NYC 'Stop & Frisk' [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : NYC 'Stop & Frisk'


barbedwiresmile
05-12-2012, 19:19
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/07/stop-and-frisk-nypd-stands-ground-while-facing-sharp-criticism/

Thoughts?

CAcop
05-12-2012, 19:25
Terry stop. Google.

Stang_Man
05-12-2012, 19:42
Terry stop. Google.

To be fair, what they're doing doesn't seem to fully fit the bill.

For a Terry stop you need to:

Identify some activity that is out of the ordinary is occuring/has occured

The suspect is connected with said suspicious activity

And that the suspicious activity is related to a crime.

Without being in NY and witnessing their "Stop and Frisk" in person, it's hard to armchair quarterback. I guess you could really stretch just about anything to fit that criteria, but I wouldn't want to hang my career on that. Everyone's definition of "reasonable suspicion" is different as well, which is all you really need here.

snerd
05-12-2012, 19:50
Terry stop. Google.

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7073895/terry-stop

seanmac45
05-12-2012, 19:55
Ex NYPD here;

Conducted THOUSANDS of Stop Question and Frisks

Those lead to hundreds of arrests

Subjected to dozens of Mapp hearings

Never lost one

Article states "random" frisks are being conducted

Author should get off his ass, go out on the street with the cops and see what's what

NO ONE is jeopardizing his career by going out and tossing the public without justification

seanmac45
05-12-2012, 20:06
One Mapp hearing in particular stands out in my mind because I never spoke a word;

Get sworn in.

First question by defense counsel; "Lieutenant, why did you stop my client on the night of ______ __ 19__?

I opened my folder and handed out three packets of stapled paper, one each to the judge, defense counsel and prosecutor.

Each package contained a copy of the SEVENTEEN previous arrest reports for the same defendant, ALL for possession with intent to sell. FIFTEEN of which were in the same building courtyard that he was collared in on the present case. Vital entries highlighted (peigree, charges, and locations).

Defense counsel begins gagging and fighting for air.

Prosecutor is looking worried.

Judge is trying to suppress a giggle.

Short recess was called for the defense counsel to compose himself.

Upon going back on the record the Judge stated I was dismissed and the evidence was admitted.

Prosecutor warned me never to try that crap again.

Perp took the plea before trial.


Stop, Question and Frisk, it's good for the soul.

Stang_Man
05-12-2012, 20:15
One Mapp hearing in particular stands out in my mind because I never spoke a word;

Get sworn in.

First question by defense counsel; "Lieutenant, why did you stop my client on the night of ______ __ 19__?

I opened my folder and handed out three packets of stapled paper, one each to the judge, defense counsel and prosecutor.

Each package contained a copy of the SEVENTEEN previous arrest reports for the same defendant, ALL for possession with intent to sell. FIFTEEN of which were in the same building courtyard that he was collared in on the present case. Vital entries highlighted (peigree, charges, and locations).

Defense counsel begins gagging and fighting for air.

Prosecutor is looking worried.

Judge is trying to suppress a giggle.

Short recess was called for the defense counsel to compose himself.

Upon going back on the record the Judge stated I was dismissed and the evidence was admitted.

Prosecutor warned me never to try that crap again.

Perp took the plea before trial.


Stop, Question and Frisk, it's good for the soul.

Glad it worked out for you, but I was under the ass-umption that you couldn't use criminal history or prior arrests as PC, does that not work for reasonable suspicion?

Don't worry, I agree he was likely a turd, and still is to this day- and I also don't think it takes any stretch of the imagination to get the bracelets on someone like that :wavey:

seanmac45
05-12-2012, 20:17
It was a risk, but I knew the Judge well.

I never did try that again but it sure was enjoyable to get away with it once...........

Stang_Man
05-12-2012, 20:19
It was a risk, but I knew the Judge well.

I never did try that again but it sure was enjoyable to get away with it once...........

:rofl: Thats awesome!

I'm sure if you observed him long enough, he would have easily given you an in. Criminals, not the brightest in the bunch.

Good work!

lancesorbenson
05-12-2012, 20:56
:rofl: Thats awesome!

I'm sure if you observed him long enough, he would have easily given you an in. Criminals, not the brightest in the bunch.

Good work!

The smart ones don't sell drugs on street corners. They peddle influence in D.C.

Ruble Noon
05-12-2012, 21:01
The smart ones don't sell drugs on street corners. They peddle influence in D.C.

Or peddle drugs for the government.

G-19
05-12-2012, 21:18
Or peddle drugs for the government.

Do you really believe that? Do you also believe 911 was an inside job?

Ruble Noon
05-12-2012, 21:23
Do you really believe that? Do you also believe 911 was an inside job?

AFGHANISTAN : THE WAR WE WERE MEANT TO LOSE! - YouTube

Snaps
05-12-2012, 21:24
Papers!!!!!

The Machinist
05-12-2012, 23:07
Great video, Ruble.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-13-2012, 03:13
From the article: “We had 800 guns removed from the streets last year. Do you know how many lives that saves?” I am waiting for Councilman Vallone to give us that answer. Perhaps he can dig into his statistical hat and pull out a magic extrapolating rabbit.

Former NYC resident here. Giuliani was bad enough with his authoritarian micromanaging, but Bloomberg takes it to new heights with his military fantasies. He said that “his” police department is the seventh largest army in the world. I hope I can go to his office and play fort too.

It must be really fun to ignore basic law enforcement techniques while you play with new fangled computer technology and cool military equipment. The sharp rise in harassment with the little return simply amounts to more slothfulness. We have seen it on our roads, and now you can’t even walk down the street and mind your own business.

From the article: “’Stop and Frisks are a necessary evil,’ said Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, an NYPD union. ‘A lot of times it’s hard for the general public to understand.’”
Perhaps it’s actually difficult for Sergeant Mullins to understand how traditionally insulated government workers like him, with the double protection of a union, are now being exposed and protested. Mullins might be interested in knowing that actually doing his job and finding criminals might resonate with our pea-sized brains.


Now, it’s Sunday, so I am going over to see what’s cookin’ at the mosque. I went to the tanning booth this week, so my skin look really CARE-uh-mel. Some disagree with shaving, but where has our common sense gone? I keep telling those boys that the beards are overkill, but what are you going to do?

Oso
05-13-2012, 03:28
Ex NYPD here;

Conducted THOUSANDS of Stop Question and Frisks

Those lead to hundreds of arrests

Subjected to dozens of Mapp hearings

Never lost one

Article states "random" frisks are being conducted

Author should get off his ass, go out on the street with the cops and see what's what

NO ONE is jeopardizing his career by going out and tossing the public without justification

So, the searches in the article ONLY happen when you have probable cause? That's a relief. :phew:

Oso
05-13-2012, 03:42
Prosecutor warned me never to try that crap again.


So it was justifiable, maybe? :upeyes:

Brucev
05-13-2012, 05:34
Re: OP. To put it briefly... end it. Period. If the police want to enforce the law, let them first be required to obey the law... not in a way that is convenient to them or that suits them but in a way that strictly meets the COTUS. It is this sort of thing that causes people to be justifiably skeptical of claims by police that they are acting with integrity.

seanmac45
05-13-2012, 06:00
Re: OP. To put it briefly... end it. Period. If the police want to enforce the law, let them first be required to obey the law... not in a way that is convenient to them or that suits them but in a way that strictly meets the COTUS. It is this sort of thing that causes people to be justifiably skeptical of claims by police that they are acting with integrity.

Each Stop and Frisk conducted is examined by the Patrol Supervisor, the Desk Officer, the CO or XO, the DA's involved with the case, as well as a unit at 1 PP whose sole function is to review Stop and Frisk reports with an eye towards uncovering procedural errors and outright abuse.

So when you question the integrity of the people and the process, know that you are swiping at more than just the cop on the street.


We act within the boundaries delineated by;

The Constitution of the United States of America

The NYS Penal Law

The NYS Criminal Procedure Law

Case Law established by the NYS Supreme Court

Case Law established by the US Supreme Court


If you are dissatisfied with the way we work, and the way the law is written take it up with them.

Have a good one, cousin brucie.:wavey:

LoadToadBoss
05-13-2012, 06:42
So let me get this straight in my mind:

NYC LEOs can randomly stop people on the streets, ask them who they are and what their doing, and then search their persons and property without a warrant?

What happens if someone refuses to stop and talk? What happens if someone refuses to consent to a search? Does that become probable cause to cuff 'em and stuff 'em? Or are folk targeted who look less likely to be able to afford a lawyer?

It's really an honest question. I live in the free state of Louisiana. I can't imagine that happening anywhere here outside of (let's say) NOLA or Baton Rouge. And even there, the citizens would be in a uproar. All it would take is one news reporter to get stopped and all hell would break loose.

The article talks about how the stops are supposed to be "Random." But, are they random in same way as the TSA pad-downs are random? Are old ladies and crippled children stopped and risked for illegal substances or contraband?

DonGlock26
05-13-2012, 06:50
Glad it worked out for you, but I was under the ass-umption that you couldn't use criminal history or prior arrests as PC, does that not work for reasonable suspicion?



You can't use a prior criminal conviction in court in general, but if you know a convicted child molester is hanging out at the kiddie pool by himself, that certainly becomes part of reasonable suspicion that some crime is about to happen.



_

Stang_Man
05-13-2012, 07:12
You can't use a prior criminal conviction in court in general, but if you know a convicted child molester is hanging out at the kiddie pool by himself, that certainly becomes part of reasonable suspicion that some crime is about to happen.



_

That's a very good point! :highfive:

Brucev
05-13-2012, 07:13
[QUOTE=seanmac45;18960452]Each Stop and Frisk conducted is examined by the Patrol Supervisor, the Desk Officer, the CO or XO, the DA's involved with the case, as well as a unit at 1 PP whose sole function is to review Stop and Frisk reports with an eye towards uncovering procedural errors and outright abuse. Glad to read that there is some restraint of what can only charitably be termed a problematic restriction of Constitutional rights of the individual by the state. In this case, it is like inmates in a prison being in charge of deciding if a corrections officer has been assaulted, etc. It simply is not believable.

