The Chicagoist will be launching later but in the meantime please enjoy our archives.

Evanston Employing Controversial 'Stop and Frisk' Tactics

By aaroncynic in News on Aug 22, 2013 8:20PM

2013_8_22_evanston.jpg Evanston police are taking a page from the NYPD and employing “stop and frisk” tactics. According to a Better Government Association investigation, law enforcement in the north side suburb announced they would use the tactic, which they call “investigative stops,” after shots were fired on a playground in May.

Evanston Police Chief Richard Eddington told the BGA:

“This is a tactic I have been reluctant to use. I know people who haven't done anything wrong are going to get stopped and frisked... I don't know that I have a choice right now. I have to run this risk to reduce the number of firearm-related crimes.”

While variations of “stop and frisk” procedures are used commonly by law enforcement, something that Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said last week, few cities have been willing to brand it as a blanket tactic. Research has shown the tactic doesn’t necessarily work and often creates strife between community members and police. Some say the trick is in the way it’s presented to the community and how it’s monitored. Bob Reed from the BGA told ABC7:

“...That's great, but the real trick will be in the execution: How well do they do it? How good is the record keeping? What will be the community reaction as this process goes on even longer?”

Evanston Mayor Elizabeth Tisdahl was supportive of the measure, even given the city’s long history of support for civil liberties. “I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but we needed to do this and we need to keep our children safe,” she said. The ACLU recommends Evanston Police keep rigorous records of each stop, conduct data analysis and make the findings public. Still, even that might not be enough. Arthur Lurigio, a professor of criminal justice and psychology at Loyola University Chicago told the BGA the department has a “tall order,” and said the ultimate question is “How far would you like the government to go to protect your safety at the risk of encroaching on your constitutional rights?"