To frisk or not to frisk?

Nutter's proposed stop-and-frisk policy may get a little pat-down search of its own.

Philadelphia's City Council passed a resolution last week announcing its intent to look into the potential implementation of the controversial stop-and-frisk policing strategy.

The policy, which has been a main part of Democratic mayoral candidate Michael Nutter's election platform, would allow police to stop and frisk suspicious individuals and confiscate any illegal weapons without a warrant.

But Council wants to learn more about the pros and cons of the policy, and members will hold a hearing Oct. 24 to discuss the merits of the proposal.

"We want to get everyone at the table so they have a chance to speak about the issue," said William Nesheiwat, the director of legislation for Councilwoman and Public Safety Committee chairwoman Donna Miller.

Chris Creelman, legislative aide for Councilwoman Joan Krajewski, said he thinks most council members haven't formed an opinion about the stop-and-frisk policy.

They have questions "about how stop-and-frisk searches will be done by police and how the city can implement this policy without opening itself up to lawsuits," he said.

Recent crime waves in Philadelphia, however, may make citizens more accepting of aggressive policing measures.

Nesheiwat cited the Council's initiative to put surveillance cameras in high-crime areas as an example of a controversial policy that proved popular with city residents.

"For a long time, we never thought the community would be in favor of surveillance cameras," he said. "But we've gotten lots of calls from many community organizations begging us to put cameras up. The stop-and-frisk policy may be more plausible than we would think."

Still, the policy, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 1968, may face court challenges by minority and civil liberties groups who argue that it leads to racial profiling.

"It's a source of contention among minority groups," said Penn Law professor Stephanos Bibas. "This is a big trade-off. How much do you have a right not to be frisked by the police, and how much does that right need to give way to the greater good of reducing crime? It gets complicated."

Bibas added that New York City's implementation of the policy in the 1990s helped confiscate many illegal weapons, but only 20 percent of people who were searched were actually arrested.

Lawrence Sherman, director of the Jerry Lee Center for Criminology, said studies by the National Academy of Sciences have proven that the stop-and-frisk policy, with proper implementation in high-crime areas, can greatly reduce homicide rates.

As for concerns about racial profiling, Sherman dismisses them as a matter of semantics.

"Homicide has a disproportionate impact on minorities, too," he said. "And you can remedy discrimination against suspects through compensation. But when someone's dead, they're dead."

Nutter did not return requests for comment for this article.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.