• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Police 'Stop-and-Frisk' Illegal?

I'm not sure what the Constitutional issue was, apparently Judge Scheindlin feels it can be remedied. That you can have SAF and still comply with the 4th Amendment.

Scheindlin’s ruling doesn’t mean the city has to cease stop-and-frisk entirely. But it does have to bring the policy in line with the Constitution. That is, the police can no longer base stops on thinly veiled justifications for racial profiling. Scheindlin has appointed a monitor, Peter Zimroth, a former Manhattan District Attorney, to oversee changes to the department.
Click to expand...
Link

I don't know too much about Peter Zimroth but the program was getting a lot of abuse. That was pretty clear so I hope he's proactive. Not only skin color but, IMO, what neighborhood you live in and how you're dressed.

As a New Yorker I would like to see some form of this continued. I think it has made the city safer. On the grounds there is no way for people to know when or if they may be stopped, they're less likely to carry an illegal weapon or narcotics.
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm not sure what the Constitutional issue was, apparently Judge Scheindlin feels it can be remedied. That you can have SAF and still comply with the 4th Amendment.


Link

I don't know too much about Peter Zimroth but the program was getting a lot of abuse. That was pretty clear so I hope he's proactive. Not only skin color but, IMO, what neighborhood you live in and how you're dressed.

As a New Yorker I would like to see some form of this continued. I think it has made the city safer. On the grounds there is no way for people to know when or if they may be stopped, they're less likely to carry an illegal weapon or narcotics.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you'll happily live in a police state.
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm not sure what the Constitutional issue was, ...
Click to expand...

Ummmm......


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
steve s said:
Ummmm......


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
Written hundreds of years ago by old white men, why is that so sacrosanct?

If the warrantless, no probable cause searches save one life it's worth it.

Or something. :boggled:
 
What I wasn't sure about was how she could find SAF violates the Constitution and still allow it to continue. Scheindlin doesn't seem to think the stops are fundamentally a violation of the 4th Amendment. She wrote that "any one stop is a limited intrusion in duration and deprivation of liberty...." and ordered the program be monitored, not ended.

It seems Judge Scheindlin wants the police to abide by the so-called Terry ruling and use an objective standard for the stops instead of racial profiling (which she found they had been doing):
“Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites,” she wrote.
Click to expand...

She also found as currently practiced SAF violates the 14th Amendment guaranteeing all citizens equal protection under the law. That the NYPD had violated the 14th Amendment by following a “policy of indirect racial profiling.”

“In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting ‘the right people’ is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution.”
Click to expand...

Link
 
newyorkguy said:
What I wasn't sure about was how she could find SAF violates the Constitution and still allow it to continue. Scheindlin doesn't seem to think the stops are fundamentally a violation of the 4th Amendment. She wrote that "any one stop is a limited intrusion in duration and deprivation of liberty...." and ordered the program be monitored, not ended.

It seems Judge Scheindlin wants the police to abide by the so-called Terry ruling and use an objective standard for the stops instead of racial profiling (which she found they had been doing):
Click to expand...
Even a Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion. You can't just stop and frisk people at random without reasonable suspicion.
 
Not just suspicion, but articulable suspicion. The old standard..."He just didn't look right" is not going to fly.

Now, here in our little microcosm of the university, we can spot folks that don't belong pretty easily, and it's not a matter of race. We have an extremely diverse campus.

What we are looking for is general demeanor, clothing, items being carried (or not being carried) and other factors which can be used to identify students and staff and faculty with a high degree of reliability.
Students tend to carry things. Books, computers, the ubiquitous iPhone...Athletic equipment. They dress in an upscale/casual style mostly. They know where they are going. They ignore most everything... They've seen it before. They ignore the police....

So, when we see a fellow walking around aimlessly, dressed perhaps like someone from the nearby "hood", not carrying anything, gawping at everything around, and giving a noticeable start upon seeing a police officer.....
That's all articulable and would be sufficient grounds to stop the fellow and say, "Hi there, you a student here?"
And we can go from there.

Of course, this is not going to be applicable to a big-city department, but it might give some idea of the type of criteria police are taught to look for.
 
Bikewer said:
Not just suspicion, but articulable suspicion. The old standard..."He just didn't look right" is not going to fly.

...
Click to expand...

