PreprintCited by 286Policing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and Penology

Street Stops and Broken Windows: Terry, Race and Disorder in New York City

Open access
Fagan, Jeffrey, Davies, Garth·2001·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

Patterns of "stop and frisk" activity by police across New York City neighborhoods reflect competing theories of aggressive policing. "Broken Windows" theory suggests that neighborhoods with greater concentrations of physical and social disorder should evidence higher stop and frisk activity, especially for "quality of life" crimes. However, while disorder theory informs quality of life policing strategies, observed patterns of stop and frisk activity suggest that neighborhood characteristics such as racial composition, poverty levels and the extent of social disorganization are stronger predictors of race- and crime-specific police stops than is the presence of "broken windows." Furthermore, stops of minority citizens more often failed to meet Terry standards of reasonable suspicion, suggesting the conflation of race with the strategic design of "order maintenance policing." Our empirical evidence suggests that policing is not about disorderly places, nor about improving the quality of life, but about policing poor people in poor places. This strategy contradicts the policy rationale derived from Broken Windows theory, and deviates from its original emphasis on community conditions by instead focusing disproportionately on minority citizens. Racially disparate policing reinforces perceptions by citizens in minority neighborhoods that they are under non-particularized suspicion and are therefore targeted for aggressive stop and frisk policing. Such broad targeting raises concerns about the legitimacy of law, threatens to weaken citizen participation in the co-production of security, and undercuts the broader social norms goals of contemporary policing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.257813

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fagan, J., & Davies, G.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
Corresponding author
Fagan, Jeffrey
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1586156143
Cited by
284
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
  • eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
stop and frisk, broken windows theory, Terry v. Ohio, reasonable suspicion, racial disparities in policing, order maintenance policing, social disorder, neighborhood poverty, racial composition, social disorganization, police legitimacy, New York City

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review