Click The Pic
Posted on 08/12/2013 8:06:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Mussolini actually didn’t make the trains run on time either.
I have a daughter who lives tween Brooklyn and weekends in Cornwall
She says Newburgh has gone down
She claims Bed Sty and Williamsburg ain’t half bad these days
man...they were bad news in my era
“This court order will undo a quality policing program that has made NYC one of the safest cities in America”
I guess if you live in NYC, and you want to suspend the Constitution of the United States, then I guess that if it is ok with the majority of New Yorkers, then I guess that would be allright. Course, then it would only be fair to be sure that everyone visiting New York should be warned, er, advised of that fact. I guess you could take out PSA’s advertising New York as a “Constitution Free Zone” and maybe putting up signs on the border. Or something.
But hey, what’s a little freedom in exchange for security? Right? It could actually be good for the cities image. They could advertise “Welcome to the Communist City!! Safest City in Amerika”
Maybe it’s just me. But I thought the damn CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!! applied to all citizens. But what do I know....
RE: The logic here in NYC seems to be that personal freedoms have to be infringed for “everyone” to be “safe.”
If you look at the RACIAL MAKEUP of those being stopped, question and frisked... you’ll being to understand that it is NOT “everyone”.
MOST of those being stopped, question and frisked are either Blacks (The vast number) or Hispanics. And most of these incidents are being done in PREDOMINANTLY Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
You go to a predominantly Asian ( e.g. Chinese and Korean and Jewish ) area like Flushing or Forest Hills for instance and you ALMOST NEVER hear of this being done.
Constitutional would be to end unconstitutional weapons restrictions that prevent honest people from defending themselves.
It would be less urgent, but still necessary.
The past constitutional justification for stop and frisk has been to look for concealed weapons. That in and of itself flies in the face of the idea of an armed, polite, secure society as codified in 2A.
Convicted felons are not allowed to carry and will not be allowed to carry in most of the country.
There are 10 or 11 million people on the streets of NYC on any given day. Of that number, probably between 50,000 and 100,000 are convicted felons.
Methinks you need to re-examine your overall perspective on this.
I think my perspective is sensible. The 2A should be restored in the five boroughs, but even its restoration will leave a need to keep an eye on the statiscally unavoidable pool of miscreants in town.
Bloomy outlawed pie charts for health reasons.
It is not.
You should focus on the actual US Constitution instead of the fictional version in your mind.
The stops by race reasonably closely mirror crime stats by race, so from my perspective, I say a 14th Amendment argument is bunk.
The 4th Amendement argument I am in complete agreement with, and am glad to see this happening. The reality is that this increase in freedom will be bought with lives. Murders will increase.
Yeah, too bad NY & NYC don’t get on board with the truism of “more (legal) guns, less crime”.
I cite the Federal UCR over the last 40 years and the liberalization (a good thing) of restriction of concealed carry by citizens.
Until these bastions of statist control are replaced with liberty minded leaders and laws, the residents and inhabitants of NY & other blue states will continue to suffer greater rates of crime than the rest of the nation.... just sayin’.
Best;
A former NYer, reformed of course.
Maybe you should read the title of the the thread, you know, the part that says “Federal jusdge rules unconstitutional...” I mean it’s not that hard really.
This is the second instance that I’m aware of (GZ being the first) where a court or prosecutor has accused someone of “racial profiling” as a reason to prosecute or enjoin.
This is most strange. Is “racial profiling” now a crime? NYC has unbelievably low crime stats for a city of its size and demographics. Undoubtedly the widespread racial profiling by NYPD has something to do with this.
What statutory basis does this judge have for saying this should not be allowed?
It is definitely unconstitutional. How is it even a question?
Of course. What the NYC cops are doing is profiling, plain and simple, and if their numbers looked better no one would care.
What part of the constitution do you imagine this violates?
Do you really believe that every federal judge gets their rulings right every time?
What happens when two contradict one another?
If you read the article, you will see that this judge's argument is based solely on racial statistics and not on constitutional grounds.
Apparently it's not THAT unconstitutional since he didn't think it should be stopped. Yet.
“Scheindlin’s opinion ruled that the practice violated both the Fourth and 14th Amendment”
The above quote is straight from the article. Really you are right in the fact that Judges don’t rule correctly all the time. I’m no judge and I surely didn’t need a judge to confirm that stop and frisk is unconstitutional. I have always considered it so. However, it is nice to see that in this case the judge ruled correctly.