So when you question the integrity of the people and the process, know that you are swiping at more than just the cop on the street. When and if I do so, I do so as is my right as a citizen. No function or functionary of govt. is beyond suspicion or criticism. It is the better part of good citizenship to hold in extreme skepticism the actions of both institutions and those who have a vested interest in those institutions.


We act within the boundaries delineated by;

The Constitution of the United States of America

The NYS Penal Law

The NYS Criminal Procedure Law

Case Law established by the NYS Supreme Court

Case Law established by the US Supreme Court.

Not at all impressed with NYC anything. I've been in and through NYC a good many times. Like anywhere else, it has its good and bad points. When it comes to policework, etc. it probably has its good and bad points. Hopefully there is more good than bad. Abuse of plainly stated and understood civil rights qualified by the excuse of police work is a glaring bad mark on a historically spotty record.

As to the sc, they've routinely gotten things wrong... that later were revisited and fixed. From Dred Scott to Heller, etc. lots of errors have been fixed. This is just an error that will have to be fixed.

If you are dissatisfied with the way we work, and the way the law is written take it up with them. It would appear that by the preceding brief post, that dissatisfaction was "taken up."

Have a good one, cousin brucie.:wavey: Always do. Always do. Never have a bad day. You be sure and have some fun with yourself.

I0WA
05-13-2012, 07:13
I think this stop and frisk thing is a bit ridiculous, but blame the laws, and let's get them changed if we're all so offended. The Cops are enlisted to enforce laws, that's their job.

The real criminals here are the politicians that pass the laws that let the cops do these things. I'm sure if the law changed 99.9% of cops would comply.

seanmac45
05-13-2012, 07:23
Terry stops are NOT random. Stop Question and Frisk forms are the way that NYPD documents them.

Police interaction with the public travels along a continuum. In the following examples, which are VERY simplistic, you will see how things start low and ramp up given the totality of the circumstances. Sometimes police / civilian interactions start at the first level and never move up. Sometimes the circumstances take the simplest of hello’s and advance them all the way to the top. Sometimes they start at the worst level. I am just trying to give you a feel for how it works.

At the very base is the COMMON LAW RIGHT OF INQUIRY. In simple terms, you (the police) can say "Hi, how are you" to anyone. They can answer or not as they see fit. This interaction gives the officer no right whatsoever to detain the subject. Think of it as two people passing each other on a public sidewalk at midday.

Next level is MERE SUSPICION. Something akin to this would be an officer walking/driving past an individual at night as he stands outside of a store. Here we can stop the individual, talk to him and ask what he is doing there. Depending on the conversation and many other factors it might be nothing at all or it can move up to the next level. “Officer, my girlfriend is inside picking up diapers for the baby.” Great, have nice night.

OR, upon the above question, the individual becomes nervous, his eyes are shifting all over the place, his answers are evasive or outright lies, and his body language just screams that he is going to rabbit. Time to see some ID. It seems like it’s time to move up to the next level.

The next level is REASONABLE SUSPICION. Now the officer is passing a car that is parked outside a check cashing location late at night as it is about to close. Two males are sitting in the car, the engine is running and there are multiple cigarette butts on the ground indicating they have been there a while. We are going to have a nice chat. You are going to explain who you are and what you are doing there. Your hands will be in plain view at all times, and you probably will be preemptively frisked for officer safety.

This will probably be done with backup around because I don’t like to fight fair. I believe in overwhelming numerical superiority and winning. If everything checks out you are free to go. If you both are armed and in possession of stocking masks it’s green baloney sandwiches and soap on a rope for you.


Probable Cause. Yup, that’s the big time. Our intrepid officer is walking past a bank in the late afternoon. It is bright, sunny and 90 degrees and he observes a male exit the bank wearing a ski mask, long trench coat, carrying a satchel, and oh, by the way there is a rigid line under that coat extending from the armpit to the mid-thigh indicating the presence of a long object. My front sight is on the center of your chest, you are issued some rather terse verbal commands and you either comply or die. Life’s tough, it’s tougher if you play stupid games.

Like I said, these are VERY simplistic examples. Interactions such as these occur on the streets hundreds of times a day. MOST don’t wind up in a collar. However, the process of the interaction, of being aware of what’s happening in your post or sector, of delving more deeply into situations that seem out of place or downright suspicious, that folks is police work. It’s what you pay us to do.

You WANT these interactions to take place and you WANT your police department out there doing the job. The drug dealer we collar might be the one trying to get your kid hooked. The burglar we catch in the act might be the one that was going to hit your house tomorrow. Otherwise we get the smart aleck cracks about hanging out at the donut shop.

Bad guys don’t walk the streets with name tags that say “ Jim Jones Crack Dealer”. Bad guys try very hard to blend in and go unnoticed, most of the time. Stop and Frisk, or Terry Stops are a valid investigative tool given to the police to separate the wheat from the chaff. They are based upon rock solid case law and are way more complex than my simple examples provided to you in this post.

Terry stops are an art. There are many nuances and many have lead to some outstanding collars. They are not RANDOM as the boob who wrote the article suggest. Time of day, type of location, the subjects attire, his behavior, his reactions to inquiries ALL go into the equation and it all has to be taken in, processed and acted upon by the officer in an appropriate manner, or else anything obtained will be lost as evidence in the court process.

DonGlock26
05-13-2012, 07:28
NYPD is doing a great job suppressing crime. Chicago is not, and it is a shooting gallery.

Perhaps, it's time to ask who is doing the shooting, and how can they be stopped. It sounds like NYPD has found a way.

TBO
05-13-2012, 13:23
Why do the dissenters never cite court rulings?

G19G20
05-13-2012, 15:35
Stop, Question and Frisk, it's good for the soul.

Exercising one's right to remain silent is also good for the soul, but bad for police revenue streams.

So your story right there basically states that you stopped someone and searched them solely because they have a record? And you're proud of that?

Best thing one can do when approached by police in any form is to just remain silent. No one ever has to talk to a cop. Ever. Some orders must be followed, such as license and registration in a traffic stop but no questions need to be answered ever. Some states have "stop and ID" laws (not mine) but even then you don't have to answer any questions. If people would just STFU and exercise their rights these sorts of profiling tactics would go away when they stop being successful.

Why do the dissenters never cite court rulings?

Just because one state employee rubber stamps the conduct of another state employee, doesn't make it correct. Besides, the dissenters very survival doesn't usually circle around knowing what rulings to cite to justify arrests that produce revenue streams. Dissenters don't have a personal interest in the outcome so why spend time digging thru case law? Cops get the rulings handed to them in memos at briefings so don't act like you're sitting there pouring through case law yourself.

TBO
05-13-2012, 15:42
Case law is case law. Emotion and personal opinion don't trump it, no matter how much emotive posturing /coloring is done.

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

G19G20
05-13-2012, 15:49
Sure, case law is case law. But you asked why dissenters don't cite case law. Dissenters don't have personal vested interest like you do so expecting people whose livelihoods don't depend on knowing case law to provide it to counter someone whose livelihood does depend on it is lame. Dissenters don't know case law. They just know messed up situations when they see them.

seanmac45
05-13-2012, 15:50
So your story right there basically states that you stopped someone and searched them solely because they have a record? And you're proud of that?
.

NO NO NO. There was much more to that stop and arrest than that, it's just that I am not in the business of discussing narcotics operations on open forums and educating whatever sundry users/dealers might be reading these threads.

Sorry to disappoint you.

G19G20
05-13-2012, 15:53
You brought it up buddy.

seanmac45
05-13-2012, 15:53
Sure, case law is case law. But you asked why dissenters don't cite case law. Dissenters don't have personal vested interest like you do so expecting people whose livelihoods don't depend on knowing case law to provide it to counter someone whose livelihood does depend on it is lame. Dissenters don't know case law. They just know messed up situations when they see them.


A very verbose way of saying you don't know what you're talking about.

Thanks for admitting that.

G19G20
05-13-2012, 15:55
God bless America!

Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

seanmac45
05-13-2012, 16:11
Thanks but I won't spend 48 minutes of my life trying to see if you have a clue.

You've already proven that you don't.

G19G20
05-13-2012, 16:12
That video isn't for you. You already know that people shouldn't talk to police.

TBO
05-13-2012, 16:21
Sure, case law is case law. But you asked why dissenters don't cite case law. Dissenters don't have personal vested interest like you do so expecting people whose livelihoods don't depend on knowing case law to provide it to counter someone whose livelihood does depend on it is lame. Dissenters don't know case law. They just know messed up situations when they see them.
I believe it is lame to speak with firmness on things you don't know about.

seanmac45
05-13-2012, 16:23
Isn't the arrogance of the ignorant amazing?

G19G20
05-13-2012, 16:36
Thanks to both of you for all the thread bumps. Hopefully a few more people will see the video and understand why to never talk to police when approached.

CAcop
05-13-2012, 16:41
How about this for a PSA. Google search consensual encounter, reasonable suspicion, probable cause. Throw in case law with each of those search terms for details on where the difinitions come from. I could write pages on each term. It is well worn case law, like Miranda.

wprebeck
05-13-2012, 19:44
The very act of NOT talking to the police can help to develop reasonable suspicion - would a "reasonable" person decline to answer why they might be sitting in a car, obviously waiting in said car for a length of time?

It seems that all the "don't talk to police" fans always forget that the 5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination. If you are NOT committing a crime, and refuse to answer certain reasonable questions, you "may" just find yourself getting more attention than you'd like - and citing the 5th won't get you anywhere, UNLESS you really were committing a crime.

greenman19
05-13-2012, 20:14
For the "don't talk to police" guys, have you never heard of a situation where it would be advisable? I have seen several stories here where an altercation occured and the victim got arrested. Why? you ask. The victim wouldn't talk to the police while the offender told them a heck of a story. In the absence of any exculpitary information what are the police going to do?

Mister_Beefy
05-14-2012, 00:42
well, at least crime in new york is down.


Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

LoadToadBoss
05-14-2012, 06:14
As long as those stopped don't get questioned about their immigration status.:whistling:

Woofie
05-14-2012, 08:06
So let me get this straight in my mind:

NYC LEOs can randomly stop people on the streets, ask them who they are and what their doing, and then search their persons and property without a warrant?

What happens if someone refuses to stop and talk? What happens if someone refuses to consent to a search? Does that become probable cause to cuff 'em and stuff 'em? Or are folk targeted who look less likely to be able to afford a lawyer?

