Setting the record straight on stop-and-frisk in Philadelphia

A long-running debate about stop-and-frisk has yet again become a campaign issue in the Philadelphia mayor’s race, with several top contenders expressing more openness to the controversial tactic than the current administration.

During a televised debate Tuesday night, seven candidates weighed in on how police should use stop-and-frisk as a means of fighting crime. The back-and-forth between the contenders was largely over whether they support “constitutional stop-and-frisk” versus “unconstitutional” stop-and-frisk.

None said they support the unconstitutional version. But in some ways, that conversation obscures the reality: Constitutional stop-and-frisk is a legal tactic that police can and do use in Philadelphia. Unconstitutional stop-and-frisk is illegal.

The bigger questions are whether mayoral candidates believe that Philadelphia police should be stopping and frisking more people, how they would ensure officers don’t run afoul of the law, even unintentionally, and whether they think the benefits of more stops would outweigh the potential drawbacks.

Data collected in Philadelphia have shown that an aggressive approach to the use of stop-and-frisk disproportionately targeted Black and brown residents, and that the stops were in many cases legally groundless.

Here’s a look at the use of stop-in-frisk in Philadelphia and what’s allowed under the law.

So-called constitutional stop-and-frisk — often referred to by police as “pedestrian stops” — is a legally authorized method in which police can stop and pat down a person for such things as guns and drugs.

Stopping a person is considered within the bounds of the Constitution if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the person may be involved in criminal activity — a lower standard than the probable cause required for an arrest.

Frisking a person requires the officer to believe that person may be armed or is otherwise “presently dangerous.” A person merely matching the description of a report to police for a “person with a gun” does not, in itself, meet the legal standard. But if police observe other evidence they could initiate a frisk.

If that standard is not met, the stop or frisk could be considered unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.

» READ MORE: Bring back stop-and-frisk? With shootings soaring, some on Council say the tactic merits another look.

The Supreme Court. The legal standard for stop-and-frisk was decided in the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, a landmark case that allowed for the use of stop-and-frisk in America.

That’s why sometimes you hear people, including mayoral candidate Cherelle Parker, referring to the stops as “Terry stops.” The name is the legal term and refers to the Supreme Court case. There is no difference between a Terry stop and a constitutionally sound stop.

The tactic gained prominence in the early 2000s, when major cities such as Philadelphia and New York began emphasizing the strategy as a proactive way for officers to drive down crime.

Stop-and-frisk was used aggressively during the administration of former Mayor Michael Nutter, who was a strong proponent of the tactic. The ACLU sued in 2010 because police were overwhelmingly stopping people of color, often without legal justification. The city agreed to let the ACLU monitor the practice.

The number of pedestrian stops peaked in 2015 at about 200,000.

That year, Jim Kenney ran for mayor on a pledge to eradicate stop-and-frisk from Philadelphia, arguing it’s racially biased and ineffective. He was supported by myriad Black elected officials who said residents were unfairly targeted and in many cases antagonized by police. Under Kenney’s administration, the number of pedestrian stops in the city plummeted to fewer than 10,000 last year, according to police statistics.

Still, Kenney did not end the practice, and, to a degree, softened how critical he was of its use, although he’s been consistent that it should not return as a widespread tactic.

Racial disparities also have not abated. A 2020 ACLU report said Black residents were 50% more likely than whites to be stopped without reasonable suspicion. Kenney’s administration pledged to take further steps to address biases.

Mayoral candidates debated the language around stop-and-frisk during Tuesday’s forum, but none supported illegal stops.

Rebecca Rhynhart: “I am against returning to the policy of stop-and-frisk, and the reason is because it has been proven to be racist and unconstitutional.”

Cherelle Parker: “We cannot afford to take any legal tool away from law enforcement so that they can ensure that our public health and safety is our No. 1 priority. I support what’s called ‘Terry stops.’ That means law enforcement must have just cause and reasonable suspicion.”

Helen Gym: “I’m clearly against it because it’s unconstitutional, and I actually don’t think we should be using that language. We want clarity for police officers. ... The last thing we need is a return back to the failed practices of the past. What we need is actual targeted interventions.”

Allan Domb: “I am in favor of constitutional Terry stops. ... I also feel that every one of you has the right not to be shot, and we need every tool that we have in order to prevent that from happening.”

Jeff Brown: “I’m not for the old style stop-and-frisk because it’s illegal. ... But there is a form of stop-and-frisk that is being done today, and that’s where you have cause, legal cause, to stop someone. And if you have legal cause to stop someone, you should, because it keeps our citizens safe.”

In 2020, Philadelphia police found a gun in less than 3% of all stops, according to the ACLU.

Mary Catherine Roper, a civil rights lawyer who formerly worked at the ACLU, said the tactic “does not get guns off the street, and it is very harmful to the community.” She and other opponents have said stop-and-frisk erodes public trust in police, making residents less forthcoming with authorities who are investigating violent crime.

Proponents have pointed to Nutter’s administration, when the use of stop-and-frisk, along with other strategies, coincided with the city’s lowest homicide rate in 50 years.

Other evidence contradicts that. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was in favor of the practice, but it was swiftly and dramatically curtailed in 2013 when a judge ruled it was used in an unconstitutional manner. Pedestrian stops were slashed, and crime rates in New York still continued to decline.

Inquirer reporter Chris Palmer contributed to this article.