“If you read the article, you will see that this judge’s argument is based solely on racial statistics and not on constitutional grounds.
I really don’t understand. You’ve told me twice here that basically “who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes”.
The only amendment it violated was the SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENT.
How about the same pie for perpetrators of violent crime?
How about this:
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.
If I, who have no criminal record, am walking down the street in New York City, with a gun in my pocket, what reason could there possibly be for stopping me, questioning me, or frisking me?
Please note well the word "PERSONS" in the quotation above.
It would really be tough on the nations dogs...
Pretty close match of the stop and frisk percentages...
Every American citizen has the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. It’s the reason tough talking TV characters always snap “where’s your warrant?” when police start snooping around. Unfortunately, the police don’t always need a warrant.
In fact, under the stop and frisk exception, the police can stop you ON THE STREET (not your home) and pat you down for anything illegal...as long as they have suspicion. So how exactly does stop and frisk work? And just when can the police use it?
Stop and frisk has been an effective tool for police since the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. The court agreed with the police that officers face uncertain and dangerous situations on the streets—circumstances that can potentially threaten both law enforcement officers and the public. For this reason, police officers need a set of flexible responses that allow them to react based on the information they possess. Thus, distinctions should be made between a stop and an arrest (or seizure of a person), and between a frisk and a search.
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.
But you might ask: What exactly is Reasonable Suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person.
A Justified Stop
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).
What is a Justified Frisk?
A frisk is a type of search that requires a lawful stop. It involves contact or patting of the person’s outer clothing to detect if a concealed weapon is being carried. The frisk doesn’t necessarily always follow a stop. The law of frisk is based on the “experienced police officer” standard whereby an officer’s experience makes him more equipped to read into criminal behavior than the average layperson.
The purpose of a frisk is to dispel suspicions of danger to the officer and other persons. The frisk should only be used to detect concealed weapons or contraband. If other evidence, such as a suspected drug container, can be felt under the suspect’s clothing, it can be seized by the officer. This is called the “plain feel” doctrine. To pass the plain feel test, the item must have an immediately apparent character or quality of being contraband or evidence.
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).
Too much power?
Does the ability to stop and frisk go too far? Many police departments are at odds with the public in certain neighborhoods concerning what some people deem unwarranted stops. People in high crime areas and in areas with high minority populations often complain they are stopped and questioned at a disproportionately higher rate than their counterparts in other areas of the city.
RE: Pretty close match of the stop and frisk percentages...
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly in fact argues that Blacks are being UNDERREPRESENTED in the stop and frisk program compared to the percentage and proportion of crimes they commit.
He points out things are never that simple, the police don’t use such tactics simply because they don’t like blacks or latinos (though given findings of racism in the London Metropolitan police such a thing can never be ruled out) rather it is because they follow the crime.
He says “The stark reality is that crime happens in communities of color… About 70% to 75% of the people described as committing violent crimes — assault, robbery, shootings, grand larceny — are described as being African-American. The percentage of people who are stopped is 53% African-American,”
He then concludes based on the above:
“So really, African-Americans are being understopped in relation to the percentage of people being described as being the perpetrators of violent crime.”
Of course its unconstitutional to stop people walking down a sidewalk and search them for no good reason.
Here are the crime data that the Times doesn’t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city’s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies.
Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city’s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown.
Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator—a fact that would have been useful to include in the Times’s lead, which stated that “Blacks and Latinos were nine times as likely as whites to be stopped.” These crime data are not some artifact that the police devise out of their skewed racial mindset. They are what the victims of those crimes—the vast majority of whom are minority themselves—report to the police.
You cannot properly analyze police behavior without analyzing crime. Crime is what drives NYPD tactics; it is the basis of everything the department does. And crime, as reported by victims and witnesses, sends police overwhelmingly to minority neighborhoods, because that’s where the vast majority of crime occurs—by minority criminals against minority victims.
RE: Of course its unconstitutional to stop people walking down a sidewalk and search them for no good reason.
Ahhh and here’s the rub — How do you define “Good reason” as opposed to “No good reason” ?
Probable cause. Something you can show in court that you had a reason to stop and search someone.
Are these friskings being recorded?
RE: Are these friskings being recorded?
I think they are, very similar to traffic ticket stops.
However, there’s a new rule:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/justice/new-york-stop-frisk-data
EXCERPT:
The New York City Police Department has agreed to clear its database of people who were stopped under the controversial stop-and-frisk practice but were cleared of criminal wrongdoings, according to the settlement issued Wednesday in the New York Supreme Court.
