Jump to content
AR15Armory.com

Stop and Frisk


muzlblast
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Every cop knows who their troubled people are, and I'm sure that the NYPD wasn't bothering granny. But, those thugs enjoy the same rights as granny, and while my prior knowledge about their criminal activities can enter into reasonable suspicion, my RS to stop them cannot be based upon that alone. Now, it's not hard to make it to RS, and with that, it's not hard for us to justify a legal pat down for weapons. But randomly stopping someone because they look like a thug, or a dirtbag with warrants? Not legal, not reasonable.

Pep, this is where I think things have gotten distorted by the media. It is my understanding that cops where not just picking people at random and simply searhing them. They were making contacts, talking to the people, and with RS were doing pat downs. People also need to be aware of the Court rulings that are very open to police doing patdowns when they can articulate saafety issues. I think it was Red who said the cops know who their local players are. If I make contact with a known gang banger that I have knowledge that he has been known to carry a weapon, it is a no brainer to be able to legally do a pat down for my (and his) safety.

 

That's why this NY debacle makes no sense to me. With most of the people the cops are making contact with, it would be a piece of cake to develop RS for a patdown. I don't understand why the NYPD just did not invest in better training to help their cops develop RS that would hols up in Court.

 

People also needs to know that the Courts evaluate the validity of these pat downs through the eyes of an experienced and trained police officer, not of the average reasonable person. It was quite a victory that the Court recognized a special skill set possessed by cops who are going to pick up on a lot of behaviors and "tells" that the average person is not usually going to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From the judges decision "Scheindlin wrote that the city “acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD's practice of making "unconstitutional" stops" The only part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that deals with searches is the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

It was thrown out because it was an unreasonable search because it was based on racial profiling and not probable cause which violated the Fourth Amendment. How can a reasonable search under the law be based on racial profiling?

 

​Either you are all in and support the Constitution to the letter and spirit of it or you are all out there with the progressive mobs and political hacks undermining it. That is the plain truth of it. if you make the argument the Fourth Amendment can be violated for good reasons then you can't honestly turn around and argue that the Second Amendment can't be violated for good reasons.

 

 

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-city-police-department-commissioner-ray-kelly-blasts-stop-and-frisk-ruling-violent-crime-spike-proposed-reforms-article-1.1430144#ixzz2cZrj2tjS

I am 100% behind the constitution but I also have to live within the boundaries of the current laws and opinions of SCOTUS. If the officer restricts you movement then he is in fact seizing you at the time with out a warrent is he not? And yet time and time again we have seen rulings that allow for police to arrest people in the process of committing a crime or after the officer witnesses the crime being committed without a warrent. We also have SCOTUS rulings that a frisk is not considered a search. They still need to have 2 things to do it though, reason to believe that the person has or is committing a crime and reason to believe that the offender is armed and/or dangerous. Am I wrong in these assessments? Has SCOTUS actually upheld the Constitution and said that an arrest can not be made without a warrent? Has SCOTUS not said that under an officers probable cause a search can be done without a warrent? Please tell me if I am wrong because every department in the US is doing this on a daily if not hourly basis. I am not talking about the Constitution I am talking about SCOTUS opinions which by their very own opinion carries the weight of law.

 

Now assuming those 2 theories are correct, then every stop where the officer was able to document the breaking of a law was Constitutional according to SCOTUS opinions. That was all but 1200 out of 4.4 million. Now in half of those stops a frisk was preformed. Lets say 2.2 million to keep the numbers round. In those cases the officers were able to document the reason for the frisk. Under SCOTUS opinion still within the boundaries of the Constitution.

 

The searches were found unconstitutional based on racial targeting not on the process or procedure of how they were being conducted but who they were being conducted against. The searches were being targeted in areas where there is a large population of minorities. Those areas are also where the highest crime rates are. If the judges opinion were that the searches were unconstitutional based on lack of reason to stop or search the people I would be 100% in agreement but she found that it was unconstitutional based on targeting areas with high crime rates and those areas happen to be occupied by high rates of minorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand that it is not about race but about the demographic make up of the area they were in and it being a high crime area. According to NYPDs own reports the amount of contriband and wepons found were a higher percentage on whites than blacks or hispanics. This is what got the policy thrown out.

 

Now I could be wrong and I am sure that the LEOs here will correct me if I am but if a crime has been committed lets just say jay walking for the sake of argument, the officer can stop you, detain, you or what ever you want to call it. At that point he can do a frisk to look for weapons if he belives you may be armed and/or dangerous. I think that was upheld in a SCOTUS case somewhere. Now lets put that into the context of location. Harlem or one of the other boroughs of NYC that has a high crime rate and a high rate of gang participation. I dont think that any resonable person would say at that point the appearence of a person especially how they are dressed can do a lot towards raising suspesion. If you are looking like the head of the latin kings I dont think any reasonable person would fault the officer for a quick frisk for his own safety.

