[seanmac45]

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]

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]

Why do the dissenters never cite court rulings?

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

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.

Originally Posted by TBO

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by G19G20

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]

You brought it up buddy.

[seanmac45]

Originally Posted by G19G20

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]

God bless America!

Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

[seanmac45]

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]

That video isn't for you. You already know that people shouldn't talk to police.

[TBO]

Originally Posted by G19G20

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]

Isn't the arrogance of the ignorant amazing?

[G19G20]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

As long as those stopped don't get questioned about their immigration status.

[Woofie]

Originally Posted by LoadToadBoss

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]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

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]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

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]

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]

"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...#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