Support FR
Posted on 08/12/2013 8:06:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A federal court handed a big defeat to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York Police Department today, ruling that the controversial “stop and frisk” program infringed on constitutional rights. Judge Shira Scheindlin appointed a federal monitor to oversee the NYPD and “reform” the practice, although that might prove impossible:
A federal judge appointed an independent monitor Monday to oversee changes to the New York Police Department’s contentious policy known as stop, question and frisk, a significant judicial rebuke for what the mayor and police commissioner have defended as a life-saving, crime-fighting tool. …
Four men had sued saying they were unfairly targeted because of their race. There have been about 5 million stops during the past decade, mostly black and Hispanic men. Scheindlin issued her ruling after a 10-week bench trial for the class-action lawsuit that included testimony from top NYPD brass and a dozen people, 11 men and one woman, who said they were wrongly stopped because of their race.
Scheindlin’s opinion ruled that the practice violated both the Fourth and 14th Amendments. Coverage of the lawsuits have mainly focused on the 14th Amendment and the disparate attention received by minorities as a claim of racism. More than 80% of those searched have been black or Hispanic, according to NYPD’s records. However, the broader finding of a Fourth Amendment violation makes it almost impossible for New York to reconstitute “stop and frisk” in the future. The data from the police department, Scheindlin noted during the trial, shows how unreasonable the searches have been:
During the trial, Judge Scheindlin indicated her thinking when she noted that the majority of stops result in officers finding no wrong doing.
“A lot of people are being frisked or searched on suspicion of having a gun and nobody has a gun,” she said. Only 0.14 percent of stops have led to police finding guns. “So the point is suspicion turns out to be wrong in most cases.”
Here’s the ruling:
Ruling: Judge finds NYC stop-and-frisk policy violated rights.
CBS points out that the order doesn’t end “stop and frisk,” but how likely is reform?
Instead of ordering an end to the practice, however, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin appointed an independent monitor to oversee changes to the policy.
Peter L. Zimroth, a onetime city lawyer and a former chief assistant district attorney, has been appointed as the monitor. In both roles, Zimroth worked closely with the NYPD, Scheindlin said.
The inclusion of the Fourth Amendment means that reform has to address more than the racial disparities in stops. The right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure in that part of the Bill of Rights means that police have to have either a warrant or reasonable suspicion in order to stop and search anyone — even in New York. Either police will have to drastically scale back their frisks, or the city will have to criminalize a lot more behavior for pretexts to them. With Nanny Bloomie in charge at least for the next few months, I know which way I’m betting this goes.
Stop and Frisk can only be done to contents of your computer or cell phone.
It is Unconstitutional in NYC and when the NSA searches your emails.
Waiting for the 2nd ruling to come before celebrating.
I know little about the particulars of this program. However, I find it hard to think of a scenario where this is constitutional. Unless however, NYC changes this to a national security program then it can through out the constitution...
I thought “stop and frisk” had been rule unconstitutional long ago.
Why not simply place a cop in each home?
That would REALLY have an effect on crime.
Does the Constitution mean anything anymore? It should, especially here.
I agree with the ACLU regarding the NSA snooping and I agree with Sharpton on this issue. Sharpton is still an unmitigated Ahole, but on this issue, he is a blind squirrel.
(I assume you posted that picture to get people to shy away from the issue.)
Not to mention all the Union jobs it would create.
The Big Apple is tired of running behind Second City in crime and shootings statistics.
I posted the picture to show people which ethnic group is being disproportionately stopped and frisked.
Actually the real term is — STOP, QUESTION and FRISK.
If Frisk is part of the equation, why bother with the Question part in front?
Is the x-axis on the top plot lined up correctly? If so, it makes it look like 'Stop and Frisk' has no correlation with the murder rate. The Murder rate dropped dramatically from 1990 to 1997. It has been pretty flat since then (a slight downward trend). Stop and Frisk began ~2002 (based on the lower x-axis).
Terry stops are well-established constitutionally.
The spin here is that these completely legitimate Terry stops are rendered unconstitutional by the racial breakdown of those stopped.
However, the city has already demonstrated that the aggrieved ethnic groups are actually underrepresented in the numbers.
This court order will undo a quality policing program that has made NYC one of the safest cities in America.
How can those numbers exclude Pakis, Indians, Chinese, Koreans, etc? Or are they counted as Black White or “Latino”?
Big cities are suffering from gang problems, not gun problems.
How do you address a gang problem? By rousting the little thugs.
PROBABLE CAUSE
A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a “man of reasonable caution” to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).
It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).
RE: If Frisk is part of the equation, why bother with the Question part in front?
Here is how it is usually done.
The New York City stop-question-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a penal law misdemeanor, stops and FIRST QUESTIONS that person, and, if the officer REASONABLY suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons.
THAT is how it is usually done. That is why it is SHOULD BE accurately described as -— STOP, QUESTION AND FRISK.
The problem is the “Question” Part is deleted, giving the impression that everyone is being frisked. This is not true.
BTW, I being a New Yorker, I have been subjected to this ONCE when I was driving through Bedford-Stuyvesant many years ago. I was NEVER FRISKED but was QUESTIONED.
When the implants come, we won't even need cops.
I feel safer already...
I was a Manhattan resident as a young man from 1982-88
There were precients then that were very black or Puerto Rican which often ran together even though then they fought a bit over dope turf and political rights
But looking at that map it seemes like whites have pushed them out...gentrification we called it then after the upswing post John Lindsay and Abe Beam
I know folks in Newburgh and Yonkers say the riff raff has moved further out...is that true
waiting for some judges to begin knocking down the dui check points which are a far greater violation of the 4th amendment.
cant speak for Newburgh, but as of Late 2011, Yonkers is still a cesspool.
Where’s the NYC crime statistic pie chart?
Now provide the sae graph for crime stats...
Stop and Frisk works, but it is unconstitutional. NSA’s eavesdropping and recording will work, too, but it also is unconstitutional. SAFE is not enough. I demand to be FREE from unreasonable search and seizure.
Unfortunately, without Stop and Frisk crime will increase, and good people who can afford to move away from big cities will do so. Urban areas will become concentrations of the black, brown, and poor. With the tax base dwindling, each city—one by one—will devolve into a Detroit. Then what?
‘Stop and Frisk’ does not require probable cause. It is supposed to be a Terry Stop, which requires reasonable suspicion - a looser standard than probable cause.
However, the way NYC carries out Stop and Frisk falls well short of meeting the reasonable suspicion standard.
The black and Hispanic populations of NYC are too immoral (as evidenced by their crime rates) to be governed by the Constitution.
I believe roadstops are illegal, too.
The logic here in NYC seems to be that personal freedoms have to be infringed for “everyone” to be “safe.” Communist countries during the Cold War were probably “safer,” but no one was the least bit free. If we actually allowed the 2nd Amendment to prevail unfettered, the cops would go out of business and we would truly be “free.” That the crimes that are being “prevented” in NYC are predominantly in the “black precincts,” is a sad commentary on black society, but they have to take personal responsibility for the behavior in their own communities or suffer the consequences. They must be “free” to be whatever they decide that that is, and if they choose to be violent, so be it, but whey they export that violence to my neighborhood don’t expect me to sit idly by and let them do it.
Excellent point. I have researched courts upholding these programs and the reasoning is suspect in my mind. But it would seem to me the reasoning could be applied to stop and frisk.
Thanks - makes that other chart look a little more balanced.
Not that it justifies ‘Stop and Frisk’ in any way.
They are taking the TSA act onto the roads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
