Forum Post: No more stop and frisk?
Posted 11 years ago on May 16, 2012, 7:31 p.m. EST by dan1984
(108)
from Cumberland, MD
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
2 comments 4 weeks ago by gsw
1 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 1 year ago by agkaiser
6 comments 1 year ago by grapes
15 comments 1 year ago by gsw
12 comments 1 year ago by BrentWeirick81
30 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
48 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
16 comments 2 years ago by factsrfun
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
2 comments 2 years ago by ChicagoCitizen
8 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by grapes
6 comments 2 years ago by haightashbury98
51 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
14 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
7 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
6 comments 3 years ago by agkaiser
Ooo sounds like a nasty series of suits gonna get filed.
Bloomberg Ya gonna put this on your charge card? Cause it sounds like you could get caught up in this one...........
On whose orders did you the NYPD 1st start accosting these people. Did you feel pressured to comply?
( I want you to understand you are under oath and this testimony you give will in no way affect your own charges - But wont it make you feel better knowing you are not gonna go down alone? )
The witness is instructed to continue.
Didn't like the comment?
[-] -5 points by DKAtoday (8049) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 minutes ago
Ooo sounds like a nasty series of suits gonna get filed.
Bloomberg Ya gonna put this on your charge card? Cause it sounds like you could get caught up in this one...........
On whose orders did you the NYPD 1st start accosting these people. Did you feel pressured to comply?
( I want you to understand you are under oath and this testimony you give will in no way affect your own charges - But wont it make you feel better knowing you are not gonna go down alone? )
The witness is instructed to continue.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
I just launched a site called http://the99percentvotes.com for people to submit, discuss, and vote on public policy ideas.
No more stop and frisk was just added: http://the99percentvotes.com/idea/USNY6
Come on by to discuss it or vote on it.
thank god i'm in boston I always hated New York the city not the yankees
I've got no problem with the city (I've only been there twice), but being a Baltimore fan, I can't say as much for the Yanks.
Even the NY gets hit with a monster lawsuit, it won't stop legal "stop and frisk" - it just means that NYPD was doing it wrong.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him 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." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
Terry v. Ohio doesn't prevent NYC from reversing its policy of stop and frisk (but the only way this could happen, at least in the short term, is with a new city government, provided the people had democratic control of city institutions and agencies).
If the NYPD has a policy or common practice of violating the law in how they conduct their stop and frisks - then it won't take a new city government to fix it. I think these lawsuits will fix that. Of course, if the courts find they are operating within the bounds of the law...
We know that stop and frisk is indeed a policy in NYC. In other words, it's not a matter of seeing some kid acting suspiciously outside a liquor store (where a cop might reasonably believe the kid is planning to rob the liquor store, and coincidentally the kid happens to be wearing a winter jacket in the summer, with a giant bulge in the jacket), it's special police units driving around looking for people who might be armed (who fit this sort of profile), and if they see someone who fits what they will describe as the statistical profile of someone who might be armed, they stop and frisk. They've been doing this for years (really, this program was implemented under Giuliani, and it's no secret that this is a NYPD policy). Thus far this policy hasn't been overturned (but it has been challenged), so there's really no reason to believe that this problem will be addressed by the courts (even though it does appear to extend the reasoning of Terry v. Ohio beyond the more narrow question addressed by that decision).
Thus, the most straightforward way to get rid of this policy, is through the electoral process. I do think this is a violation of civil rights, and therefore a court should overturn the practice (civil rights should not be subjected to the whims of majority opinion). Nevertheless, the courts haven't agreed with this position (in the context of this policy), so as a practical matter, the policy won't change unless the government is changed.
Most police departments don't answer directly to the local government. You actually want the police department to have a little insulation from local governments so they aren't jumping at the whim of every new city council person or mayor and they need to be comfortable taking action that may be politically harmful to someone because they have some protection from indiscriminate termination.
Of course, the Chief of Police or Commissioner or whatever may report to the Mayor or City Manager - but they just don't have a lot of impact on the day to day operations. It will likely take a new Police Chief to get the changes you want. Of course, electing a whole new government might facilitate that, but it sure is a round-about way of getting to it. It might be easier to work to get the Chief ousted rather than try to get all the right people elected.
