What do you think are the implications of Rios

https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419897348

American Sociological Review 2020, Vol. 85(1) 58 –75 © American Sociological Association 2020 DOI: 10.1177/0003122419897348 journals.sagepub.com/home/asr

Since at least the 1970s, hot spot policing, proac- tive policing, and other investigatory and puni- tive policing approaches have played a role in criminalizing poor communities of color (Alex- ander 2010; Brunson and Gau 2014; Fagan et al. 2016; Forman 2004; Soss and Weaver 2017). Such practices emphasize increased officer con- tacts with suspicious people and represent a general shift from a culture of investigating crime to investigating individuals who are believed prone to commit crime (Dubber 2000). Punitive policies focused on proactive interven- tion and police saturation extend a historical pattern of racialized criminalization in the use of

stops (Epp, Maynard-Moody, and Haider- Markel 2014), searches (Jones-Brown, Gill, and Trone 2010), policing (Boyles 2015; Goffman 2014; Rios 2011; Stuart 2016), and force (Terrill and Reisig 2003). Stop-and-frisk is one type of

897348ASRXXX10.1177/0003122419897348American Sociological ReviewRios et al. research-article2020

aUniversity of California-Santa Barbara bUniversity of San Diego

Corresponding Author: Victor M. Rios, Department of Sociology, University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Email: vrios@ucsb.edu

Mano Suave–Mano Dura: Legitimacy Policing and Latino Stop-and-Frisk

Victor M. Rios,a Greg Prieto,b and Jonathan M. Ibarraa

Abstract Stop-and-frisk and other punitive policing practices disproportionately affect marginalized communities of color. In response to calls for reform, police departments have implemented community policing programs aimed at improving relations with racialized communities. This study examines how a police unit used courtesy and respect in its engagement with a criminalized population, gang-associated Latinos, while relying on the stop-and-frisk practice. Our study reveals contextual and situational contradictions between modern police departments’ attempts to establish legitimacy and the hegemonic practice of investigatory stops. Drawing on observations and interviews conducted during a ride-along study, we find that stop-and-frisk, simultaneously used with reform practices like courtesy policing, yield a paradoxical policing approach, “the legitimacy policing continuum.” Officers regularly articulate a goal of respectfully interacting with courtesy to build community and trust— what we term “the mano suave”—while practicing a dominant logic of crime prevention through punitive measures—what we term “the mano dura.” We argue that community and courtesy policing are drawn on strategically in interaction and ultimately intertwined with and constrained by the racial bias at the heart of punitive policing practices like stop-and- frisk.

Keywords policing, criminalization, gangs, racial profiling, procedural justice, stop-and-frisk, Latinos

Rios et al. 59

investigatory stop, in which police observations of minor illicit activity provide the occasion to question and search a subject of interest about suspected criminal activity (Jones-Brown et al. 2010).

A great deal of academic inquiry focuses on stop-and-frisk as a form of racial profiling, specifically with African Americans and to a lesser extent with Latinos (Alpert, Macdon- ald, and Dunham 2005; Barlow and Barlow 2002; Durán 2009; Epp et al. 2014; Gabbidon and Greene 2012; Glaser 2014; Glover 2009; Petrocelli, Piquero, and Smith 2003; Pool 2012; Reck 2014; Rios 2017; Weitzer and Tuch 2002; Wordes and Bynum 1995). This investigatory stop finds its legal basis in the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio (1968), which authorizes officers to pat-down sus- pects when they have “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity. Scholars have argued that stop-and-frisk represents more than increased legal latitude for police tactics; it serves as the structural precondition for a broader shift in the theory and practice of modern policing, seeking greater effectiveness by preventing crime before it can occur (Epp et al. 2014; Glover 2009; Jones-Brown et al. 2010). Stop- and-frisk, even when conducted with cour- tesy and respect, has been interpreted by researchers and courts to function as a form of racial profiling (White and Fradella 2016).