It's really an honest question. I live in the free state of Louisiana. I can't imagine that happening anywhere here outside of (let's say) NOLA or Baton Rouge. And even there, the citizens would be in a uproar. All it would take is one news reporter to get stopped and all hell would break loose.

The article talks about how the stops are supposed to be "Random." But, are they random in same way as the TSA pad-downs are random? Are old ladies and crippled children stopped and risked for illegal substances or contraband?

It does happen here and is perfectly legal.

HexHead
05-14-2012, 08:27
Terry stops are NOT random. Stop Question and Frisk forms are the way that NYPD documents them.

Police interaction with the public travels along a continuum. In the following examples, which are VERY simplistic, you will see how things start low and ramp up given the totality of the circumstances. Sometimes police / civilian interactions start at the first level and never move up. Sometimes the circumstances take the simplest of hello’s and advance them all the way to the top. Sometimes they start at the worst level. I am just trying to give you a feel for how it works.

At the very base is the COMMON LAW RIGHT OF INQUIRY. In simple terms, you (the police) can say "Hi, how are you" to anyone. They can answer or not as they see fit. This interaction gives the officer no right whatsoever to detain the subject. Think of it as two people passing each other on a public sidewalk at midday.

Next level is MERE SUSPICION. Something akin to this would be an officer walking/driving past an individual at night as he stands outside of a store. Here we can stop the individual, talk to him and ask what he is doing there. Depending on the conversation and many other factors it might be nothing at all or it can move up to the next level. “Officer, my girlfriend is inside picking up diapers for the baby.” Great, have nice night.

OR, upon the above question, the individual becomes nervous, his eyes are shifting all over the place, his answers are evasive or outright lies, and his body language just screams that he is going to rabbit. Time to see some ID. It seems like it’s time to move up to the next level.

The next level is REASONABLE SUSPICION. Now the officer is passing a car that is parked outside a check cashing location late at night as it is about to close. Two males are sitting in the car, the engine is running and there are multiple cigarette butts on the ground indicating they have been there a while. We are going to have a nice chat. You are going to explain who you are and what you are doing there. Your hands will be in plain view at all times, and you probably will be preemptively frisked for officer safety.

This will probably be done with backup around because I don’t like to fight fair. I believe in overwhelming numerical superiority and winning. If everything checks out you are free to go. If you both are armed and in possession of stocking masks it’s green baloney sandwiches and soap on a rope for you.


Probable Cause. Yup, that’s the big time. Our intrepid officer is walking past a bank in the late afternoon. It is bright, sunny and 90 degrees and he observes a male exit the bank wearing a ski mask, long trench coat, carrying a satchel, and oh, by the way there is a rigid line under that coat extending from the armpit to the mid-thigh indicating the presence of a long object. My front sight is on the center of your chest, you are issued some rather terse verbal commands and you either comply or die. Life’s tough, it’s tougher if you play stupid games.

Like I said, these are VERY simplistic examples. Interactions such as these occur on the streets hundreds of times a day. MOST don’t wind up in a collar. However, the process of the interaction, of being aware of what’s happening in your post or sector, of delving more deeply into situations that seem out of place or downright suspicious, that folks is police work. It’s what you pay us to do.

You WANT these interactions to take place and you WANT your police department out there doing the job. The drug dealer we collar might be the one trying to get your kid hooked. The burglar we catch in the act might be the one that was going to hit your house tomorrow. Otherwise we get the smart aleck cracks about hanging out at the donut shop.

Bad guys don’t walk the streets with name tags that say “ Jim Jones Crack Dealer”. Bad guys try very hard to blend in and go unnoticed, most of the time. Stop and Frisk, or Terry Stops are a valid investigative tool given to the police to separate the wheat from the chaff. They are based upon rock solid case law and are way more complex than my simple examples provided to you in this post.

Terry stops are an art. There are many nuances and many have lead to some outstanding collars. They are not RANDOM as the boob who wrote the article suggest. Time of day, type of location, the subjects attire, his behavior, his reactions to inquiries ALL go into the equation and it all has to be taken in, processed and acted upon by the officer in an appropriate manner, or else anything obtained will be lost as evidence in the court process.

THAT, was one great post.

TBO
05-20-2012, 12:41
Isn't the arrogance of the ignorant amazing?
Indeed!

It reminds me of the high school dropouts who resented any of their former classmates for attending college.

Hard to believe sometimes, but then again, ignorance is most often a choice.

blk69stang
05-20-2012, 13:35
My Federal LE training tells me that "random" searches on the general public without any articulable facts is a great way to open yourself up for a tort lawsuit.

If you can articulate why you "stopped, questioned, and frisked" someone, then more power to them. (If you can't do that for each and every person you meet, then you have no business beign a cop IMHO...). But if you can't articulate why you stopped someone, and instead are simply leaning on the "random inspection" crutch, then IMHO you deserve that tort lawsuit for being a lazy slug who does sloppy policework.

happyguy
05-20-2012, 15:58
"Stop and Frisks are a necessary EVIL,” said Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, an NYPD union. “A lot of times it’s hard for the general public to understand.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/07/stop-and-frisk-nypd-stands-ground-while-facing-sharp-criticism/#ixzz1vRvbwzTU

So in the words of the president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, stop and frisks are evil, but we must submit to them because they are for our own good.

Hmmmm...

All legalities aside, I'm not buying what he's selling.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Mister_Beefy
05-21-2012, 02:37
But if you can't articulate why you stopped someone, and instead are simply leaning on the "random inspection" crutch, then IMHO you deserve that tort lawsuit for being a lazy slug who does sloppy policework.


that's it in a nutshell.

if you choose not to answer any questions, they use that as an excuse to detain because you're acting "suspicious."

of course, never having been in the NYPD, I don't know anything.. like a "high school dropouts who resented any of their former classmates for attending college."

what's the definition of a straw man argument again?

Goaltender66
05-21-2012, 06:59
Just tossing this out there...

What happens when the person refuses consent to a search...?

CAcop
05-21-2012, 08:29
Just tossing this out there...

What happens when the person refuses consent to a search...?

If there is reasonable suspicion and Terry applies it is not a consensual contact and you have no right to refuse.

seanmac45
05-21-2012, 08:45
ABSENT any other factors, refusal of information and consent to search do NOT equal reasonable suspicion.

If you're asking to search someone without any good reason, it's a fishing expedition and does not constitute a proper stop.

TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES and the ability of the officer to adequately state his reasoning for the stop are the key to the viability of the encounter.

Goaltender66
05-21-2012, 09:47
Well, that kind of answers the question, doesn't it?

If the officer has legal reason to search you, he doesn't need your consent.

if he doesn't, he pretty much has to ask you. It may not sound like a request (eg "I need to look in your bag."), but part of being a responsible, informed citizen is to know not only what your rights are, but when you can exercise them.

Seems to me this stop, question, and frisk business is just a riff on consensual searches.

seanmac45
05-21-2012, 13:05
No, it's a carefully choreographed ballet in which the police need to conduct an investigation and the civilian's rights under the Constitution are governed by a specific set of rules as delineated by the US Supreme Court and Department guidelines.

Goaltender66
05-21-2012, 14:05
I'll put it another way.

If I'm walking down Normal and a police officer comes up to me to chat, it's unlikely I'll say anything other than hello and/or "why do you ask?" If he says he "needs" to search my bag I say "I don't consent to a search."

If the situation is such that my consent is unnecessary then the officer will proceed anyway and he should be prepared to justify his actions in court (of course, if this is done as part of a Terry Stop it'll be pretty clear that we've gone past a consensual encounter anyway...).

If my consent is required but he's not saying so, I'm covered if he decides to go ahead and search my bag.

Perhaps there's some clarification that's needed. Is a stop, question, and frisk exercise a Terry Stop by another name?

Snowman92D
05-21-2012, 16:31
well, at least crime in new york is down.

Yep, finally. The progressives and libertarians have tried hard for years to make anarchy work in NYC, but it just never panned out.

BORNGEARHEAD
05-21-2012, 19:11
Reason enough to move out of New York.

CAcop
05-22-2012, 11:30
I'll put it another way.

If I'm walking down Normal and a police officer comes up to me to chat, it's unlikely I'll say anything other than hello and/or "why do you ask?" If he says he "needs" to search my bag I say "I don't consent to a search."

If the situation is such that my consent is unnecessary then the officer will proceed anyway and he should be prepared to justify his actions in court (of course, if this is done as part of a Terry Stop it'll be pretty clear that we've gone past a consensual encounter anyway...).

If my consent is required but he's not saying so, I'm covered if he decides to go ahead and search my bag.

Perhaps there's some clarification that's needed. Is a stop, question, and frisk exercise a Terry Stop by another name?

Yes. I was going to write this the other day but life was keeping me busy.

Where I work we do not call it stop and frisk. We call it a field interview or FI for short. We fill out a card called a field interview card and take your picture. That is if we have the time for it. Usually running your name for warrants or probation/parole status is it.

The most likely time we are going to do it in our city is if you are riding your bicycle with a backpack on in the middle of the night wearing dark clothing and have no reflectors or lights on your bike and you happen to be riding in a residential area where there have been auto burglaries and thefts.

The lack of reflectors or lights is enough for us to stop people and detain them long enough to write a ticket. Now the Terry Decision is enough for us to search for weapons. It is late at night, we are alone on patrol, contacting someone who may be trying to be as invisible as possible so they can commit crimes without detection. If a quick search turns up a screw driver we can easily articulate that is a burglary tool. Now will we charge them for it right then and there? Probably not but it does allow us to start searching their bag or person for something other than a weapon. In this case burglary tools. Since items as small as spark plug ceramic chips can be considered burglary tools we can pretty much search of anything.

The courts have been okay with this for years because they understand there is no DA or judge riding along with the officer in the middle of the night to approve an ever more instrusive search. If judges or DAs wanted to work in the middle of the night they would have become cops instead. So the courts give us discretion to search people given reasonable suspicion or probable cause. They figure if there is a problem with the search it will be discovered in court. And remember for it to get to court the person has to be arrested for something. Also remember this particular scenario involves something that started out as a vehicle code infraction that is a fix it ticket, a $20 fine. If you do not have anything on your person that is illegal expect a $20 ticket. If you have a backpack full of car stereos, iPods, and cellphones that you took out of cars expect at least a night in jail.