This is only true in the sense that you want law enforcement to have enough independence to investigate malfeasance by elected officials, but in terms of general policy (the way police interact with the public) ... this is a matter of political policy.
Actually it isn't. There are faces that change about every other year with local governments. They are routinely 'briefed' on what is going on within a police department, but for the most part, they don't have day to day influence on what goes on. They may give some high level guidance because of some issue that pops up "WE NEED TO BE DOING MORE ABOUT BREAK-INS!!!" but they don't have anything to do with what actually gets done. In most cases, the Chief of Police signs off on policies - they never get up to the Mayor or City Manager. In the case of NYPD - the Mayor said "We need to reduce crime!" and the Police Chief came up with the plan on how to do it.
So no, the ever changing political landscape doesn't have a huge influence of police operations - some influence granted, but not much.
I'm not sure where you get this idea from (but it's certainly not from American law). A mayor and city council can eliminate a police department if they wish, they can defund it, reduce its funding, and they have "absolute" control over policy. That they don't exercise that control is another issue.
That is because I am talking about reality. What actually happens, not what could or should happen. No doubt that the mayor or city manager could completely disband a police department - and it has been done in some small towns for budgetary reasons (turn police responsibilities over to the county or state).
I'm just letting you know how the world really works.
I'm aware of what the common practice has been, but this does not alleviate the political establishment of its oversight responsibility over its police department. In the ideal case (where you have a well functioning police department, with good community relations), unless there's serious budgetary issues, a municipality would not have to exercise this sort of oversight over its police department (but of course, as should be apparent to any informed observer, we do not have an ideal case in NYC, or for that matter, nothing remotely resembling an ideal case).
It looks like the police chief reports directly to the Mayor in NYC. So, in theory all you need to do is elect a new Mayor who is in favor of replacing the police chief, and then get him to actually do it.
Yes ... exactly (Bloomberg is done, and I doubt even he has the audacity to try and rig the system again so he can run again), so NY is getting a new mayor (the only question is, who will it be). So, we'll see what happens. For the record, most cops are sane and decent people, but there's enough who really don't give a shit about what the local people think, in place where good and "friendly" policing (by people that are roughly on the same page as most people) couldn't be more needed ... to create a real problem. It's not just cops, it's the whole cluster fuck (from A to Z). For some reason, our society has not been functioning as well as it could be (understatement of the year); and under these conditions, a rational people should want to identify the things that suck, and change them.
[-] -4 points by DKAtoday (8049) from Coon Rapids, MN 36 minutes ago
Ooo sounds like a nasty series of suits gonna get filed.
Bloomberg Ya gonna put this on your charge card? Cause it sounds like you could get caught up in this one...........
On whose orders did you the NYPD 1st start accosting these people. Did you feel pressured to comply?
( I want you to understand you are under oath and this testimony you give will in no way affect your own charges - But wont it make you feel better knowing you are not gonna go down alone? )
The witness is instructed to continue. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (8049) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 minutes ago
[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (8049) from Coon Rapids, MN 26 minutes ago
[-] -4 points by DKAtoday (8049) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 minutes ago
Didn't like the comment?
[-] -5 points by DKAtoday (8049) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 minutes ago
Ooo sounds like a nasty series of suits gonna get filed.
Bloomberg Ya gonna put this on your charge card? Cause it sounds like you could get caught up in this one...........
On whose orders did you the NYPD 1st start accosting these people. Did you feel pressured to comply?
( I want you to understand you are under oath and this testimony you give will in no way affect your own charges - But wont it make you feel better knowing you are not gonna go down alone? )
The witness is instructed to continue.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
“This case presents an issue of great public concern: the disproportionate number of Blacks and Latinos, as compared to Whites, who become entangled in the criminal justice system,” the judge writes in her ruling. “The specific claims raised in this case are narrower but they are raised in the context of the extensively documented racial disparities in the rates of stops, arrests, convictions, and sentences that continue through the present day.”
Yeah!
besides that.. just the idea that this could be done in america blows my mind. america is suppose to be about .. you can walk around free, not scared of being accosted. and now who is accosting?? the very people paid to protect you from being accosted!
Why is it a surprise?
Seen this, yet?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-1272.ZS.html