In response to widespread criticism of racial profiling and racialized police violence, police departments have attempted to imple- ment reforms and improve community–police relations (see, e.g., President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing 2015; U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 2015). This historical trend toward community and cour- tesy policing has been described as a national police accountability phenomenon, influenc- ing many local police departments across the United States (Walker and Archbold 2019). We define courtesy policing as an approach where officers engage civilians with respect, friendliness, and cordiality. The local police department in this study also expressed a commitment to police accountability, cour- tesy policing, and community policing. Even in one of the department’s most aggressive

policing units, the Gang Suppression Team (GST), officers expressed that community policing, politeness, and respect were central to their crime prevention work.

Previous research has examined the role of race in stop-and-frisk and other forms of aggressive policing, but questions remain about the day-to-day interactions that take place between officers and criminalized pop- ulations. This concern is especially pertinent in an era of police accountability (Kahn et al. 2017), wherein police relations with people of color demonstrate a pattern of racial bias and racial inequality (Brunson 2015; Epp et al. 2014; Muñiz 2015; Rios 2011, 2017; Vitale 2017), including accusations of racial profil- ing, police abuse, and unjustified police kill- ings (Cobbina 2019). Researchers have discussed a need for studies on contextual and situational cues during police stops of racial- ized civilians (Maskaly 2012). The aim of our study is to understand the contradiction between modern police departments’ attempts to establish legitimacy and the hegemonic practice of the investigatory stop.

This article utilizes police ride-alongs, community ethnography, and field interview data drawn from a predominantly Latinx community with a large gang presence. Spe- cifically, we observed a police gang unit and gang-associated individuals to gain insight on the interactional processes and conditions that create conflict between criminalized popula- tions and officers charged with policing them. This particular gang unit relied heavily on stop-and-frisk in its attempt to gather infor- mation and prevent crime among gang- associated civilians.1

We found that officers simultaneously engaged in behaviors adopted from various policing models when interacting with gang- associated Latinos. Officers maneuvered between courtesy policing and punitive polic- ing during individual police stops: a phenom- enon we call “legitimacy policing.” We define legitimacy policing as a continuum where vari- ous policing models converge during the pro- cess of police–citizen interactions. Legitimacy policing is a system of actions in which offic- ers combine punitive and courtesy strategies to

60 American Sociological Review 85(1)

reach a desired interactional outcome. In this study, officers typically used the language of trust-building as a rationale for, and an oppor- tunity to, engage in racialized surveillance of Latino civilians in order to collect information about them. When stopped Latinos failed to provide information or follow commands, officers responded with aggressive policing, especially when compliance was perceived to be missing, eroding what limited relational gains might have resulted from a courteous encounter. Previous scholarship has suggested a contradiction exists between officer inten- tions and institutionalized practices (Epp et al. 2014), but our data indicate that this contradic- tion runs deeper still, to competing orientations occurring within the police–civilian interac- tional process.

PoLICInG ModeLS And CRIMInALIzed CoMMunItIeS Community Policing

In response to public and political pressure to curb racial profiling and racial violence, some police departments have adopted community policing models that prioritize relationship- building with community members (Brunson et al. 2015; Forman 2004; Schafer, Huebner, and Bynum 2003). One study found that by 2013, 90 percent of all police departments in the United States, serving a population of more than 25,000 people, had adopted com- munity policing in their mission statements (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 2015). Skogan and Hartnett (1997) describe community policing as an organiza- tional strategy that redefines the goals of local police departments to respond to community needs and requests. Key features of a commu- nity policing approach are departmental orien- tations toward problem-solving, collaboration with local community members in defining problems to be addressed by law enforcement, and active relationship cultivation with busi- ness and neighborhood leaders. In an ideal community policing environment, depart- ments are organizationally decentralized and

patrols are oriented to respond to citizen demands, thus creating two-way communica- tion between police and the public (Skogan et al. 1999).

The simultaneous use of community polic- ing and punitive techniques may be creating an environment that prevents community– police relations from improving. Researchers have found that departments implement com- munity policing in inconsistent ways (Gascón and Roussell 2019; Kearns 2017). One study showed that recent community policing efforts reproduced racial conflict between officers and citizens in the inner city (Gascón and Roussell 2019). Dubber (2000:840) argues that populations rendered a problem, such as the gang-associated individuals in this study, are not viewed as constituents of the community the police serve; instead, “the identification and incapacitation of dangerous deviants thus serves to maintain the commu- nity’s existence, not by preventing future offenses, but by redefining the community in stark contradistinction to the deviant.” Stuart (2016) provides another example of the limi- tations in community policing when com- bined with aggressive policing; he finds that officers attempt to implement therapeutic practices in their policing approach but do so through punitive techniques.

Procedural Justice

Tyler (2004) argues that enhancing commu- nity policing has the potential to improve police–community relations and reduce crime; the premise being that if people feel the system treats them with respect, they might respond more positively toward police (Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler 2003, 2005). In this vein, procedural justice is a policing strategy aimed at improving citizen percep- tions of police legitimacy (Tyler 1988, 2003). The procedural justice approach posits that citizen perceptions of police legitimacy are influenced primarily by whether the proce- dure of a police encounter is considered fair, rather than the perceived fairness of the out- come (Tyler 1988). This approach often over- laps with community policing models where

Rios et al. 61

officers attempt to build familiarity and trust with community members to improve their legitimacy in the community. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice and a vast number of local police departments have called for and implemented reforms aimed at improving community–police relations (Her- bert, Beckett, and Stuart 2017).2 Some schol- ars argue that trust-building techniques could help improve police–community relations and reduce crime even when combined with the practice of stop-and-frisk (White and Fradella 2016).

Armaline, Vera Sanchez, and Correia (2014) question the procedural justice model, arguing that although it encourages courtesy between citizens and police, people of color continue to perceive policing as negative and degrading. In an interview study with Black youths, Gau and Brunson (2010) found that punitive policing strategies like stop-and- frisk have negative implications for police legitimacy and crime control efforts because they compromise people’s perceptions of pro- cedural justice. This persistent negative regard for police—even after the adoption of procedural justice strategies—indicates that stopped individuals perceive a disconnect and continue to regard the practice, if not the polite officer, as racist (Epp et al. 2014).

In a study analyzing the policing of house- less populations, Stuart (2016) examined the severe lack of social services and the aggres- sive policing practices designed to rehabilitate this population. Stuart (2016) describes this form of managing the poor as “therapeutic policing,” a tactic based on the assumption that policing should address citizens as individually pathological. If utilized in tandem with punitive policing strategies, community policing strate- gies such as those noted by Stuart (2016) may actually undermine rapport and trust between law enforcement and the community.

Legitimacy Policing and Contemporary Policing Models

Herbert and colleagues (2017) identify three contemporary policing models: aggressive patrol, harm reduction, and coercive patrol.

Aggressive patrol is a dominant form of policing in the United States, as seen through the legacy programs of intense surveillance (Harcourt 1998); police violence and stop- and-frisk strategies (Kramer and Remster 2018; Rios 2011; Simmons 2014); big data policing (Brayne 2017); aggressive enforce- ment of minor crimes among the poor (Wac- quant 2009); criminalizing poverty through fines, fees, and costs (Harris 2016); and intru- sion and arrest as deterrence (Parenti 2003). Other scholars describe this aggressive patrol as the new policing model (Fagan et al. 2016), arguing that it grants law enforcement broad powers to control and intervene in the lives of marginalized populations and has had detrimental impacts on communities subju- gated on the basis of race and class (Soss and Weaver 2017).

The harm reduction model attempts to build trust, promote community ties, and mini- mize contentious relationships with community members. Procedural justice and community policing overlap with this model. The goal of the harm reduction model is to create mutual understanding and genuine coalitions with community members in order to address crime. This approach, also similar to a due process model, attempts to minimize the coer- cive power of law enforcement by focusing on protecting the dignity of civilians (Packer 1968).

The coercive patrol model, exemplified by Stuart’s (2016) notion of therapeutic policing, compels subjects to engage in personal reform through punitive treatment and the threat of arrest. The coercive nature of this type of police–citizen relationship undermines broader reparative efforts as officers often resort to force or arrest if a civilian falls short of expec- tations of personal reform. Stuart provides insight on how this coercive patrol model serves as a modern policing project aimed at rehabilitating and reforming criminalized pop- ulations through punitive measures.