Stop-and-Frisks Have Done Little to Reduce Shootings

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Stop-and-Frisks Have Done Little to Reduce Shootings, NYPD Data Show

"The skyrocketing numbers of NYPD stop-and-frisks had little impact on the number of people shot in New York City or on gun violence in general during Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration, a DNAinfo.com New York analysis of crime data has found.

"While the NYPD was stopping and frisking a record 685,724 people last year, 1,821 people were victims of gunfire, according to NYPD and city statistics. That's virtually the same number as in 2002, Bloomberg's first year in office, when 1,892 people were shot, but just 97,296 people were frisked.

"The year before, there were 1,845 shootings with a similar number of frisks.

"If you have a flat-line situation with shootings, and the stops are this high, you are throwing everyone up against the wall and you are losing the community, then you have to reassess," a former top NYPD official told "On the Inside."

"We are not a militia, but a police organization serving a community," the ex-cop continued. "We don’t want to be seen as an occupying army... "

Full story: DNS Info

Bloomberg runs amok. But never fear, his campaign against soda and popcorn will finally make everyone safe.

[BIGUN 1,053]

John,

So am I to understand that NYPD stopped and frisked 685,724 people last year?

Without a warrant?!??!!?

Even more importantly... 685,724 people last year LET NYPD frisk them without a warrant?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

John,

So am I to understand that NYPD stopped and frisked 685,724 people last year?

Without a warrant?!??!!?

Even more importantly... 685,724 people last year LET NYPD frisk them without a warrant?

Neither a warrant nor probable cause are required for a stop & frisk in the field for possible weapons. What is required is "a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." This has been the law in the US since the 1968 SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio. , and it remains the law today.

So in my mind the question is whether the NYPD's frisks comply with Terry. If they do, then a generation of caselaw is on their side. If they don't, then IMPO they're probably unconstitutional. P.S, each individual stop & frisk is unique, and thus must be analyzed separately.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Even more importantly... 685,724 people last year LET NYPD frisk them without a warrant?

these are the guys that shot Diallo 42 times. You sure you want to tell them to fuck off?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Even more importantly... 685,724 people last year LET NYPD frisk them without a warrant?

these are the guys that shot Diallo 42 times. You sure you want to tell them to fuck off?

Nope. Better the LA police. No, wait - Rodney King. Never mind.

Better the Chicago police. No, wait - the Democratic Convention. Never mind.

Better the Philly police. No, wait - the MOVE massacres. Never mind.

Better the Federal LEOs. No, wait - Ruby Ridge. Never mind.

Hey, I know. Better These Guys.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Quote

John,

So am I to understand that NYPD stopped and frisked 685,724 people last year?

Without a warrant?!??!!?

Even more importantly... 685,724 people last year LET NYPD frisk them without a warrant?

Neither a warrant nor probable cause are required for a stop & frisk in the field for possible weapons. What is required is "a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." This has been the law in the US since the 1968 SCOTUS decision in Terry v. Ohio. , and it remains the law today.

So in my mind the question is whether the NYPD's frisks comply with Terry. If they do, then a generation of caselaw is on their side. If they don't, then IMPO they're probably unconstitutional. P.S, each individual stop & frisk is unique, and thus must be analyzed separately.

Shakes head... So, technically, "Minority Report" was nonfiction.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Quote

Even more importantly... 685,724 people last year LET NYPD frisk them without a warrant?

these are the guys that shot Diallo 42 times. You sure you want to tell them to fuck off?

Well, I think if 685,724 people told them to fuck off, they might get the message.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[lawrocket 3]

Wait till they stop and frisk for 20-ounce sodas. NYC will not be an open carry jurisdiction for those.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyPiggie 0]

Quote

Wait till they stop and frisk for 20-ounce sodas. NYC will not be an open carry jurisdiction for those.

