Does New York's "stop and frisk" policy violate unreasonable search?

[TimCallahan]

A higher court ruling has over turned a recent judgment banning the NY police policy of randomly stopping and frisking people. On the face of it, this policy seems to me to be an egregious violation of the fourth amendment's prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure. However, living at the opposite end of the country, in southern California, I haven't been following the details of this story, nor am I knowledgable about the details and special issues with respect to New York City. I'm interested in what others in this forum think about this issue.

 

[newyorkguy]

What the court actually does I believe, is block the changes to the SAF program as decided by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The ruling is not so much on the issue of stop-and-frisk as on the judge herself.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago.

The ruling effectively puts off a battery of changes that Judge Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, had ordered for the Police Department. It postpones the operations of the monitor who was asked to oversee reforms of the stop-and-frisk practices, which Judge Scheindlin had said violated the constitutional rights of minorities. Link

Eta - I could be wrong but I think this ruling will allow SAF to continue until this issue is settled. That might be a while because it sounds like the lawsuit opposing SAF will have to be retried.

 

[WildCat]

I think Scheindlin's ruling was a steaming pile of horse manure. She seems to think searching people on the street without warrants or even reasonable suspicion is just fine so long as it doesn't disproportionately affect minorities.

 

[Dragoonster]

It's an asinine and unprecedented rebuke of an otherwise good decision on Scheindlin's part.

Of course stop-and-frisk is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The searches are unreasonable. There are no warrants. There is no probably cause. BTW, 4th Amendment text:

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.

But in NYC apparently cops can just pat you down on the street because you're black or hispanic. And Bloomberg et al thinks that's probable cause.

My recommendation to blacks and hispanics is to dig down into old subway tunnels and storm drains and only travel therein. If you actually travel on the street, some cop is going to arrest you for no reason for his quota.

 

[mikedenk]

Personally I'm a bit torn on the issue.

I read an interesting article from the pro-NYPD side yesterday: Courts v. Cops

 

[Donal]

It's an asinine and unprecedented rebuke of an otherwise good decision on Scheindlin's part.

Of course stop-and-frisk is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The searches are unreasonable. There are no warrants. There is no probably cause. BTW, 4th Amendment text:



But in NYC apparently cops can just pat you down on the street because you're black or hispanic. And Bloomberg et al thinks that's probable cause.

My recommendation to blacks and hispanics is to dig down into old subway tunnels and storm drains and only travel therein. If you actually travel on the street, some cop is going to arrest you for no reason for his quota.

I agree that SAF as it is used is wrong, but if she did use personal bias to not only make her ruling but to also have the case before her, that is also a violation of due process. If we let that slide, then why are we up in arms about SAF to begin with?

due process either matters or it doesn't.

 

[newyorkguy]

Personally I'm a bit torn on the issue.

I read an interesting article from the pro-NYPD side yesterday: Courts v. Cops

When SAF is done properly -- for cause, the police treating people decently -- everyone seems to support it. It's when the police start acting like bullies that people begin to resent it.

 

[Dragoonster]

I agree that SAF as it is used is wrong, but if she did use personal bias to not only make her ruling but to also have the case before her, that is also a violation of due process. If we let that slide, then why are we up in arms about SAF to begin with?

due process either matters or it doesn't.

Agreed generally. I don't think though that a Judge assigning herself a case is as obvious a violation of Due Process as millions of blacks and other minorities have experienced. I don't see the 4th Amendment for example being applicable to her actions. More a court procedure violation.

BTW, if her bias was "adhering to the Constitution", I also don't see any problem. Not sure from the article what her "bias" was supposed to be. Granted though I'm currently drunk and so may have immediately forgotten what that bias was.

 

[WildCat]

When SAF is done properly -- for cause, the police treating people decently -- everyone seems to support it. It's when the police start acting like bullies that people begin to resent it.

You don't need SAF if you have cause.

SAF is always unconstitutional by definition, regardless of the races involved.

 

[TimCallahan]

You don't need SAF if you have cause.

SAF is always unconstitutional by definition, regardless of the races involved.

I'm in complete agreement with you on this. I'm sure there are occasions when SAF has prevented serious crimes. However, we can't afford to abridge the Constitution for the sake of expediency.

 

[IXP]

The prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure is no longer in effect in the U.S.A.