 

Now we all have our own opinions as to what 4A means to us. Personally I think without a warrent as it is spelled out in 4A that no search or siezure is Consitutional but SCOTUS does not agree and until those decisions are overturned or a new ammendment is made, it seems to be the law of the land so we have to role with that. Now in the 12,000 reports of out some 4.4 million stops over 8 years where the officers failt to note on the reports why the person was stopped there is a huge issue and I think we are all on the same page on that one. But on the remaining what ever percent, the officers were at least able to site cause for the stop. Half of those where the officers actually did a frisk, the officers were able to site cause for the frisk. Now add in all of the absolutly stupid law a city like NY can come up with, an officer has litterly a smorgasboard of violations that he can pretty much stop anybody he wants to. Compound that with the dress of a thug that seems to be very popular in inner city neighborhoods and what do you have?

Red, you just made my point. If the cops were frisking only HALF the people they stopped, they MUST be going through some sort of an interview process to see if the can develop the RS to do a frisk. If the law/policy allowed them to frik everyone withput RS, why were a greater % of people not getting frisked?

 

Something is not right about this issue, and I believe the NYPD will continue to be proactive, especially in high crime neighborhoods, and do a high volume of Terry Stops, and develop the RS to pat down, which, from what I read, is what they were doing in the first palce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am 100% behind the constitution but I also have to live within the boundaries of the current laws and opinions of SCOTUS. If the officer restricts you movement then he is in fact seizing you at the time with out a warrent is he not? And yet time and time again we have seen rulings that allow for police to arrest people in the process of committing a crime or after the officer witnesses the crime being committed without a warrent. We also have SCOTUS rulings that a frisk is not considered a search. They still need to have 2 things to do it though, reason to believe that the person has or is committing a crime and reason to believe that the offender is armed and/or dangerous. Am I wrong in these assessments? Has SCOTUS actually upheld the Constitution and said that an arrest can not be made without a warrent? Has SCOTUS not said that under an officers probable cause a search can be done without a warrent? Please tell me if I am wrong because every department in the US is doing this on a daily if not hourly basis. I am not talking about the Constitution I am talking about SCOTUS opinions which by their very own opinion carries the weight of law.

 

Now assuming those 2 theories are correct, then every stop where the officer was able to document the breaking of a law was Constitutional according to SCOTUS opinions. That was all but 1200 out of 4.4 million. Now in half of those stops a frisk was preformed. Lets say 2.2 million to keep the numbers round. In those cases the officers were able to document the reason for the frisk. Under SCOTUS opinion still within the boundaries of the Constitution.

 

The searches were found unconstitutional based on racial targeting not on the process or procedure of how they were being conducted but who they were being conducted against. The searches were being targeted in areas where there is a large population of minorities. Those areas are also where the highest crime rates are. If the judges opinion were that the searches were unconstitutional based on lack of reason to stop or search the people I would be 100% in agreement but she found that it was unconstitutional based on targeting areas with high crime rates and those areas happen to be occupied by high rates of minorities.

If there is 1 unconstitutional search under a policy then you have failed to train your officers properly and put that policy in jeopardy. Does the Fourth Amendment say that if the majority of the searches are good then its constitutional. It does not.

 

This is not rocket science. The Terry case gives the standard for making a reasonable search. If officers are not following those standards then the policy is going to be ruled unconstitutional.

 

 

Having a thuggish appearance is a "subjective" decision and in no way meets the Terry Standards.

Edited by gshayd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is 1 unconstitutional search under a policy it is unconstitutional. Does the Fourth Amendment say that if the majority of the searches are good then its constitutional. It does not.

 

Really, that is a hell of a streach. So if one officer writes a bad ticket the entire police force must be incompentent. If one officer is selling drugs on the side then the entire force must be criminals? Do you think the policy was published saying "we will excpet up to 8% of stops in error"?

 

The policy was not to stop people in violation of their Constitutional rights. Hell if that were the policy then why didn't they just set up check points? Why would they just walk up and say "this is a random weapon search, up against the wall" it works for DUI check points?

 

I have a pretty high expectation of LEOs but I do not expect them to be perfect, I do expect them to be human. You can ask any of the old time LEOs on there I have not always agreed with them on everything and even had a label as being "anti" LEO for a while. Hell I may still have it as far as I know.

 

Is this policy really any different than any other departments policy in the US as far as proceedure. You see a crime you investigate it, if you have reason to belive that a greater crime is being committed then investigate it deeper? The judge just saw this as a racial issue. They were picking on the minorities. Well the minorities just happen to be living in the high crime areas. When you have a higher density of a demographic then odds are the greater amount of crimes are being committed by that demographic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is 1 unconstitutional search under a policy then you have failed to train your officers properly and put that policy in jeopardy. Does the Fourth Amendment say that if the majority of the searches are good then its constitutional. It does not.