Gosh, I guess New Yawkers won't be able to hide their gun inside a Big Slurp soda cup any more.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So am I to understand that NYPD stopped and frisked 685,724 people last year? Without a warrant?!??!!? Even more importantly... 685,724 people last year LET NYPD frisk them without a warrant?

It's all okay now, Bloomberg is making changes to the stop-and-frisk program: the cops are going to be more polite and hand out little cards.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/ray-kelly-nypd-changes-to-stop-and-frisk.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/bloomberg-mend-dont-end-stop-and-frisks.html

Apparently instead of just saying;

"Lean up against the wall and spread 'em",

it's now going to be;

"Lean up against the wall and spread 'em, Sir. Oh, and here's a little card to explain why we're doing this to you."

Ah, I feel so much better now.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Yup... I been keeping up on this one too, John.
I find it more a tact of intimidation.
Not sure if you were at WFFC - Quincy when the police were basically ravaging thru tents, had a gauntlet (of which I was pulled over).. And, the skydiving police community held a news conference?
With the big push on "Bullying," how about having cops teaching cops how to say no to what you and I would know as an "illegal order?"

MORE INFO:

Quote

"Suspicionless stops should never occur," Scheindlin wrote in her decision, adding that, "Defendants' cavalier attitude towards the prospect of a'"widespread practice of suspicionless stops' displays a deeply troubling apathy towards New Yorkers' most fundamental constitutional rights." Stop-and-frisk, which the data shows is a form of racial profiling, violates not only the Fourth Amendment -- protection from unreasonable searches -- but also the 14th Amendment, which includes the equal protection clause, the plaintiffs charge.

US district judge Shira Scheindlin granted class-action certification to a stop-and-frisk lawsuit against the city of New York, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The plaintiffs allege that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy regularly violates the Constitution by illegally stopping and searching scores of people belonging to a particular demographic -- black and Latino. Pending the city's appeal, the class-action ruling will put stop-and-frisk on trial.

NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman wrote in May, "The mayor and commissioner need to give up the spin and recognize that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program is fundamentally broken."

SOURCE: http://www.alternet.org/rights/155609/courts_expose_stop-and-frisk_as_racist,_unconstitutional_nypd_harassment_strategy%3A_8_important_facets_of_the_legal_decision

And, quite frankly, I don't know why it always takes the "Quotas and Racial Profiling" card to make something stop. Can't it just be, "This is a dumb fuck idea and borderline unconstitutional..." Anytime something is borderline unconstitutional, you know damn well someone or some-several will cross that line.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[SkyPiggie 0]

Oops, the stop-and-frisk policy seems to have a little legal problem...

Court Tosses Teen’s Gun Collar for Illegal Search
http://thechiefleader.com/news/open_articles/court-tosses-teen-s-gun-collar-for-illegal-search/article_7a9d7450-c53e-11e1-95e1-0019bb30f31a.html

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

P.S, each individual stop & frisk is unique, and thus must be analyzed separately.

So with the ruling stated above, does this make it an "across the board" situation or does it remain "each situation is unique?"

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

which the data shows is a form of racial profiling...

Disparate Impact?

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

P.S, each individual stop & frisk is unique, and thus must be analyzed separately.

So with the ruling stated above, does this make it an "across the board" situation or does it remain "each situation is unique?"

More case-by-case than otherwise, I'd say - which is the way it always is: even the application of a specific rule still requires evaluation of each new case's facts. Eventually, precedents get set, based on various factual scenarios. Then on subsequent cases, each side argues over whether their case does, or does not, fit closely enough within the facts of Prior Case X or Prior Case Y.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Got it. Thank you for the education. Seriously.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Quote

which the data shows is a form of racial profiling...

Disparate Impact?

I would think it more along the lines of "disparate treatment."

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

which the data shows is a form of racial profiling...

Disparate Impact?

I would think it more along the lines of "disparate treatment."

Probably, in that case. "Disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" can sometimes overlap, so even lawyers and judges sometimes disagree over whether a scenario should be viewed as one or the other.