IXP

 

[TimCallahan]

The prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure is no longer in effect in the U.S.A.

IXP

Care to support this assertion with specifics?

 

[newyorkguy]

You don't need SAF if you have cause.

SAF is always unconstitutional by definition, regardless of the races involved.

The SAF tactic in New York City is a guideline instituted to require (mostly) uniformed patrol officers to seek out suspicious persons in high-crime areas and -- if the officers can identify a probable cause -- to frisk them for weapons or contraband. It was not supposed to ignore constitutional restrictions on illegal searches. It was supposed to be a way to get cops to be more proactive. So that they wouldn't just do routine patrol, they would focus on people on the street and actively look for suspicious persons and then stop them. Then, if they had grounds to lawfully do so -- and that was considered important -- search them. It was also expanded to put street crime units or task forces in neighborhoods with a lot of violent crime to try and reduce that activity by specifically looking for and stopping people who seemed to be suspicious.

Part of the rationale was to reduce the number of persons carrying illegal weapons -- especially handguns -- because they would have no way of knowing when or if they were going to be stopped.

As mikedenk demonstrated in the news link he provided, one of the troubling facts of the lawsuit is, some of the parties to it are persons who have extensive criminal backgrounds.

In a city like Chicago, where gang violence and illegal guns is epidemic in certain neighborhoods, SAF could probably be a valuable tool in making the streets safer.

 

[eeyore1954]

You don't need SAF if you have cause.

SAF is always unconstitutional by definition, regardless of the races involved.

I would agree if you have just cause you don't need stop and frisk if you do not then it should be unconstitutional.

The argument I always hear in favor is it has cut down on crime so much and saves so many lives. Maybe we should just model ourselves after a country like Iran or North Korea where I believe violent crime is much lower.

 

[newyorkguy]

...

The argument I always hear in favor is it has cut down on crime so much and saves so many lives. Maybe we should just model ourselves after a country like Iran or North Korea where I believe violent crime is much lower.

I don't know (or especially care) about North Korea. North Korea might have less crime but they also have less food. I don't know how Iran's crime rate compares with the U.S. (one reason being I don't think you can really trust crime statistics released by the Iranian government), but Iran is supposed to be undergoing something of a crime wave.

Police commanders and other officials blame government mismanagement of the economy — which they say has caused a rise in unemployment and inflation — for the increase in crime. International economic sanctions have aggravated problems, many here say, leading to a record gap between rich and poor in Iran.

While no official statistics are publicly available, officials report a rise in violent crimes, mostly perpetrated by young men attacking their victims with knives to get money and other valuables. Local news media report only a fraction of the episodes, but at social gatherings of middle-class Iranians — the usual targets — horrific stories of theft, kidnapping, rape and home burglaries abound.

“Two young men entered my house two weeks ago and beat me senseless,” said Manijeh, 54, a homemaker from north Tehran, a more affluent section of the city. The intruders bound her arms and legs and beat her, asking for the location of the safe, she said. “But we don’t have a safe,” said Manijeh, who declined to reveal her surname out of fear that the burglars would return. They stole her car, ransacked her home and took nearly everything inside, she said.

“Our city has become completely unsafe,” said Manije...Link

 

[eeyore1954]

I was just being facetious but my point was we could really save lives and cut down on violent crime by cutting down on our freedoms and rights.

 

[newyorkguy]

I was just being facetious but my point was we could really save lives and cut down on violent crime by cutting down on our freedoms and rights.

I don't necessarily agree with that either.

 

[Xulld]

I was just being facetious but my point was we could really save lives and cut down on violent crime by cutting down on our freedoms and rights.

Ooo Ooo I know or cutting down on our population? Time to kill everyone to prevent crime? I told them it would work, and they thought I was crazy . . .

 

[3point14]

I was just being facetious but my point was we could really save lives and cut down on violent crime by cutting down on our freedoms and rights.

It's very true. If you mandated everyone staying indoors unless they had papers and shot everyone breaking curfew, I think there would probably be a drop in crime.

One or two people seem to think that you're seriously making that suggestion. It didn't seem like you were to me.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think Scheindlin's ruling was a steaming pile of horse manure. She seems to think searching people on the street without warrants or even reasonable suspicion is just fine so long as it doesn't disproportionately affect minorities.

QFT. I hated her ruling so much. And De Blasio is just going to have someone "oversee" it.