Police 'Stop-and-Frisk' Illegal?

[Cleon]

Seriously? How is this even in question?

This policy clearly violates both the spirit and the letter of the 4th amendment. Why would anyone even possibly be supporting it with phrases like "the state has an overriding interest?" Jesus, that phrase gives me the creeps all by itself.

This sort of crap is exactly what people think of when they hear the term "police state." I'm horrified by the thought of the cops being able to harass, detain, and search anyone they feel like.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Nope, only in certain circumstances. You should read about them. Then you wouldn't make really dumb statements like the above.

 

[triforcharity]

And just when you thought Bloomberg was done violating peoples' rights, he goes and suggests more. Stop and frisk, then the whole SAFE act, and now, wants to fingerprint people in public housing. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...ic-Housing-Fingerprinted-Crime-219951801.html

This actually sounds WORSE than S&F, but along the same lines.

How can anyone in NY go "yeah, he's a good mayor...." Try that **** in some other places, and you'd end up in a recall election before the next pay period. Just ask the Colorado state senators....

You go from Giuliani to this guy.....

 

[newyorkguy]

....
How can anyone in NY go "yeah, he's a good mayor...." Try that **** in some other places, and you'd end up in a recall election before the next pay period. Just ask the Colorado state senators....

You go from Giuliani to this guy.....

Thanks but the city doesn't need advice from people who obviously know so little about it.

New York State's legal protections actually go beyond the U.S. Constitution's guarantees:

In People v. Torres, the New York Court of Appeals specifically stated that “this court has demonstrated its willingness to adopt more protective standards under the State Constitution [than those imposed under federal law] when doing so best promotes ‘predictability and precision in judicial review of search seizure cases and the protection of individual rights of our citizens.’ ” Thus, a New York police officer who obeys the mandates of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment may still be in violation of the New York State Constitution. New York police officers are held to a higher standard with regard to the protection of individuals’ civil liberties.

Link

 

[WildCat]

Every stop and frisk person was a felon?

I never said any such thing. I'm certainly not here defensing stop and frisk.

If their 2nd rights can be taken away when they commit a felony, then so can their 4th.

Certainly people on probation can be stopped and frisked.

 

[WildCat]

Thanks but the city doesn't need advice from people who obviously know so little about it.

New York State's legal protections actually go beyond the U.S. Constitution's guarantees:

Link

And yet here you are defending stop and frisk... it appears the New York Constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[newyorkguy]

And yet here you are defending stop and frisk... it appears the New York Constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

You're misinterpreting the law. Stop and frisk is done in other cities and, if done properly, it IS legal. Further, the judge in New York, a very strict judge, did not rule SAF WAS illegal. She said the WAY NYPD was conducting many of the stops was illegal.

Under the Terry ruling, a police officer may stop and detain a person based on reasonable suspicion. And, if the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may also frisk him or her for weapons...

Link

These are the conditions under which police may stop someone-

A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:

Appears not to fit the time or place.
Matches the description on a "Wanted" flyer.
Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
Loitering, or looking for something.
Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
Present in a crime scene area.
Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).

A frisk is justified under the following circumstances:

Concern for the safety of the officer or of others.
Suspicion the suspect is armed and dangerous.
Suspicion the suspect is about to commit a crime where a weapon is commonly used.
Officer is alone and backup has not arrived.
Number of suspects and their physical size.
Behavior, emotional state, and/or look of suspects.
Suspect gave evasive answers during the initial stop.
Time of day and/or geographical surroundings (not sufficient by themselves to justify frisk).

In most cases officers did have the right to stop and frisk. If you read the judge's decision you'll find, as the original lawsuit contended, the primary objection was officers were using racial profiling.

Example- NYPD's own statistics showed more of the stops of white suspects produced weapons or contraband. Yet the police continued to stop much larger numbers of black and Latino persons.

Btw, I've been stopped and patted down. Even when the cops doing it are very professional it is humiliating. OTOH street crime was once rampant in New York City. I vividly remember walking through Times Square and seeing young street kids trailing some tourists taking photos with an expensive camera. The kids were doing it openly. Since the tourists seemed oblivious I stopped them and warned them. It was a family and only one -- the daughter -- spoke enough English to understand what I was saying. I remember trying to get them NOT to turn and stare at the kids. I was by myself, I feared the kids might wait and look for a chance to retaliate against me. Luckily that didn't happen. But that's the way life once was on the streets of New York.

That wasn't that many years ago and no one wants to go back to that era.

 

[triforcharity]

Thanks but the city doesn't need advice from people who obviously know so little about it.

New York State's legal protections actually go beyond the U.S. Constitution's guarantees:

Link

And that has what to do with now wanting to fingerprint people who live in public housing???? Oh right not a *********** thing. Wanna try addressing the point instead of trying to insult me?

 

[newyorkguy]

And that has what to do with now wanting to fingerprint people who live in public housing???? Oh right not a *********** thing. Wanna try addressing the point instead of trying to insult me?

What does fingerprinting people in public housing have to do with Stop and Frisk?

Nothing, correct?

 

[triforcharity]

No it goes towards illegal searches. You're welcome to go do some googling on the 4th and 14th amendments.

 

[triforcharity]

How'd that googling work out for you newyorkguy???

 

[mgidm86]

Seriously? How is this even in question?

This policy clearly violates both the spirit and the letter of the 4th amendment. Why would anyone even possibly be supporting it with phrases like "the state has an overriding interest?" Jesus, that phrase gives me the creeps all by itself.

This sort of crap is exactly what people think of when they hear the term "police state." I'm horrified by the thought of the cops being able to harass, detain, and search anyone they feel like.

I absolutely agree. I trudged through this thread waiting for someone to say it. I know many here are being pragmatic and debating legalities and such, but the entire thing is outrageous.