Mrs. Tink
05-22-2012, 12:34
Sure, case law is case law. But you asked why dissenters don't cite case law. Dissenters don't have personal vested interest like you do so expecting people whose livelihoods don't depend on knowing case law to provide it to counter someone whose livelihood does depend on it is lame. Dissenters don't know case law. They just know messed up situations when they see them.

A very verbose way of saying you don't know what you're talking about.

Thanks for admitting that.

Thanks but I won't spend 48 minutes of my life trying to see if you have a clue.

You've already proven that you don't.

I believe it is lame to speak with firmness on things you don't know about.

Isn't the arrogance of the ignorant amazing?

I see G19G20's point--people who are not familiar with "case law" or whatever else your hat is hung on are not going to know this out of the box. That said, although perhaps we ordinary people "don't have a clue", doesn't mean that we're "arrogant" about being "ignorant." I for one come on here because I like to learn new perspectives and information. I freely admit that I have no clue. I would rather appreciate being educated or being informed.

I know that some folks on here choose not to speak to police as a general rule; I am not one. But when it comes to things like "stop & frisk" or whatever the seemingly-outrageous policy of the day is, it would be nice to hear about case law or other background information--even if some people are belligerent about challenging you LEOs on this, there are plenty of others who just want to know more. THEN we can all draw our own conclusions and discuss it.

CAcop
05-22-2012, 12:41
I see G19G20's point--people who are not familiar with "case law" or whatever else your hat is hung on are not going to know this out of the box. That said, although perhaps we ordinary people "don't have a clue", doesn't mean that we're "arrogant" about being "ignorant." I for one come on here because I like to learn new perspectives and information. I freely admit that I have no clue. I would rather appreciate being educated or being informed.

I know that some folks on here choose not to speak to police as a general rule; I am not one. But when it comes to things like "stop & frisk" or whatever the seemingly-outrageous policy of the day is, it would be nice to hear about case law or other background information--even if some people are belligerent about challenging you LEOs on this, there are plenty of others who just want to know more. THEN we can all draw our own conclusions and discuss it.

To be honest we have beaten this horse until it is glue. That's why my first post was "Terry Stop. Google it."

Unfortunately there are people on this board who hate government and all government employees. I don't know why and at this point don't care. I am not going to spend hours writing pages about Terry stops and all the associated case law. It is out there at their fingertips ready to be learned. Yet none of it will never be read because it is so much more fun to trash talk.

There is ignorance due to lack of exposure and there is willfull ignorance due to arrogance.

Mrs. Tink
05-22-2012, 12:56
To be honest we have beaten this horse until it is glue. That's why my first post was "Terry Stop. Google it."

Unfortunately there are people on this board who hate government and all government employees. I don't know why and at this point don't care. I am not going to spend hours writing pages about Terry stops and all the associated case law. It is out there at their fingertips ready to be learned. Yet none of it will never be read because it is so much more fun to trash talk.

There is ignorance due to lack of exposure and there is willfull ignorance due to arrogance.

I understand all of that. And I don't want you to spend "hours" explaining anything to anyone. I just think it would be helpful if people who know things can point people who don't know things in the right direction. We don't know what we don't know. Feel free to ignore those who aren't interested or just hate everyone.

I am a federal employee so I get what you mean. :wavey:

G19G20
05-22-2012, 16:06
To be honest we have beaten this horse until it is glue. That's why my first post was "Terry Stop. Google it."

That's a diversionary tactic. The conduct described in the OP has nothing in common with a Terry Stop. Nothing at all. Did you even read the OP article? The NYPD is stopping people randomly (profiling) and then using it as an excuse for pat downs and searches. A Terry stop requires at least an initial reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement to initiate contact and the pat down becomes incidental to the stop. One is random, the other is targeted based on articulable facts. Guess which is which.


Unfortunately there are people on this board who hate government and all government employees. I don't know why and at this point don't care. I am not going to spend hours writing pages about Terry stops and all the associated case law. It is out there at their fingertips ready to be learned. Yet none of it will never be read because it is so much more fun to trash talk.

Hmm...I googled "Terry Stop" as you requested and the first result is Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop


To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

Here's the first section of the Fox News article in the OP:

Baltimore native Chris Bilal was walking through his adopted Brooklyn neighborhood when he was stopped by a police officer. The NYPD officer peppered the 24-year-old with questions about where he lived, requested Bilal’s ID and rummaged through his bag.

“I was coming home from the Laundromat and I was stopped by the police officer. Asking me, ‘Let me see your ID. ‘Where are you from?’ ‘Do you live around here?’ ”

The officer then proceeded to rummage through Bilal’s bag of freshly cleaned and folded laundry to see if he was carrying anything illegal. The search produced nothing, and the officer sent Bilal on his way.


Nothing was found. Why? Because it was a purely random stop based on NO articulable facts other than Mr. Bilal, a black man carrying a bag, happened to be in the same area as a cop that had nothing better to do than to harrass a law abiding citizen doing his laundry.


This is NOT A TERRY STOP. This is a fishing expedition based on intimidation and NYPD has made it policy.




There is ignorance due to lack of exposure and there is willfull ignorance due to arrogance.



Im wondering who the one displaying willful ignorance is in this thread is.


Want to try again? It's no wonder people "hate" government employees. You're a poster child for why.

Ruble Noon
05-22-2012, 16:10
Just tossing this out there...

What happens when the person refuses consent to a search...?

You get to be on the next episode of COPS.

seanmac45
05-22-2012, 18:27
Mrs. Tink Wrote; "I see G19G20's point--people who are not familiar with "case law" or whatever else your hat is hung on are not going to know this out of the box. That said, although perhaps we ordinary people "don't have a clue", doesn't mean that we're "arrogant" about being "ignorant." I for one come on here because I like to learn new perspectives and information. I freely admit that I have no clue. I would rather appreciate being educated or being informed.

I know that some folks on here choose not to speak to police as a general rule; I am not one. But when it comes to things like "stop & frisk" or whatever the seemingly-outrageous policy of the day is, it would be nice to hear about case law or other background information--even if some people are belligerent about challenging you LEOs on this, there are plenty of others who just want to know more. THEN we can all draw our own conclusions and discuss it. "

I have no problem with people who do not understand Terry Stops or the case law involved. It is my belief that I have taken considerable time in this thread to enlighten those with an open mind who wish to learn more about this topic.

My comments, which you chose to take out of context, were directed at ONE poster in this thread who simply wants to stamp his feet and pout that such procedures are unfair. Sorry. But the adults in the fields of the courts and law enforcement have determined otherwise.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-22-2012, 22:31
A judge has granted class action status to a lawsuit. The article says that the judge is highly critical of NYPD. This was last week, and I have not yet read that court document.

Good on New Yorkers for standing up against government disdain of its citizenry.

CAcop
05-22-2012, 22:38
That's a diversionary tactic. The conduct described in the OP has nothing in common with a Terry Stop. Nothing at all. Did you even read the OP article? The NYPD is stopping people randomly (profiling) and then using it as an excuse for pat downs and searches. A Terry stop requires at least an initial reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement to initiate contact and the pat down becomes incidental to the stop. One is random, the other is targeted based on articulable facts. Guess which is which.



Hmm...I googled "Terry Stop" as you requested and the first result is Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop



Here's the first section of the Fox News article in the OP:


Nothing was found. Why? Because it was a purely random stop based on NO articulable facts other than Mr. Bilal, a black man carrying a bag, happened to be in the same area as a cop that had nothing better to do than to harrass a law abiding citizen doing his laundry.


This is NOT A TERRY STOP. This is a fishing expedition based on intimidation and NYPD has made it policy.





Im wondering who the one displaying willful ignorance is in this thread is.


Want to try again? It's no wonder people "hate" government employees. You're a poster child for why.

From your own link:

When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.

G19G20
05-23-2012, 01:43
And? Why don't you explain to us what that means? When is a "search" (your word) for weapons authorized? A pat down (not a search) is authorized for weapons IF the definition of a Terry stop is met. This is why it's established law man. People have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms so cops can assume anybody they confront under reasonable suspicions may be armed. If there's no reasonable suspicion then what are they patting people down for?

CAcop
05-23-2012, 06:15
And? Why don't you explain to us what that means? When is a "search" (your word) for weapons authorized? A pat down (not a search) is authorized for weapons IF the definition of a Terry stop is met. This is why it's established law man. People have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms so cops can assume anybody they confront under reasonable suspicions may be armed. If there's no reasonable suspicion then what are they patting people down for?

Did a judge say there was no reasonable suspicion on each and every stop?

fx77
05-23-2012, 06:18
Stop Stop and Frisk? Ray Kelly chief of police has repeatedly asked what is the alternative? Give me one?

Since 90% of the crime by minorities is on minorities..what will happen when this crime rate goes up in the absence fo stop and frisk? What will then the minority community say?

Police do not care about minority on minority crime..We are in a legal deadended feed back loop

Sam Spade
05-23-2012, 07:01
And? Why don't you explain to us what that means? When is a "search" (your word) for weapons authorized? A pat down (not a search) is authorized for weapons IF the definition of a Terry stop is met. This is why it's established law man. People have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms so cops can assume anybody they confront under reasonable suspicions may be armed. If there's no reasonable suspicion then what are they patting people down for?

A pat-down, aka "frisk" is a search.

wprebeck
05-23-2012, 08:49
A pat-down, aka "frisk" is a search.

And if he doesn't understand something as basic as the definition of a search, just how can he tell the rest of us how to do our jobs? Oh, wait - easily. Throw out some opinions that have no basis in decades of established case law from across the country, because such opinions fit his point of view. Ignore all evidence to the contrary, and simply spout off about the Nazi-like practices of today's system of policing.

Hey Sean - you and a few other are old enough to remember when things were different. You guys may have participated (or at least heard stories) of how old timers use to police. Think things are kindler and gentler these days? I know I've heard stories about working the in 70's and 80's, and honestly. - I think a lot of folks would be shocked to hear how things were done in the old days.

Mrs. Tink
05-23-2012, 16:20
My comments, which you chose to take out of context, were directed at ONE poster in this thread who simply wants to stamp his feet and pout that such procedures are unfair. Sorry. But the adults in the fields of the courts and law enforcement have determined otherwise.

