Stop-and-frisk incidents in Chicago will be publicly reported

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a public records lawsuit against the Boston Police Department for allegedly failing to respond to requests for information about street-level encounters between officers and civilians since 2010.

In March, the ACLU criticized Chicago’s stop and frisk policy, claiming that “Stop and frisk is disproportionately concentrated in the black community”.

The ACLU report identified more than 250,000 Chicago stop-and-frisk encounters in which there were no arrests from May through August 2014.

In April, a Chicago law firm filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Chicago regarding the department’s stop-and-frisk policy.

“This unprecedented agreement with the ACLU is a demonstration of CPD’s commitment to fairness, respect, transparency, and underscores our willingness to work side by side with everyone as we work toward our shared goal of keeping our neighbourhood safe”.

At the time, sources within the department told the newspaper that district commanders felt the pressure to have their officers make street stops – and fill out the contact cards – or risk incurring McCarthy’s wrath in front of peers at weekly meetings on CompStat, the department’s data-driven strategy that uses crime statistics and street intelligence to hold police brass accountable for the neighborhoods they oversee.

On Friday, the independent monitor charged with reviewing NYPD stop-and-frisk tactics proposed changes to the city’s police officer’s manual, which if accepted by a judge would become binding. The cards will include the name and badge number of the officer, the race and gender of the person stopped, the reasons for the stop, and the reason for a pat down.

The agreement goes into effect immediately.

A key part of the agreement is the engagement of former U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys to evaluate the City’s practices and procedures regarding investigatory stops and to oversee the agreements implementation.

The agreement in Chicago calls for more officer training to make sure stops are conducted only when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and that pat-downs are performed only when there is reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed and unsafe. All victims and plaintiffs represented in the complaint are African-American males who seek immediate injunctive and declaratory relief of these unconstitutional “catch and release” stop and frisk practices. The increased training is designed to ensure stops are conducted only when necessary and that pat downs are done only when legally justified. Then, he will use the data to determine if the city’s practices are lawful.

Supporters of the controversial tactic argue that it helps prevent violent crime, while opponents say the stops unjustly target black citizens and other minorities.