 

This is not rocket science. The Terry case gives the standard for making a reasonable search. If officers are not following those standards then the policy is going to be ruled unconstitutional.

 

 

Having a thuggish appearance is a "subjective" decision and in no way meets the Terry Standards.

 

A buldge in a jacket is subjective too. I guess having a gang tattoo is subjective. I guess a cop pulling over a biker for speeding and he is wearing Hells Angles colors would be subjective too.

 

In the end the searches were not in question but the amount of stops and searches that were done on minorities at a higher rate than whites is what was found to be unconstitutional. The judge did not say "you don't have a reason to stop and search all of these people" she said "you did not have a reason to concentrate these searches on minorities".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am 100% behind the constitution but I also have to live within the boundaries of the current laws and opinions of SCOTUS. If the officer restricts you movement then he is in fact seizing you at the time with out a warrent is he not? And yet time and time again we have seen rulings that allow for police to arrest people in the process of committing a crime or after the officer witnesses the crime being committed without a warrent. We also have SCOTUS rulings that a frisk is not considered a search. They still need to have 2 things to do it though, reason to believe that the person has or is committing a crime and reason to believe that the offender is armed and/or dangerous. Am I wrong in these assessments? Has SCOTUS actually upheld the Constitution and said that an arrest can not be made without a warrent? Has SCOTUS not said that under an officers probable cause a search can be done without a warrent? Please tell me if I am wrong because every department in the US is doing this on a daily if not hourly basis. I am not talking about the Constitution I am talking about SCOTUS opinions which by their very own opinion carries the weight of law.

 

Now assuming those 2 theories are correct, then every stop where the officer was able to document the breaking of a law was Constitutional according to SCOTUS opinions. That was all but 1200 out of 4.4 million. Now in half of those stops a frisk was preformed. Lets say 2.2 million to keep the numbers round. In those cases the officers were able to document the reason for the frisk. Under SCOTUS opinion still within the boundaries of the Constitution.

 

The searches were found unconstitutional based on racial targeting not on the process or procedure of how they were being conducted but who they were being conducted against. The searches were being targeted in areas where there is a large population of minorities. Those areas are also where the highest crime rates are. If the judges opinion were that the searches were unconstitutional based on lack of reason to stop or search the people I would be 100% in agreement but she found that it was unconstitutional based on targeting areas with high crime rates and those areas happen to be occupied by high rates of minorities.

There IS a difference between detention and arrest, and just because you find yourself in handcuffs does not mean you are under arrest. For detention all I need is the reasonable suspicision that a crime is, has, or is about to be commited. The burden rises to probable cause to make an arrest. If I develop the RS, I can detain you for a resoanble amount of time, totally dependent on the totality of the circumstances, to investigate if PC actually exists for an arrest. The Courts allow us to detain people using RS in order to see if the PC for an arrest is there. But when we do detain someone, we are "on the clock" as to a reasonable amount of time.

 

I'll give you an example. I see a person riding a bicycle with two full plastic bags propped on his handle bars at 3 in the morning. He is coming out of an area where there is alot of student apartments, and I know that most of those apartments are unoccupied due to Thanksgiving break, and numerous burglaries have been reported in that area. I stop the bicycle and speak with the rider. He is nervous, and his story does not add up as to where he has been and where he is going. I ask if the items in the bags belong to him. He is vauge and changes his story. I ask him what is in the bags. Again, different stories, he gets more nervous. I ask for, and recieve permission to look in the bags, even though with a little more time and questioning, I would have gotten to the point where I would have looked in the bags without permission, or would have gotten a warrant. I look in the bags, and from my experience they appear to be items that were taken in a residential burglary. Wires cut on stereo speakers, lots of CD's that he knows nothing about, items with someone elses name on them. Officers canvas the neighborhood, find 2 apartments with the doors kicked, items missing.

 

I had been detaining him based on RS, further investigation gives me the PC for an arrest. Bingo. Prolific residential burglar goes to prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A buldge in a jacket is subjective too. I guess having a gang tattoo is subjective. I guess a cop pulling over a biker for speeding and he is wearing Hells Angles colors would be subjective too.

 

In the end the searches were not in question but the amount of stops and searches that were done on minorities at a higher rate than whites is what was found to be unconstitutional. The judge did not say "you don't have a reason to stop and search all of these people" she said "you did not have a reason to concentrate these searches on minorities".

I think this issue, from the complaintant's side has everything to do with race, and less to do with violating the 4A. I don't believe the cops were profiling race, I believe they were profiling neighborhoods. And the fact of the matter is more of the shootings occur

in neighborhoods that are populated by people of color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quit putting words or thoughts that do not exist in my post.