Example of disparate treatment: 80% of people arbitrarily stopped & frisked in all sections of all boroughs of NYC are black or Hispanic, even in mainly white neighborhoods, where the majority of young males walking about the streets are white.

Example of disparate impact (sometimes called "disparate effect"): 80% of the arbitrary stop & frisks in NYC are of young males age 17-21, AND they occur in neighborhoods with predominantly black or Hispanic populations. The police claim they're only targeting young males, regardless of race. But they're not doing it to young males in white neighborhoods, they're only (mainly) doing it to young males in black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Since most of the young males walking about in mainly black or Hispanic neighborhoods tend to be black or Hispanic, the net EFFECT - the impact - is that the policy affects mainly blacks and Hispanics.

"Disparate impact" is used a lot in employment discrimination cases - often to discriminate against older workers. Let's say an employer decides to lay off or demote everyone whose salary is, say, $60K or over. The employer claims its only criterion is financial, not age. But if it so happens that, say, 80% of all of its workers who earn $60K or over are age 40 or over, then that's an example of "disparate impact", since the net EFFECT is to impact mainly the older workers. (So, in other words, the so-called "financial criterion" is actually a pretext for age discrimination.)

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Then on subsequent cases, each side argues over whether their case does, or does not, fit closely enough within the facts of Prior Case X or Prior Case Y.

I have a friend who is a lawyer (...one mind you , and I grew up with him...). He was telling me that most of the work in a trial is convincing the judge what is acceptable as "fact". Once the facts are established, the case is essentially decided.

We are all engines of karma

[davjohns 1]

I've seen a couple of female officers that could frisk me. Other than that, I have to object.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

"Disparate impact"...

If a black guy robbed you, then I can only imagine police are going to stop black people who meet that description. In this case, a simple race based statistical analysis would not indicate causality, which is what disparate impact analysis seems to me.

In your example, the same statistical technique could indicate disparate impact, IMO (...maybe because I'm getting close to that scenario ;).

The "flaw" in all of this is... judgement by those in power. Can't get around it, though, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[BIGUN 1,053]

Again, thank you for the education. I've got to say, this is the most egregious violation of the fourth amendment (IMO)

Here's an article I read... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html

SO, if an officer stops me and I know that I have done nothing wrong and I am not going to do anything wrong... can we no longer just walk off and tell him to keep his hands off me "unless you're willing to arrest me?"

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Again, thank you for the education. I've got to say, this is the most egregious violation of the fourth amendment (IMO)

Here's an article I read... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html

SO, if an officer stops me and I know that I have done nothing wrong and I am not going to do anything wrong... can we no longer just walk off and tell him to keep his hands off me "unless you're willing to arrest me?"

Not that simple, and in practice, never was. Terry v. Ohio (which I posted up-thread) was the first big sea-change in the 1960s. More recently, I seem to think (don't have the case handy) that the SCOTUS has ruled that police do have a certain limited right to stop you and require you to identify yourself by name. I generally disagree with that ruling, but there it is.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I generally disagree with that ruling, but there it is.

I'm curious... why do you disagree with the ruling?

We are all engines of karma

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Quote

Again, thank you for the education. I've got to say, this is the most egregious violation of the fourth amendment (IMO)

Here's an article I read... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html

SO, if an officer stops me and I know that I have done nothing wrong and I am not going to do anything wrong... can we no longer just walk off and tell him to keep his hands off me "unless you're willing to arrest me?"

Not that simple, and in practice, never was. Terry v. Ohio (which I posted up-thread) was the first big sea-change in the 1960s. More recently, I seem to think (don't have the case handy) that the SCOTUS has ruled that police do have a certain limited right to stop you and require you to identify yourself by name. I generally disagree with that ruling, but there it is.

Again, thank you.. not that I plan on getting in trouble with the law anytime soon. I'd lose about half my friends and one Chief of Police.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.