You know, I'm just going to give up here. I tried to be as respectful as possible when asking you LEOs who don't like it when people say "never talk to the police" to just IGNORE those folks and spend a little time enlightening people who might want to learn. Which you did; I never said otherwise. Rather than recognizing my request as such, you lambasted me for "[choosing] to take (your comments) out of context." I couldn't care less about what you think of other posters. I'm just trying to ask for a little info in general. Sorry you think I'm some hostile entity wasting your time. :upeyes:

Ruble Noon
05-23-2012, 16:38
You know, I'm just going to give up here. I tried to be as respectful as possible when asking you LEOs who don't like it when people say "never talk to the police" to just IGNORE those folks and spend a little time enlightening people who might want to learn. Which you did; I never said otherwise. Rather than recognizing my request as such, you lambasted me for "[choosing] to take (your comments) out of context." I couldn't care less about what you think of other posters. I'm just trying to ask for a little info in general. Sorry you think I'm some hostile entity wasting your time. :upeyes:

See what you get for talking to the POlice. :rofl:

seanmac45
05-23-2012, 17:36
Mrs Tink;

I have no issues with you whatsoever. I apologize sincerely if I offended. The only person I have difficulty with in this thread is G19G20 who shows an unlimited capacity for both being obtuse as well as twisting things around in an effort to paint the police in a bad light.

It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.

CAcop
05-23-2012, 20:56
Stop Stop and Frisk? Ray Kelly chief of police has repeatedly asked what is the alternative? Give me one?

Since 90% of the crime by minorities is on minorities..what will happen when this crime rate goes up in the absence fo stop and frisk? What will then the minority community say?

Police do not care about minority on minority crime..We are in a legal deadended feed back loop

Policing in a high crime minority area is not for the easily discouraged.

The 'burbs are almost always better.

G19G20
05-24-2012, 00:56
:upeyes:Mrs Tink;

I have no issues with you whatsoever. I apologize sincerely if I offended. The only person I have difficulty with in this thread is G19G20 who shows an unlimited capacity for both being obtuse as well as twisting things around in an effort to paint the police in a bad light.

It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.

Yeah, that's exactly what I did. :upeyes:

Posting a video of why not to talk to cops ever and shredding CAcop's false argument that random frisks are the same as Terry Stops. Yeah I twisted it all up. Get real. Shocker that cops are always trying to justify their own bad behavior in the public eye.

"We find no misconduct." Heard that a little too often lately.

happyguy
05-24-2012, 05:48
Give the NYC cops some credit.

At least they aren't doing stop and frisk on 90 year old grandmothers or disabled 6 year old's in wheelchairs like another agency. They are actually using their intelligence, experience, and training to target people that are more likely to be a problem.

I don't like it, but demonizing the cops that are doing their job in accordance with the law is ridiculous.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Sam Spade
05-24-2012, 06:15
:upeyes:

Yeah, that's exactly what I did. :upeyes:

Posting a video of why not to talk to cops ever and shredding CAcop's false argument that random frisks are the same as Terry Stops. Yeah I twisted it all up. Get real. Shocker that cops are always trying to justify their own bad behavior in the public eye.

"We find no misconduct." Heard that a little too often lately.
Well, you don't, or didn't, realize that a frisk was a search. And you still want to characterize these things as "random". As far as I can see, your only claimed evidence for that is that sometimes nothing is found: "Nothing was found. Why? Because it was a purely random stop based on NO articulable facts other than Mr. Bilal, a black man carrying a bag, happened to be in the same area as a cop that had nothing better to do than to harrass a law abiding citizen doing his laundry."

If I've read you wrong, how about you present your evidence that this program is based on random selection? No, a media article doesn't count as evidence. Neither does a single stopee's failure to understand or relay the factors considered by the cops.

Then, let's play a math game: to begin, what is the success rate of NYPD's program? "Success" means a stop that ends in an arrest or summons--they correctly picked a criminal out of the landscape.

Goaltender66
05-24-2012, 06:19
Mrs Tink;

I have no issues with you whatsoever. I apologize sincerely if I offended. The only person I have difficulty with in this thread is G19G20 who shows an unlimited capacity for both being obtuse as well as twisting things around in an effort to paint the police in a bad light.

It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.

I think part of the confusion (and, most likely, what's tripping up G19G20) is that the word "stop" for LE is loaded language. People say "stop" all the time...I "stopped" for groceries, I "stopped" a person to ask for directions, etc. It's a pretty informal use of the word.

But for LE, "stop" has all kinds of connotations and implies - no, requires - a very defined and formal continuum.

inre G19G20, you may want to actually read Terry and I'd also suggest reading Byron White's joined opinion.

If I were to quibble with anything here, it would be that the jurisprudence revolving around Terry states that the frisking is for weapons, not any/all contraband. In the article (and admittedly, the article does have loaded language of its own), the fellow (Bilal) was stopped and his bag was searched. According to Bilal, the officer was looking for drugs, and the story says the search was to see if "he was carrying anything illegal." First, remember this is but one side of the story and we don't hear from the officer as to why he decided to stop Bilal.

That said, there's a fine line here...if an officer frisks a person because he reasonably thinks the guy may be armed and subsequently finds not a gun but a dime bag, the drugs would most likely be admissible. But the exclusionary rule would apply if the search itself was found unreasonable.

Sam Spade
05-24-2012, 06:26
For those looking for a primer on relevant decisions: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=994145

CAcop
05-24-2012, 08:26
I think part of the confusion (and, most likely, what's tripping up G19G20) is that the word "stop" for LE is loaded language. People say "stop" all the time...I "stopped" for groceries, I "stopped" a person to ask for directions, etc. It's a pretty informal use of the word.

But for LE, "stop" has all kinds of connotations and implies - no, requires - a very defined and formal continuum.

inre G19G20, you may want to actually read Terry and I'd also suggest reading Byron White's joined opinion.

If I were to quibble with anything here, it would be that the jurisprudence revolving around Terry states that the frisking is for weapons, not any/all contraband. In the article (and admittedly, the article does have loaded language of its own), the fellow (Bilal) was stopped and his bag was searched. According to Bilal, the officer was looking for drugs, and the story says the search was to see if "he was carrying anything illegal." First, remember this is but one side of the story and we don't hear from the officer as to why he decided to stop Bilal.

That said, there's a fine line here...if an officer frisks a person because he reasonably thinks the guy may be armed and subsequently finds not a gun but a dime bag, the drugs would most likely be admissible. But the exclusionary rule would apply if the search itself was found unreasonable.

You are very right about the word "stop" when it comes to LE. I don't even like to say "I stopped to talk to that guy" if it was a consensual encounter. Sure "I stopped" in the common usage of he word but I did not "stop" in the legal meaning of the word.

Certain words in our business mean very specific things such as "custody" when it comes to Miranda. The average Joe might not think much of the word custody but for us it triggers things, especially if we are asking certain types of questions.

series1811
05-24-2012, 08:47
You are very right about the word "stop" when it comes to LE. I don't even like to say "I stopped to talk to that guy" if it was a consensual encounter. Sure "I stopped" in the common usage of he word but I did not "stop" in the legal meaning of the word.

Certain words in our business mean very specific things such as "custody" when it comes to Miranda. The average Joe might not think much of the word custody but for us it triggers things, especially if we are asking certain types of questions.

We use the phrase "approached and interview" when we are doing a consensual interview where someone is free to leave (good example, in airport interdiction).

We only say "stop" to refer to a reasonable suspicion detention, and only say "arrest" for probable cause seizures of a person.

But, that is frequently the problem with these discussions. Citizens interpret words using the Oxford Dictionary definition, but for us, words means what the courts and laws say they mean.

And, as someone pointed out earler, I don't know how you even have a useful discussion on "stop and frisk" with someone who has not at least read Terry v. Ohio.

Mrs. Tink
05-24-2012, 15:43
Mrs Tink;

I have no issues with you whatsoever. I apologize sincerely if I offended. The only person I have difficulty with in this thread is G19G20 who shows an unlimited capacity for both being obtuse as well as twisting things around in an effort to paint the police in a bad light.

It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.

I truly appreciate your comments. I know we can all get frustrated--I know my last post was born out of frustration--especially in a forum like this where no one is face to face and there are impediments to dialogue.

I am sure I will take you up on your offer sometime. It means a lot to me. :wavey:

G19G20
05-24-2012, 22:10
Well, you don't, or didn't, realize that a frisk was a search. And you still want to characterize these things as "random". As far as I can see, your only claimed evidence for that is that sometimes nothing is found: "Nothing was found. Why? Because it was a purely random stop based on NO articulable facts other than Mr. Bilal, a black man carrying a bag, happened to be in the same area as a cop that had nothing better to do than to harrass a law abiding citizen doing his laundry."

If I've read you wrong, how about you present your evidence that this program is based on random selection? No, a media article doesn't count as evidence. Neither does a single stopee's failure to understand or relay the factors considered by the cops.

So it's my job to prove the article is accurate instead of your job as defender of the cop's actions to prove it inaccurate or incomplete? Prove the stop was justified. I have my evidence right in black and white in the article. Where's yours? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it? :rofl:


Then, let's play a math game: to begin, what is the success rate of NYPD's program? "Success" means a stop that ends in an arrest or summons--they correctly picked a criminal out of the landscape.

Who cares what the success rate is. You must subscribe to Machiavelli's motto of "end justifies the means".

If you support racial and socio-economic profiling then please just come out and say so instead of skirting around the edges.

What's sad is that the black guy with a laundry bag gets searched while the real NY criminals on Wall St steal trillions of dollars and there's not an NYPD officer in sight. How "successful" are they at picking the criminals out of the landscape then? I guess success is defined only by how many average folks can be thrown in jail while the real thieves run amok.

Btw, who cares whether a frisk is legally defined as a "search"? That's not the point here. The conduct described in the article are not Terry Stops and that was my whole point in recent posts.

seanmac45
05-25-2012, 05:05
The conduct described in the article is indeed a Terry Stop. It just wasn't explained to the detainee or the author of the article as such. We don't have to explain our actions in a Terry Stop to the detainee, the media or YOU.

Our actions in Terry Stops are reviewed at the judicial level by Judges who are much more knowledgeable about Constitutional Law than you.