In a move to settle the state lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union in 2010, the NYPD has agreed to erase the database within 90 days.
“Though much still needs to be done, this settlement is an important step towards curbing the impact of abusive stop and frisk practices,” said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the NYCLU and lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the case.
“Apparently it’s not THAT unconstitutional since he didn’t think it should be stopped. Yet.”
I have no problem with people being questioned as long as there is reasonable suspicion. Our friend at #75, SeekAndFind has posted the ins and outs of lawful searches. Way too broad IMO, but it is what it is. As an example: Loitering. You mean you can be stopped and questioned just for standing around? But whatever. It surely doesn’t say that you can be stopped, questioned and frisked for just going about your daily business. Which is what is happening in New York. And many other places.
So, I know many here are just happy with a Police State if it will make themselves and family safer and more comfortable. All I can say is, when “they” finally come for you or yours, don’t come here complaining. You won’t get my sympathy
But the USSC says they can stop me while I driving to see if I am under the influence, even if my driving was not erratic.
Yeah, thought so.
As a physician, NOT profiling makes as much sense as my checking both men and women for prostate cancer and ovarian cancer. Not a rational use of resources.
IF the Police approach that situation in an effort to provide some sort of assistance, why not? It's one thing to see if the guy is lost, or needs help of some sort. During that little Q and A maybe something is found to be awry. It's another, if the situation starts with a demand for ID.
I wouldn’t call 1968 ‘well established’.
From Wikipedia: ‘prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”’
That’s a pretty damn big hole vs. “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.”. Big enough to make it worthless.
Yep, another socialist step to ensure those in blue can feel secure amongst the rabble....Some animals.
Note the phrase "is occurring", not "may be occurring".
If I'm walking down the street, with a gun in my pocket, what is "reasonable" about believing that I am committing a crime? Are we to tolerate policeman who "believe" something that only turns out to be true 0.14 percent of the time?
I should add that I disagree completely with Terry and other nonsense which deprives people of the security of their persons without probable cause. But I'm just kind of old-fashioned about things like this. I think our Founders had it just right and that they could easily have included exceptions if they thought the government should be trusted with such power.
This being true, why would you waste resources searching other people?
My brother-in-law is a chief of police in a small town, probably 12K people. His philosophy in dealing with gangs is not to give them one inch in the town. If a gang member shows up and gets on his dept. radar they find a way to run them out of town even to the point of checking for warrants, arresting them, throwing them in a cruiser and hauling them to the jurisdiction they are wanted in.
If a gang member or wannabe moves into a house he sits an officer and a cruiser in front of the house until they pack up and leave town. He is very aggressive in regard to stopping it before it has a chance to start.
Terry stops require “reasonable cause” which would give “Probable Cause”.
By virtue of dressing a particular way, walking in a certain manner, having tattoos, wearing certain colors, etc the police are temporarily detaining people.
Ain’t right and wholly unconstitutional.
The statistics bear this out, in that, by percentage and shear numbers very few people are found to be breaking a law.
However, without actual proof before the detainment but, rather by outright luck.
What percentage of stops resulted in arrests again? I forget. It's here someplace. Like .14% or something?
Maybe it's just me but your sounding quite bigoted. I know it's unfortunate but blacks and Hispanics are citizens too.
What NYC was doing wasn’t Terry stops. In a Terry stop, the decision to question someone is made on the spot by the officer, based on some reasonable suspicion. In NYC, the decision to question swathes of the population was made by the Mayor, based on no reasonable suspicion.
I’ve read three pieces in the Washington Post (two by the evil Richard Cohen). None mentioned the Fourth Amendment. As if the only problem was the racial issues.
Come to think of it, that’s all a lot of FReepers care about also.
BTW - there will be a spike in NYC crime stats if the regime ever reports crimes honestly.
Those stats are for confirmed perps. Not stops. I’m just going with the numbers. I didn’t invent those. If that’s bigotry to you, buy a new dictionary. And don’t be too sure about your “Hispanics are citizens, too”. 80% of illegal immigrants in NYC are from Spanish-speaking countries.
But, after all it's just a minor inconvenience. It's for the children afterall... And that's right isn't it? Confirmed perps arrested. .14%? Great crime fighting tool there...
Not true.
And, again, "swathes" is an exaggeration.
This was unchallenged until 1968, when the Supreme Court ruled that this very old practice was indeed constitutional.
Police did not start frisking people in 1968, I assure you.
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.
