphere of lawlessness that enables more serious crimes. So police aggressively enforce minor offenses that might be ignored elsewhere.
Critics say broken windows policing leads to over-criminalization of marginalized groups and nonviolent offenses. They argue serious crimes should be the priority, not jaywalking or selling loose cigarettes. There’s also little evidence that broken windows reduces violent crime. But supporters say it improves public order and empowers communities to reclaim public spaces from undesirable behaviors.
Pretextual Stops
Pretextual stops are when police pull over drivers for minor traffic violations like a broken taillight as a pretext to investigate other crimes. This gives police broad discretion to stop almost anyone. Critics argue it leads to racial profiling and fishing expeditions that violate 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
Police defend the practice as an effective way to catch criminals trying to evade detection. They can check for signs of impairment, question the driver, or request consent to search the vehicle. But consent may not be truly voluntary if the driver feels pressured. Overall, pretextual stops are a legally gray area that raises concerns about privacy, discrimination, and police overreach.
Civil Asset Forfeiture
This allows police to seize cash, cars, homes and other property if they suspect it’s connected to criminal activity – even without filing charges. Law enforcement argues it’s a vital tool to dismantle drug rings and disrupt organized crime by targeting their illicit profits.
But critics say it incentivizes policing for profit, leads to abuses of power, and disproportionately impacts poor and minority communities. There are many cases of police seizing large amounts of cash from people who are never charged with a crime. Some states now require a criminal conviction before assets can be forfeited. There are arguments on both sides, but civil asset forfeiture clearly risks compromising civil liberties.
SWAT Raids and No-Knock Warrants
The militarization of police has led to controversy around SWAT teams conducting forced-entry raids, often at night, to search homes or make arrests. These dynamic entries, sometimes using flashbangs and battering rams, are meant to surprise and disorient potentially dangerous suspects. But critics argue they are overused for routine search warrants, needlessly escalating situations.
No-knock warrants, allowing police to enter without warning, raise particular concerns. High-profile tragedies like the killing of Breonna Taylor in a no-knock raid have led some jurisdictions to ban or restrict their use. Overall, many experts say SWAT teams and forced-entry raids are employed too aggressively, heightening risks to both police and public safety. But others argue they are vital tools when used carefully against truly dangerous suspects. There are good-faith arguments on both sides.
Chokeholds and Neck Restraints
After the killing of George Floyd, many departments banned chokeholds and neck restraints like the “carotid hold.” When applied correctly, proponents argue these techniques can safely subdue resisting suspects. But critics say they are too dangerous and prone to misuse or overuse.
Chokeholds cut off oxygen, risking serious injury or death if held too long. And neck restraints can fatally damage the carotid arteries. Police often receive inadequate training on using them safely. Because of the lethal risks, many criminologists argue chokeholds and neck restraints should be strictly limited or banned altogether. But some police say they still have value as a last resort when other options fail.
Impacts and Solutions
Aggressive enforcement tactics can alienate communities, especially minority groups, and undermine trust in police. They may actually increase crime if people feel harassed and withdraw support and cooperation. But measured, constitutional policing focused on serious offenses can enhance public safety without compromising rights.
There are no easy answers, but potential reforms include more training on de-escalation and bias-free policing, demilitarization of police forces, more community input and oversight, ending quotas for stops or arrests, and requiring reasonable suspicion for any detention or search. A balanced approach allows effective law enforcement while protecting civil liberties. With good policies and genuine commitment to serving communities, police can uphold both safety and justice.
References
Stop and Frisk in the de Blasio Era
Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns
Proactive Policing: What We Know and Don’t Know