Your article is "proof" of nothing.

The idea that corporate embezzlement could be revealed through a street level interaction is ludicrous and a desperate argument on your part to seek vindication.

Rest assured though, NYPD has a very capable and highly trained FINCEN unit and it does its' task just as thoroughly and with as much dedication as do the bluesuits on the street.

eracer
05-25-2012, 05:23
It was a risk, but I knew the Judge well.

I never did try that again but it sure was enjoyable to get away with it once...........It's nice to know that judges are willing to waive the rules of evidence when a LEO 'knows them.'

ithaca_deerslayer
05-25-2012, 05:24
The conduct described in the article is indeed a Terry Stop. It just wasn't explained to the detainee or the author of the article as such. We don't have to explain our actions in a Terry Stop to the detainee, the media or YOU.

Our actions in Terry Stops are reviewed at the judicial level by Judges who are much more knowledgeable about Constitutional Law than you.


The people mad at the police should redirect criticism toward judges and laws :)

Sam Spade
05-25-2012, 06:14
So it's my job to prove the article is accurate instead of your job as defender of the cop's actions to prove it inaccurate or incomplete? Prove the stop was justified. I have my evidence right in black and white in the article. Where's yours? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it? :rofl: Don't be juvenile. You make a claim, you provide evidence for it---that's the way grownups do things. Media that talk about ".9mm Glock service revolvers" are not quality sources on technical subjects.


Who cares what the success rate is. You must subscribe to Machiavelli's motto of "end justifies the means".
You should. It's 12%, by the way. So you've got to accept that 1 in 8 people are walking around criminals. That's the only way that "random" stops can produce that arrest rate. If fewer than 1 of 8 of the general population are criminal, the the cops can't be doing random stops after all.


If you support racial and socio-economic profiling...
You're playing the race card? Really? I support (a) putting concentrations of cops in high crime areas regardless of the racial makeup there---I won't deny police protection to people on account of their race or ability to pay for it; and (b), profiling the behavior of people encountered in those high crime areas.

Btw, who cares whether a frisk is legally defined as a "search"? That's not the point here. The conduct described in the article are not Terry Stops and that was my whole point in recent posts.
The Supreme Court cares. And since we're playing in their field, we ought to care.

They are Terry stops. You haven't bothered to educate yourself on what's going on, nor on the controlling ConLaw on the subject. You're just frothing. Why do you hate the Constitution?

seanmac45
05-25-2012, 09:45
It's nice to know that judges are willing to waive the rules of evidence when a LEO 'knows them.'


I call it a Judge who knew a case based upon probable cause when he saw one.

That was the end of the hearing.

Sorry if it disappoints you.

G19G20
05-25-2012, 09:51
Don't be juvenile. You make a claim, you provide evidence for it---that's the way grownups do things. Media that talk about ".9mm Glock service revolvers" are not quality sources on technical subjects.

Im arguing the claim by CAcop that the conduct in the article is a Terry stop. Not sure what you're arguing. The contents of the article do not meet the definition of a Terry stop. It's your job to explain how it does.


You should. It's 12%, by the way. So you've got to accept that 1 in 8 people are walking around criminals. That's the only way that "random" stops can produce that arrest rate. If fewer than 1 of 8 of the general population are criminal, the the cops can't be doing random stops after all.

The Dont Talk To Police video explains why this thinking is erroneous. There's so many laws on the books (local, state, federal, international, and all the admin regulations) that even the watchdogs have completely lost count. At any given time, practically everyone is a "criminal" either at that moment or some point in the past. Btw, 12% is pathetic. So 7 in 8 people stopped under this program aren't breaking any laws? And you're PROUD of that figure? In a "free" country like the USA... :upeyes:
And you're still claiming it meets the definition of a Terry stop. Odd. I'd expect a much higher success rate if cops are able to articulate FACTS that led to the stop.


You're playing the race card? Really? I support (a) putting concentrations of cops in high crime areas regardless of the racial makeup there---I won't deny police protection to people on account of their race or ability to pay for it; and (b), profiling the behavior of people encountered in those high crime areas.

Still wondering how many of these stops take place on Wall St at lunch hour, instead of predominantly minority areas in Queens and Brooklyn. I dare any of you NYPD on this forum to set up this crap outside 85 Broad St.


The Supreme Court cares. And since we're playing in their field, we ought to care.

They are Terry stops. You haven't bothered to educate yourself on what's going on, nor on the controlling ConLaw on the subject. You're just frothing. Why do you hate the Constitution?

OK so you tell us how a 12% success rate falls under the articulable facts of criminal conduct definition of a Terry stop.

eracer
05-25-2012, 10:11
I call it a Judge who knew a case based upon probable cause when he saw one.

That was the end of the hearing.

Sorry if it disappoints you.I know you're not, but thanks for being polite.

Woofie
05-25-2012, 13:09
Mrs Tink;

I have no issues with you whatsoever. I apologize sincerely if I offended. The only person I have difficulty with in this thread is G19G20 who shows an unlimited capacity for both being obtuse as well as twisting things around in an effort to paint the police in a bad light.

It would be my pleasure to answer any questions you have to the best of my ability.

http://youtu.be/j2zlPNGuPbw

Sam Spade
05-25-2012, 15:08
Btw, 12% is pathetic. So 7 in 8 people stopped under this program aren't breaking any laws?
12% is superb. First of all, it's significantly higher than the percentage of criminals in the general population. That all by itself disproves the silly claim that these stops are random. And I'd suggest that it's right in line with the expectation of what a reasonable suspicion is. Individual stops will have to be decided on their individual merits, but the program overall is simply not grabbing poor minorities at random.

Understand that no percentage likelihood has ever been assigned to either probable cause or reasonable suspicion. We *do* know, however that a preponderance of the evidence is 51%. Probable cause, by definition, is a standard lower than preponderance. I've heard it argued that PC is half of that standard. Reasonable suspicion is even lower than PC. By the logic employed, 12% would be right in the ballpark.

And you're still claiming it meets the definition of a Terry stop. Odd. I'd expect a much higher success rate if cops are able to articulate FACTS that led to the stop.
I'd submit that's because you have no working knowledge of either the court requirements or the practicalities. Let's remember that RS is by definition a pattern of wholly legal behavior to begin with. After all, if the cops were witnessing and articulating illegal acts, it'd be a straight arrest with no need for an investigatory stop. Even Terry himself would have been let go if he hadn't yet picked up the gun for his robbery. When every guy who actually does this stuff and defends it in court is telling you something, including the guy from that jurisdiction, maybe you ought to pay a bit more attention. If one guy of every eight that you contact deserves to go see a judge, you're doing somerging right.


OK so you tell us how a 12% success rate falls under the articulable facts of criminal conduct definition of a Terry stop.

Just did. If something is unclear, ask. You've shown that you're in no position to lecture.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-25-2012, 20:50
These quotes are from audio recordings of NYPD, in specific reference to this program:


Deputy Inspector Mauriello, October 31, 2008 (Halloween night): "And they got any bandanas around their necks, Freddy Krueger masks, I want them stopped, cuffed, alright, brought in here, run for warrants.”

Sergeant Stukes, November 23, 2008: "If they're on a corner, make 'em move. They don't wanna move, lock 'em up. You can always articulate [a charge] later."

Sergeant Stukes, December 8, 2008: "You're gonna be 120 Chauncey [St.]. You're gonna be [in a?], uh, vehicle out there. Shake everybody up. Anybody moving, anybody coming out of that building - [UF] 250"; "You're gonna be Howard and Chauncey 1900, post one. Same thing. Two, three [inaudible]. Everybody walking around. Stop em. 250-em"; "Anybody walking around, shake 'em up, stop 'em, 250-em, doesn't matter what it takes."





And these statistics:

Guns were seized in 0.15 percent of all stops. This is despite the fact
that "suspicious bulge" was cited as a reason for 10.4 percent of all stops.84 Thus, for every sixty-nine stops that police officers justified specifically on the basis of a suspicious bulge, they found one gun.


Over the fourteen months beginning in January 1998, "NYPD officers documented 174,919 street 'stops' on UF-250 forms."57 That is equivalent to just under 12,500 stops per month or 150,000 stops per year. In 2004, officers documented over 313,000 stops, and since then the number has increased every year except 2007, rising to over 684,000 in 2011.


...approximately seventeen percent of summonses from 2004 and 2009 were thrown out by the New York courts as being facially (i.e., legally) insufficient and more than fifty percent of all summons were dismissed before trial.


Source: www.documentcloud.org/documents/356750-5-16-12-floyd-class-cert-opinion-and-order.html (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/356750-5-16-12-floyd-class-cert-opinion-and-order.html)

G19G20
05-26-2012, 01:30
12% is superb. First of all, it's significantly higher than the percentage of criminals in the general population.

You lost me right here because your last post said that 1 in 8 people is a criminal. Now it's a lot less than that? And you're talking about superb? I won't even bother with the rest of your post because your premise contradicts yourself and makes everything else you say suspect and I won't run around chasing down your contradictions all day.


eta

You should. It's 12%, by the way. So you've got to accept that 1 in 8 people are walking around criminals.

steveksux
05-26-2012, 06:57
I believe it is lame to speak with firmness on things you don't know about. On the other hand, being firm to speak with lameness on things they don't know about is fun to watch! :supergrin: Winning!

Randy

Sam Spade
05-26-2012, 07:02
You lost me right here because your last post said that 1 in 8 people is a criminal. Now it's a lot less than that? And you're talking about superb? I won't even bother with the rest of your post because your premise contradicts yourself and makes everything else you say suspect and I won't run around chasing down your contradictions all day.


eta

No--for the results seen to be generated from pure random stops, *you* have to believe that 1 of every 8 people around you is an active criminal.

Clearly that isn't so. So for NYPD to be generating 12% arrests with a tactic, they have to be recognizing criminal behavior in those they cut out of the herd. That's the very essence of a constitutional investigatory stop.

You wanted proof that the stops weren't random, it's right there in the math. Again, the judgement about an individual stop rides on the specific facts around it.

steveksux
05-26-2012, 07:16
Terry stops are NOT random. Stop Question and Frisk forms are the way that NYPD documents them.....