 

That is the type of tactics used by the liberals and progressives. You can do better than that

 

The issue does not reflect on the officers as a whole but the policy. The Judge said the policy as "practiced" was unconstitutional.

 

Like I said the officers violated the Terry Standards.

 

The terry standards are very easy to understand

 

The stop constitutionally permissible only when

 

1.The officer can articulate a particularized, objective, and reasonable basis for for the stop

 

2. believe that criminal activity may be present

 

3. the suspect suspect may be armed and dangerous.

 

If you can not meet the conditions you have committed an unconstitutional search.

 

nor argument you make is going to change that

 

Saying he was dressed like a thug is a subjective basis not and objective basis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If I saw you in a minority neighborhood in NYC if was a police officer should I stop and frisk you because you are a white person in a minority area?

Absolufrickinlutly. When a car load of frat boys are rolling thru the projects late at night, they are not doing their big brother mentoring. They are trying to score dope or a slight chance of a hooker. And yes, they are going to get stopped.

 

EDIT: The people pay us to know our districts to know what is normal activity and what is possible criminal activity. And that abnormal activity comes in all froms, from knowing what business gets deliveries at 4 AM, and what business has a car truck parked out back that does not belong there, to knowing what a drug deal looks like, how auto and residential burglars ply their trades, who our sex offenders are and where they do not belong, to who is driving without a valid license, to intelligence we recieve that a certain person or car is involved in running dope out of St. Louis, to rental cars out of MN are used by gang bangers to set up a new chapter in town, to a car with SIU stickers all over it and clean cut college boys cruising thru the projects in what we know is an open air drug market.

 

There is little more satisfying than taking a kernel of RS and turning it into a good felony bust. It's called police work.

Edited by Retcop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A buldge in a jacket is subjective too. I guess having a gang tattoo is subjective. I guess a cop pulling over a biker for speeding and he is wearing Hells Angles colors would be subjective too.

 

In the end the searches were not in question but the amount of stops and searches that were done on minorities at a higher rate than whites is what was found to be unconstitutional. The judge did not say "you don't have a reason to stop and search all of these people" she said "you did not have a reason to concentrate these searches on minorities".

 

The judge said it was unconstitutional in pretty clear and concise terms. End of story. Are we a nation of laws or opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There IS a difference between detention and arrest, and just because you find yourself in handcuffs does not mean you are under arrest. For detention all I need is the reasonable suspicision that a crime is, has, or is about to be commited. The burden rises to probable cause to make an arrest. If I develop the RS, I can detain you for a resoanble amount of time, totally dependent on the totality of the circumstances, to investigate if PC actually exists for an arrest. The Courts allow us to detain people using RS in order to see if the PC for an arrest is there. But when we do detain someone, we are "on the clock" as to a reasonable amount of time.I'll give you an example. I see a person riding a bicycle with two full plastic bags propped on his handle bars at 3 in the morning. He is coming out of an area where there is alot of student apartments, and I know that most of those apartments are unoccupied due to Thanksgiving break, and numerous burglaries have been reported in that area. I stop the bicycle and speak with the rider. He is nervous, and his story does not add up as to where he has been and where he is going. I ask if the items in the bags belong to him. He is vauge and changes his story. I ask him what is in the bags. Again, different stories, he gets more nervous. I ask for, and recieve permission to look in the bags, even though with a little more time and questioning, I would have gotten to the point where I would have looked in the bags without permission, or would have gotten a warrant. I look in the bags, and from my experience they appear to be items that were taken in a residential burglary. Wires cut on stereo speakers, lots of CD's that he knows nothing about, items with someone elses name on them. Officers canvas the neighborhood, find 2 apartments with the doors kicked, items missing.I had been detaining him based on RS, further investigation gives me the PC for an arrest. Bingo. Prolific residential burglar goes to prison.

That is going to vary depending on state definitions. In TN an arrest is made the moment my free movement in interrupted. Now maybe that is just semantics but it is what it is. I do remember reading something in the Terry v Ohio (it may have been another case) about the limiting of the free movement equal to seizure of that individuals person at that time. Ah found it.

 

"whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person.

 

It was from Terry v Ohio.

 

But I was not arguing that in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this issue, from the complaintant's side has everything to do with race, and less to do with violating the 4A. I don't believe the cops were profiling race, I believe they were profiling neighborhoods. And the fact of the matter is more of the shootings occurin neighborhoods that are populated by people of color.

I think we agree on this we may just be using different words. It think that this was made into a race issue (and I am not saying it was not a race issue) but it was not about 4A rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Absolufrickinlutly. When a car load of frat boys are rolling thru the projects late at night, they are not doing their big brother mentoring. They are trying to score dope or a slight chance of a hooker. And yes, they are going to get stopped.

I agree with a car load of frat boys...

 

I said just you....quit changing the question...lol

 

if i stop you for the sole reason because you are a white person in a black neighborhood does that meet the Terry standards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...