I don't think the Judge found that NYPD was stopping people without an articulateable suspicion. I haven't had a chance to look through the Judge's decision -- it's 158-pages long plus the news reports I've seen don't really go into what is still allowed and what the police did right -- but the police in New York did use "articulateable suspicion" and the judge seems to have accepted that. She wrote:
“Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites.”
Click to expand...

Under terms from an earlier law suit, police in New York are required to fill out a form after an SAF stop. One of the requirements is to give a reason for the stop. It can be a suspicious bulge in a pocket or the catchall "furtive movement."

Some of the police say that the forms have actually created another problem. The courts want them to measure the standard by which SAF stops are made. The Police Department and the City use them to measure officers' productivity.

During the trial one officer testified his commander criticized him for not producing enough UF-250s, the form used for SAF stops. Other officers have said, while there is no quota for UF-250s (I don't think that's permitted) officers are expected to generate a certain amount of them. Some officers contend that has indirectly generated a lot of the problems.
 
I browsed this thread last night, and do not recall seeing a link to this undercover audio of a stop and frisk: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thenation/audio/mp3/Full_Audio/StopAndFriskAudio2.mp3

(Executive summary: he's stopped because he's "stopped for being a ******* mutt," and one officer repeatedly threatens to break his arm.)

It's from this article in THE NATION (with an accompanying video NYPD officers saying they're expected to SAF a certain number of people; some officers just make them up):

http://www.thenation.com/article/170413/stopped-and-frisked-being-fking-mutt-video#axzz2bznD7y1S
 
No where in the constitution does it say that probable cause can be dismissed if the stop is "a limited intrusion".

More make believe from the bench . . . whittling away rights.
 
Cain said:
I browsed this thread last night, and do not recall seeing a link to this undercover audio of a stop and frisk: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thenation/audio/mp3/Full_Audio/StopAndFriskAudio2.mp3

(Executive summary: he's stopped because he's "stopped for being a ******* mutt," and one officer repeatedly threatens to break his arm.)

It's from this article in THE NATION (with an accompanying video NYPD officers saying they're expected to SAF a certain number of people; some officers just make them up):

http://www.thenation.com/article/170413/stopped-and-frisked-being-fking-mutt-video#axzz2bznD7y1S
Click to expand...
Bloomberg has no respect for the 2nd Amendment, why would he care about the 4th? He'll always have a reason why any given policy of his doesn't actually violate anyone's rights.
 
Xulld said:
No where in the constitution does it say that probable cause can be dismissed if the stop is "a limited intrusion".

More make believe from the bench . . . whittling away rights.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but the concept that "limited intrusions are permissible if the state has an overriding interest" has been established by case law and has withstood several SCOTUS challenges.
 
WildCat said:
Bloomberg has no respect for the 2nd Amendment, why would he care about the 4th?
Click to expand...

Without gangs exercising their 2nd amendment rights, its likely he wouldn't be violating their 4th.
 
Tony said:
Without gangs exercising their 2nd amendment rights, its likely he wouldn't be violating their 4th.
Click to expand...
Gangs don't have 2nd Amendment rights. And I doubt this is just about guns, it's also about drugs. And Bloomberg even thinks it's his right to dictate how large a soda a restaurant can serve, since declared unconstitutional.

This isn't a guy who respects the Constitutional rights of the people.
 
Last edited:
Bikewer said:
What we are looking for is general demeanor, clothing, items being carried (or not being carried) and other factors which can be used to identify students and staff and faculty with a high degree of reliability.
Students tend to carry things. Books, computers, the ubiquitous iPhone...Athletic equipment. They dress in an upscale/casual style mostly. They know where they are going. They ignore most everything... They've seen it before. They ignore the police....

So, when we see a fellow walking around aimlessly, dressed perhaps like someone from the nearby "hood", not carrying anything, gawping at everything around, and giving a noticeable start upon seeing a police officer.....
That's all articulable and would be sufficient grounds to stop the fellow and say, "Hi there, you a student here?"
And we can go from there.
Click to expand...

It's all in how you carry yourself. over my career I've found it amazing how many places you can go with a clipboard and a determined look. People just assume you're supposed to be there.
 
Tony said:
Why not? Gangs members are citizens just like everyone else.
Click to expand...
Because rights can be taken away when you commit a felony.

Or are you claiming prison sentences are also a violation of Constitutional rights?
 
WildCat said:
Because rights can be taken away when you commit a felony
Click to expand...

Every stop and frisk person was a felon? If their 2nd rights can be taken away when they commit a felony, then so can their 4th.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom