A realist review on the police use of stop and search

• In Event: POL Panel 4. Stop and Search and police powers

Abstract

The police power to stop, question and potentially search members of the public is a core police activity that causes ongoing international debate. Proponents argue that this power is an essential tool to prevent crime and improve public safety. And yet, there is increasing evidence that stop and search simultaneously generates a range of adverse effects. Missing from these debates is a fundamental understanding of how stop and search “works” and why and in what circumstances it can lead to negative outcomes. To address this gap, a realist review was conducted on police use of stop and search of people in public places. Realist reviews employ systematic methods for synthesising existing literature, guided by the realist framework.
This review will highlight the intended (e.g. crime reduction) and unintended (e.g. negative impacts on minority groups) outcomes of stop and search and the key mechanisms and contexts that can generate different outcomes. Searches of academic and grey literature from January 2000 to December 2023 identified 205 relevant studies, from 20 countries.
The review identified several intended mechanisms (e.g. deterrence) and unintended mechanisms (e.g. surveillance and bias). A range of contextual factors were also identified that influence stop and search, such as political climate and accountability practices. Overall, the literature suggests that stop and search in high-crime areas can produce small and short-term reductions in area-level rates of crime. However, this may come at the cost of more negative effects on health and citizenship (e.g. trust in police), particularly for individuals and neighbourhoods that frequently experience stops. Importantly, the effects of stop and search are complex and depend on variable combinations of contexts and mechanisms. Using this realist theory of stop and search, we can begin to identify the circumstances that make the unintended outcomes of stop and search more or less likely.

Authors

• Winnie Agnew-Pauley, Flinders University

• Caitlin Hughes, Flinders University

• Alex Stevens, University of Kent