Time of day, type of location, the subjects attire, his behavior, his reactions to inquiries ALL go into the equation and it all has to be taken in, processed and acted upon by the officer in an appropriate manner, or else anything obtained will be lost as evidence in the court process.

First of all, everyone should note the bolded part. If the stops are not justifiable, i.e. strictly random, any evidence found is inadmissible , and the case against the person stopped is shot. There's your protections, there's the motivation for the cops to make sure its done right, or it's all a waste of their time.

Second, lets walk this back a bit. The person was "peppered with questions, asked for id and the officer rummaged through his bag..."

Am I missing something? Is there anything in the article that suggests this actually WAS a Terry stop? Because I'm wondering if one of the questions he was peppered with was "Do you mind if I search your bag? You have nothing to hide, right?" and the guy wasn't aware he could simply refuse a consensual search?

Maybe people should actually pay attention in civics class and have a basic understanding of their rights so they know when they've been actually violated? Just a thought.

Randy

steveksux
05-26-2012, 07:26
You lost me right here because your last post said that 1 in 8 people is a criminal. Now it's a lot less than that? And you're talking about superb? I won't even bother with the rest of your post because your premise contradicts yourself and makes everything else you say suspect and I won't run around chasing down your contradictions all day.


etaYes, that much you are correct about. You are in fact, lost. Recognizing when you are in fact ignorant, that right there is the first step in correcting ignorance.

What he is saying, if YOUR contention that its a random stop were true, and 1 in 8 people stopped are criminals, that would mean that 1 in 8 people are criminals. The actual % of criminals is much less than 1 in 8, thus the stops are far from random. Thus they do a much better job of picking criminals out of the general population to check out than they would would be doing if it was in fact based on stopping random people on the street.

Randy

G19G20
05-26-2012, 14:32
I didn't say profiling isn't somewhat more "effective" than completely random stops. I said 12% is still a pathetic figure since it means that 7 in 8 people stopped aren't doing anything illegal AT ALL. Keep on harrassing 7 of 8 people that aren't breaking any laws because they "fit the description". Then go wonder some more why people dislike cops. Done with thread.

Sam Spade
05-26-2012, 17:39
Actually, you said--repeatedly--that these stops were random and used an incomplete example where nothing was found as evidence of that. You presented no evidence of your own and no refutation of that given you. You said that these weren't Terry stops and had "nothing at all" in common with a proper Terry stop. You flaunted your ignorance repeatedly, played the race card, and have had your butt handed to you by the guys who do this on the street and defend this in court.

It's not that you don't know what's going on; that's common and totally acceptable. It's that you embrace the public school self-esteem script of thinking that you opinion from ignorance is as valuable as educated opinions, and you refuse to do anything to cure your ignorance. To top it off, you act like a Democrat and try to move the goalposts and redefine your already stated position when fact runs against you.

By all means, be done with the thread and let the grownups talk. There *are* issues in play here, but you're a distraction from them.

Goaltender66
05-26-2012, 18:54
Actually, you said--repeatedly--that these stops were random and used an incomplete example where nothing was found as evidence of that. You presented no evidence of your own and no refutation of that given you. You said that these weren't Terry stops and had "nothing at all" in common with a proper Terry stop. You flaunted your ignorance repeatedly, played the race card, and have had your butt handed to you by the guys who do this on the street and defend this in court.

It's not that you don't know what's going on; that's common and totally acceptable. It's that you embrace the public school self-esteem script of thinking that you opinion from ignorance is as valuable as educated opinions, and you refuse to do anything to cure your ignorance. To top it off, you act like a Democrat and try to move the goalposts and redefine your already stated position when fact runs against you.

By all means, be done with the thread and let the grownups talk. There *are* issues in play here, but you're a distraction from them.

It's a pleasure watching you operate, sir.

QNman
05-26-2012, 21:32
Withdrawn.

G19G20
05-27-2012, 04:59
I thought my point was made clear. These stops are profiling and aren't Terry stops. Tired of saying it.

Sometimes profiling works, but at what cost? Pissing off those that aren't doing anything wrong and irritating constitutional scholars. And bringing backlash against police. Then police want to tighten down more. Vicious cycle. Is there a solution where more freedom is better than less freedom? Think about it.

The OP article says a black man was stopped and searched for walking around with a bag. Nothing was found. He's not a fan of cops now and if 1 in 10 searches lead to someone with a gram of weed and an arrest, is it really worth it? Good chance that arrest would be thrown out anyway according to NCLiberty's earlier post.

seanmac45
05-27-2012, 08:46
I thought my point was made clear. These stops are profiling and aren't Terry stops. Tired of saying it.


Repeatedly making incorrect statements does not make them correct.

TBO
05-27-2012, 09:46
He stood before the well of knowledge, turned his back, and stomped his feet.

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

TBO
06-02-2012, 07:38
Group Outside Closed Store Draws Cop's Attention, Leads To Gun Arrest

Officer sees man without backpack wearing one after joining others.


http://norwalk.patch.com/articles/group-outside-closed-store-draws-cops-attenton-leads-to-gun-arrest

seanmac45
06-02-2012, 07:47
Nice heads up collar, and a text book definition of a Terry Stop.


Let the foot stamping begin.

Sam Spade
06-02-2012, 09:11
Nothing illegal about hanging with friends in front of a closed store. Nothing illegal about finding and wearing a backpack. Surely people are free to walk away and not talk to the police.

Must have been an unconstitutional random stop by some cop who was profiling poor minorities.

Those that won't get it, don't get it.

TBO
06-02-2012, 09:42
Turns out he's a sex offender who was recently released from prison where he served time for a gang rape.

http://www.thehour.com/news/norwalk/police-arrest-city-man-found-with-loaded-gun/article_0ad7947b-7a6b-58c5-9d95-d90e2edde17d.html

Sam Spade
06-02-2012, 10:02
Turns out he's a sex offender who was recently released from prison where he served time for a gang rape.

http://www.thehour.com/news/norwalk/police-arrest-city-man-found-with-loaded-gun/article_0ad7947b-7a6b-58c5-9d95-d90e2edde17d.html

18, a convicted rapist and already out of prison?

Now there's a political issue to discuss...

lancesorbenson
06-02-2012, 10:25
Will these stop and frisks soon apply to anyone trying to hide a Big Gulp? Will Bloomberg start suing neighboring states for selling foods with trans-fats to New Yorkers? I don't know why anyone would live there, but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of ANY policy endorsed by nanny stater Bloomberg.

As far as stop and frisks, while they may not be random (at least technically) the standard of reasonable suspicion may need some reworking. If an officer has articulable facts and reasonable inferences to make a stop, but is wrong 85% of the time, I'd argue that's not an effective standard. I'm speaking as a practical and philosophical matter, not as a letter of the law matter.

CAcop
06-02-2012, 10:58
Will these stop and frisks soon apply to anyone trying to hide a Big Gulp? Will Bloomberg start suing neighboring states for selling foods with trans-fats to New Yorkers? I don't know why anyone would live there, but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of ANY policy endorsed by nanny stater Bloomberg.

As far as stop and frisks, while they may not be random (at least technically) the standard of reasonable suspicion may need some reworking. If an officer has articulable facts and reasonable inferences to make a stop, but is wrong 85% of the time, I'd argue that's not an effective standard. I'm speaking as a practical and philosophical matter, not as a letter of the law matter.

Ask judge to come up with a new standard. They are the ones who make them via interpretations of existing law.

seanmac45
06-02-2012, 12:45
Lancesorbenson;

Yes, please do by all means write of your concerns to the Supreme Court.


We anxiously await their reply.

Jud325
06-02-2012, 12:59
Lancesorbenson;

Yes, please do by all means write of your concerns to the Supreme Court.


We anxiously await their reply.

This has a good chance of putting a crimp in NYC's stop and frisk program.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/356750-5-16-12-floyd-class-cert-opinion-and-order.html

lancesorbenson
06-02-2012, 13:19
Lancesorbenson;

Yes, please do by all means write of your concerns to the Supreme Court.


We anxiously await their reply.

I can see you and CACop didn't read that I wasn't talking about the letter of the law. Let me explain. NY can come up with their own policy, stricter than the minimum required by law. If initiating stop and frisks under the reasonable suspicion standard is yielding a 12% success rate, maybe they should change their standard. That would not require me contacting the Supreme Court and would technically still be legal, although in my opinion still wrong. My natural default is to by suspicious of any policy endorsed by your gun-hating, nanny state mayor.

seanmac45
06-02-2012, 13:31
The Mayor of the City of New York has absolutely NOTHING to do with NYPD Stop Question and Frisk procedures.

They have been in place without change since at LEAST 1982 when I first learned them in the Police Academy.

So your hatred of Bloomberg has no bearing on the topic at hand. These procedures were written to ensure full compliance with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Whether you agree with the arrest rate or not is moot. There are a variety of reasons why stops are legally conducted that do not result in arrests, and they are all quite proper within the boundaries of current statute.

Therefore, again, I suggest you take it up with them.

DonGlock26
06-02-2012, 14:40
Group Outside Closed Store Draws Cop's Attention, Leads To Gun Arrest

Officer sees man without backpack wearing one after joining others.


http://norwalk.patch.com/articles/group-outside-closed-store-draws-cops-attenton-leads-to-gun-arrest

"Is that your back pack on your back?

"Ahhhhhhhh..........."


-

seanmac45
06-02-2012, 14:59
"You're under arrest"

"Fo Wha?"

"For the thirty jumbos of crack in your pants pocket"

"Shheeeeiiiiiittt offica you can't arrest me for those"

"Why not"

"These ain't my pants. That there crack belongs to the guy what owns these pants"

lancesorbenson
06-02-2012, 15:25
The Mayor of the City of New York has absolutely NOTHING to do with NYPD Stop Question and Frisk procedures.

They have been in place without change since at LEAST 1982 when I first learned them in the Police Academy.

So your hatred of Bloomberg has no bearing on the topic at hand. These procedures were written to ensure full compliance with the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Whether you agree with the arrest rate or not is moot. There are a variety of reasons why stops are legally conducted that do not result in arrests, and they are all quite proper within the boundaries of current statute.

Therefore, again, I suggest you take it up with them.