I can't believe the level of intrusiveness people are willing to live with these days. It's depressing.

 

[WildCat]

I absolutely agree. I trudged through this thread waiting for someone to say it. I know many here are being pragmatic and debating legalities and such, but the entire thing is outrageous.

I can't believe the level of intrusiveness people are willing to live with these days. It's depressing.

But the NYC police are so professional...



I can't imagine why anyone would think this is a problem.

 

[eeyore1954]

I absolutely agree. I trudged through this thread waiting for someone to say it. I know many here are being pragmatic and debating legalities and such, but the entire thing is outrageous.

I can't believe the level of intrusiveness people are willing to live with these days. It's depressing.

For the most part the people who approve of stop and frisk are not those who are being stopped and frisked.

Almost 3-1 opposition to stop and frisk by New York City black voters tips overall voter opinion to a narrow 50 - 45 percent disapproval of the police practice, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today (August 2012).

 

[Xulld]

Seriously? How is this even in question?

This policy clearly violates both the spirit and the letter of the 4th amendment. Why would anyone even possibly be supporting it with phrases like "the state has an overriding interest?" Jesus, that phrase gives me the creeps all by itself.

This sort of crap is exactly what people think of when they hear the term "police state." I'm horrified by the thought of the cops being able to harass, detain, and search anyone they feel like.

I agree. I have been slowly coming around to a more libertarian perspective the more I educate myself on law and history, I have been avoiding this thread because I fear I am will get pretty worked up and respond harshly to the idea that only government can protect us from ourselves.

I absolutely agree. I trudged through this thread waiting for someone to say it. I know many here are being pragmatic and debating legalities and such, but the entire thing is outrageous.

I can't believe the level of intrusiveness people are willing to live with these days. It's depressing.

Thank you. I agree, its sad to think so many are so quick to jump up to have their rights striped.

For the most part the people who approve of stop and frisk are not those who are being stopped and frisked.

Almost 3-1 opposition to stop and frisk by New York City black voters tips overall voter opinion to a narrow 50 - 45 percent disapproval of the police practice, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today (August 2012).

Not really surprising, but at the same time it does tend to make me feel even more ill.

 

[Xulld]

Thanks but the city doesn't need advice from people who obviously know so little about it.

New York State's legal protections actually go beyond the U.S. Constitution's guarantees:

Link

[t]he right of 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.[3]

The Fourth Amendment generally requires that all searches and seizures be made pursuant to a warrant based upon probable cause.

One of the things that bothers me is when we redefine the constitution without amending it. This is such an example. I know that the USSC ruled that through RAS Pat downs and detentions, and blah blah blah do not violate the 4th amendment, but I cannot agree. The need to intrude was so great we pretend exceptions can be made when no such exceptions are accounted for in the document in question.

generally requires that all searches and seizures be made pursuant to a warrant based upon probable cause. =/= shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause

You just cannot round that square peg. To make it more palatable the USSC came up with the idea of limited intrusiveness, as if that is anywhere in the document. Its just to lame to stand on its own. You cannot compromise your principles and remain principled.

 

[Tony]

I never said any such thing.

You certainly implied it. I said stop and frisk was in place because of gang members exercising their second amendment rights. You said gang members don't have second amendment rights because they are felons, implying that every gang members (and really, any person) who is a target of stop and frisk is a felon. Or are you being obstinate, as usual?

The fact remains that without gang members using their second amendment rights, the 4th amendment rights of everyone else wouldn't be at risk. Now, I certainly don't support stop-and-frisk, but I don't support gang members (and rednecks, and idiots and general) having second amendment rights. You do. How do you deal with that inconsistency?

 

[Tony]

Nope, only in certain circumstances. You should read about them. Then you wouldn't make really dumb statements like the above.

No thanks.

 

[newyorkguy]

As part of her ruling on permitting SAF to be continued, US District Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the NYPD to begin a one-year pilot program to evaluate the benefits of body-worn cameras. In at least one precinct in each of New York's five boroughs, cops will be required to be outfitted with body cams while on SAF duty – they are “uniquely suited to addressing the constitutional harms at issue in this case,” the judge said.

If officers are stopping people illegally, or targeting minorities unfairly, such cameras could provide a real-time, objective record of what took place – a better accounting than the current police forms allow for – as well as be a deterrent to such practices.

Link

Is this a good idea?

 

[Xulld]

You certainly implied it. I said stop and frisk was in place because of gang members exercising their second amendment rights. You said gang members don't have second amendment rights because they are felons, implying that every gang members (and really, any person) who is a target of stop and frisk is a felon. Or are you being obstinate, as usual?

The fact remains that without gang members using their second amendment rights, the 4th amendment rights of everyone else wouldn't be at risk. Now, I certainly don't support stop-and-frisk, but I don't support gang members (and rednecks, and idiots and general) having second amendment rights. You do. How do you deal with that inconsistency?

You are equivocating murder, assault, and theft using a weapon as second amendment rights.

Otherwise I agree. People carrying weapons that do not engage in murder, assault, or theft should not be bothered.

As part of her ruling on permitting SAF to be continued, US District Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the NYPD to begin a one-year pilot program to evaluate the benefits of body-worn cameras. In at least one precinct in each of New York's five boroughs, cops will be required to be outfitted with body cams while on SAF duty – they are “uniquely suited to addressing the constitutional harms at issue in this case,” the judge said.

Link

Is this a good idea?

Yes for many reasons. I will address only one reason.


Establishing RAS. If the camera catches what created the initial suspicion then we can gauge if the RAS was appropriate to garner a Terry stop. Unless the camera is used in a way in which it cannot capture this information, ie its turned on after RAS is established.

I support video recording in public places and for government officials on duty. The truth is more important than how being recorded in public makes anyone feel.