Does Bloomberg ringingly endorse stop and frisks or not? I would say he does. Does Bloomberg, as the chief executive of NYC, have the power to make changes to police procedure? Probably. Is Bloomberg a big government, gun-hating, nanny-stater? Absolutely. So I would say Bloomberg fits into the discussion pretty obviously.

I can see you are either not grasping or are being purposefully obtuse regarding my position that the legality is not the issue. Meeting the minimum standard under the SC's interpretation has yielded a 12% success rate. For every 1 stop and frisk that nets a criminal violation, 7 citizens are molested by the state under a standard that clearly should be rethought. If you think that's acceptable then you and I have vastly different understanding of what it means to be a free country.

Sam Spade
06-02-2012, 15:27
Or maybe he has a better grasp of "reasonable suspicion" than you do.

CAcop
06-02-2012, 16:44
I can see you and CACop didn't read that I wasn't talking about the letter of the law. Let me explain. NY can come up with their own policy, stricter than the minimum required by law. If initiating stop and frisks under the reasonable suspicion standard is yielding a 12% success rate, maybe they should change their standard. That would not require me contacting the Supreme Court and would technically still be legal, although in my opinion still wrong. My natural default is to by suspicious of any policy endorsed by your gun-hating, nanny state mayor.

NYC could tighten the rules but then they would loose those arrests due to officers not being able to conduct Terry stops.

Don't like Terry stops? Find a place that doesn't do them.

Good luck with that. Even SF does them. Berkeley might not.

CAcop
06-02-2012, 16:46
This has a good chance of putting a crimp in NYC's stop and frisk program.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/356750-5-16-12-floyd-class-cert-opinion-and-order.html

Not likely.

What evidence are the plaintiffs going to bring into court?

What evidence will NYC rebut with?

What case law will the judge base his decision on?

BORNGEARHEAD
06-02-2012, 18:17
Guilty until proven innocent. Land of the free.

TBO
06-02-2012, 19:17
Land of the ignorant, home of the biased.

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2

G19G20
07-04-2012, 13:35
Appears the NY State appeals court is starting to reverse convictions based on this Stop and Frisk racial profiling.

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-appeals-court-vacates-another-stop-frisk-conviction-215018205.html


In a 3-2 decision released on Tuesday, the court ruled that officers had no justification for searching the 14-year-old boy's backpack where they found a loaded handgun.
................
The two rulings are the latest legal developments in the ongoing battle over the stop-and-frisk strategy in which officers in high-crime neighborhood stop people they consider suspicious.

Police officials have defended the tactic, saying it has helped reduce crime. Critics say the policy disproportionately targets minorities, particularly young black men.

The department conducted more than 685,000 stops last year, and more than 85 percent were either black or Hispanic individuals, according to a recent Reuters analysis.

series1811
07-05-2012, 13:48
Appears the NY State appeals court is starting to reverse convictions based on this Stop and Frisk racial profiling.

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-appeals-court-vacates-another-stop-frisk-conviction-215018205.html

Yeah, that's never happened before. :whistling: (sarcasm).

G19G20
10-11-2012, 02:57
Claims to be one of the only recordings of a stop and frisk, along with commentary.

The Hunted and the Hated: An Inside Look at the NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk Policy - YouTube#!

Bren
10-11-2012, 05:05
To be fair, what they're doing doesn't seem to fully fit the bill.

For a Terry stop you need to:

Identify some activity that is out of the ordinary is occuring/has occured

The suspect is connected with said suspicious activity

And that the suspicious activity is related to a crime.


You mean like where it says:

“I understand how people may feel the way they do about Stop and Frisk, but what’s always left out of the equation is that we target those that fit a description,” Mullins said. “Our role of stopping someone is based on an incident report from someone in that particular neighborhood.”

That seems to fit with these being Terry stops.

They complain that the majority of people being stopped are black or Hispanic. I'd say, take a look at the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and you'll see why - any law enforcement in New York will have the same "racist" result.

Bren
10-11-2012, 05:09
I didn't say profiling isn't somewhat more "effective" than completely random stops. I said 12% is still a pathetic figure since it means that 7 in 8 people stopped aren't doing anything illegal AT ALL.

Even you have to realize it doesn't mean that at all. It means 7 out of 8 people stopped don't have evidence on them that warrants an arrest at that time - that doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime or aren't in the process.

Think about Mr. Terry in Terry v. Ohio - a whole group of guys were stopped because the police had reasonable suspicion that they were casing a store for a robbery. The majority of them were let go because there was no evidence on them - terry just got arrested because he had a concealed weapon. They were criminals in the process of committing a serious crime, that doesn't mean the Terry stop should result in arrest. It did, however, deter the crime - those evil, unjustified police actually prevented an armed robbery without arresting the robbers, by doing a Terry stop.

G19G20
10-11-2012, 18:13
Even you have to realize it doesn't mean that at all. It means 7 out of 8 people stopped don't have evidence on them that warrants an arrest at that time - that doesn't mean they haven't committed a crime or aren't in the process.

Think about Mr. Terry in Terry v. Ohio - a whole group of guys were stopped because the police had reasonable suspicion that they were casing a store for a robbery. The majority of them were let go because there was no evidence on them - terry just got arrested because he had a concealed weapon. They were criminals in the process of committing a serious crime, that doesn't mean the Terry stop should result in arrest. It did, however, deter the crime - those evil, unjustified police actually prevented an armed robbery without arresting the robbers, by doing a Terry stop.

That's the entire point. (Btw, "the whole group of guys" was a total of 3.)

The whole argument on these stop and frisks in this thread is that stop and frisks generally are NOT lawful Terry Stops, unlike the original Terry case where a particular behavior was observed that led a cop to reasonably believe a crime was in commission or about to be committed and was likely correct. Terry stops are legal when particular facts can be alleged that point to possible criminal activity. Terry stops require a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and the original case fulfilled that. Stop and frisks going on in NYC, at the rate of 1800 PER DAY, are not Terry stops. This is why the success rate is so poor. Did you see that video I posted a few posts above? What they're engaging in is profiling and harrassment. I don't doubt that a stop and frisk may occasionally deter a crime. The question is whether it is constitutional to stop people that are doing nothing articulable other than "wrong place at the wrong time". Surely you're not suggesting that the 7 of 8 were about to commit a crime and just got lucky.

Bren
10-11-2012, 19:18
That's the entire point. (Btw, "the whole group of guys" was a total of 3.)

The whole argument on these stop and frisks in this thread is that stop and frisks generally are NOT lawful Terry Stops, unlike the original Terry case where a particular behavior was observed that led a cop to reasonably believe a crime was in commission or about to be committed and was likely correct. Terry stops are legal when particular facts can be alleged that point to possible criminal activity. Terry stops require a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and the original case fulfilled that. Stop and frisks going on in NYC, at the rate of 1800 PER DAY, are not Terry stops. This is why the success rate is so poor. Did you see that video I posted a few posts above? What they're engaging in is profiling and harrassment. I don't doubt that a stop and frisk may occasionally deter a crime. The question is whether it is constitutional to stop people that are doing nothing articulable other than "wrong place at the wrong time". Surely you're not suggesting that the 7 of 8 were about to commit a crime and just got lucky.

The article, biased as it is, does give some indication that they are Terry stops. They try to imply that they are random stops, but the evidence and reading up a little from other sources says otherwise. New York's position is that these stops are based on reasonable suspicion. I see no evidence to the contrary and you state none.

1,800 a day? How many people are in New York? about 40.000 cops without including the overlapping jurisdictions. Does that come out to about 1 on-duty cop in 20 makes 1 Terry stop per day? Maybe less than that? Indianapolis may have a higher rate of Terry stops - so they use raw numbers to make it seem like a lot.

G19G20
10-12-2012, 02:06
The article, biased as it is, does give some indication that they are Terry stops. They try to imply that they are random stops, but the evidence and reading up a little from other sources says otherwise. New York's position is that these stops are based on reasonable suspicion. I see no evidence to the contrary and you state none.

Cops lie. Surely you know this. Again I ask if you watched the video I posted above? That young man is the typical Stop and Frisk in NYC. I obviously can't argue the evidence of each case and that's foolish since even a blind squirrel gets lucky sometimes (1 in 8 probably!). The 1 in 8 stat tells the story, considering how many times a day this occurs. That's the evidence that it's a bad policy. Again I ask if 7 in 8 are just lucky?


1,800 a day? How many people are in New York? about 40.000 cops without including the overlapping jurisdictions. Does that come out to about 1 on-duty cop in 20 makes 1 Terry stop per day? Maybe less than that? Indianapolis may have a higher rate of Terry stops - so they use raw numbers to make it seem like a lot.

If I lived in Indianapolis I'd be making a stink at the city council.

I don't care how big NYC is. This is supposed to be a free country with a Bill of Rights designed to prevent harassment from "the man" and no one should have to worry about being stopped for being a "****in mutt".

barbedwiresmile
10-12-2012, 06:24
This is supposed to be a free country with a Bill of Rights....

Are you serious?

Bren
10-12-2012, 07:48
If I lived in Indianapolis I'd be making a stink at the city council.


I'm sure you'd be making a stink no matter where you lived. The video you posted? Ridiculous.

I don't care how big NYC is. This is supposed to be a free country with a Bill of Rights designed to prevent harassment from "the man" and no one should have to worry about being stopped for being a "****in mutt".

You have to be pretending - otherwise you wouldn't be able to figure out how to get on the internet and type things in English.:upeyes: You can't seriously think that audio recording supports you or proves something.

greenman19
10-12-2012, 08:00
Cops lie. Surely you know this.

If this is your starting premise then you will never be satisfied with any reasonable answer. I mean, where can we go from here?

AtlantaR6
10-12-2012, 08:29
Each Stop and Frisk conducted is examined by the Patrol Supervisor, the Desk Officer, the CO or XO, the DA's involved with the case, as well as a unit at 1 PP whose sole function is to review Stop and Frisk reports with an eye towards uncovering procedural errors and outright abuse.

So you write a formal report every time you do one, and all those people (Including the DA) review each of them, even if you find nothing and let the person go?

No offense, but I find that very hard to believe. A more believable scenario is you stop and search whoever you want, and only report the ones you charge.

Sam Spade
10-12-2012, 08:37
Claims to be one of the only recordings of a stop and frisk, along with commentary.



Oh look! It's up again.

Proverbs 26:11 seems to be on point.