Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 91

Thread: Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

  1. #1

    Default Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

    Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

    By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN

    Published: August 12, 2013

    In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy, a federal judge has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in New York, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.

    In a decision issued on Monday, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Officers often frisked these people, usually young minority men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, before letting them go, according to the 195-page decision.

    These stop-and-frisk episodes, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, according to the ruling. It also found violations with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

    Judge Scheindlin found that the city “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling by targeting racially defined groups for stops based on local crime suspect data.” She rejected the city’s arguments that more stops happened in minority neighborhoods solely because those happened to have high-crime rates.

    “I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” she wrote.

    Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.”

    City officials did not immediately comment on the ruling, or on whether they planned to appeal. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg scheduled a news conference at 1 p.m. to discuss the decision.

    To fix the constitutional violations, the judge designated an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution.

    Judge Scheindlin also ordered a number of other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear body-worn cameras in an effort to record street encounters. She also ordered a “joint remedial process” — in essence, a series of community meetings — to solicit public input on how to reform stop-and-frisk.

    The decision to install Mr. Zimroth, a partner in the New York office of Arnold & Porter LLP, and a former corporation counsel and prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, will leave the department under a degree of judicial control that is certain to shape the policing strategies under the next mayor.

    Relying on a complex statistical analysis presented at trial, Judge Scheindlin found that the racial composition of a census tract played a role in predicting how many stops would occur.

    She emphasized what she called the “human toll of unconstitutional stops,” noting that some of the plaintiffs testified that their encounters with the police left them feeling that they did not belong in certain areas of the cities. She characterized each stop as “a demeaning and humiliating experience.”

    “No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” the judge wrote. During police stops, she found, blacks and Hispanics “were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.”

    The ruling, in Floyd v. City of New York, follows a two-month nonjury trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan earlier this year over the department’s stop-and-frisk practices.

    Judge Scheindlin heard testimony from about a dozen black or biracial men and a woman who described being stopped, and she heard from statistical experts who offered their conclusions based on police paperwork describing some 4.43 million stops between 2004 and mid-2012. Numerous police officers and commanders testified as well, typically defending the legality of stops and saying they were made only when officers reasonably suspected criminality was afoot.

    While the Supreme Court has long recognized the right of police officers to briefly stop and investigate people who are behaving suspiciously, Judge Scheindlin found that the New York police had overstepped that authority. She found that officers were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop.

    “Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites,” she wrote.

    She noted that about 88 percent of the stops result in the police letting the person go without an arrest or ticket, a percentage so high, she said, that it suggests there was not a credible suspicion to suspect the person of criminality in the first place.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/ny...=tw-share&_r=0

  2. #2

    Default

    I fully support stop and frisk. NY's cops should be lauded for their extraordinary achievements, as a result, of which, our city is much safer.

  3. #3

    Default

    Stop and frisk is BS/racial profiling, and I'm glad they were called out on it!
    The city would have become just as safe as it has without it.
    Crime rates were already falling well BEFORE they started this unconstitutional practice.

  4. #4

    Default

    NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly in 2000:
    A large reservoir of good will was under construction when I left the Police Department in 1994. It was called community policing. But it was quickly abandoned for tough-sounding rhetoric and dubious stop-and-frisk tactics that sowed new seeds of community mistrust.
    So much for that.

    Stop-and-frisk was instituted to get handguns off the streets. It has failed miserably. In 2011, there were 685,724 incidents by the NYPD, an increase of over 600% since Bloomberg took office. Homicides in the city have dropped by over 40% during that time; however, guns are hardly ever recovered. In 2011, the handgun seizure rate was less than 0.02%.

    88% of the people stopped were completely innocent. You might think that 12% guilty is worthwhile until you learn that the biggest single arrest charge was for marijuana possession. Marijuana possession of less than 25 grams has been decriminalized in New York State since the 1970s. It's equivalent to a traffic ticket; you pay a fine. However, this small amount of marijuana "in public view" is a misdemeanor; you get arrested.

    All the police have to do is trick or intimidate you into emptying your pockets.

    It may surprise people to know that progressive NYC is the marijuana arrest capital of the word; the single highest arrest statistic is for marijuana. There's a bill in the NYS Assembly to remove the "public view" clause.

    What you have is a practice that promotes ill will between the public and the NYPD; doesn't accomplish the goal for which it was instituted; and ends up arresting people for victimless crimes.

  5. #5
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Gun seizure rates during NYC Stop & Frisks:

    Blacks found with guns: 1.0 %

    Hispanics found with guns: 1.1 %

    Whites found with guns: 1.4%

  6. #6
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Maybe, when his third term finally ends, Bloomberg will stand for office at his other home, in Bermuda.

    To do that, he'd probably have to work out something with The Queen.

    If he's so granted, then he can re-try his failed policies there, in an effort to prove himself right.

    But, given the demographics of that little island territory, S & F ala NYC might not be too popular.

    Even so, Little Mike might have a few good giggles about the grief of governing while commiserating with his equally elfin next door neighbor at their very tony turf in Tucker's Town.

    For fun, Silvio the Seducer could produce a few suspicious young things to get Frisky with.

  7. #7

    Default

    Let them get rid of stop and frisk, and we can watch what happens to the homicide numbers (which will likely rise.) It will be an interesting experiment. I wonder how many people (likely minorities) will have to be killed to get the results.

  8. #8

    Default

    Since the data shows the gun seizure rate has been miniscule at less than 0.02%, by what logic do you draw the conclusion that stop and frisk influences the homicide rate?

  9. #9

    Default

    Misplaced resources.

    Despite the escalating number of stops over the last decade, the average number of weapons seized each year has been about 700.

    In one buy-back event over one weekend in Queens in 2012, over 500 guns were turned in. In 4 years since the program was initiated in 2008, over 8,000 guns have been recovered at a cost of $1.4 million.

    Settling lawsuits over stop and frisk practices has cost the city $22.8 million.

  10. #10
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Stop and frisk plays no practical or constructive part in policing.

    It's been roundly abused and misused.

    Hear, hear (hopefully) to its repeal.

  11. #11
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    It is too easily abused, and has been abused.

    As for the "empty the pockets", if a cop orders you to do that, how (by law) are you supposed to refuse? We have seen how that fares in most cases. They then hang a bunch of "he-says/she-says" violations on you (jaywalking, disturbing the peace) to force you to court.

    Reducing starting salary and increasing requirements does not help things either, but what do I know.

  12. #12
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Where Stop-and-Frisk Tactic Is Business as Usual, Skepticism Prevails

    By VIVIAN YEE

    Stop and Frisk in Brownsville, Brooklyn (2010)

    In the Brooklyn neighborhood perhaps most accustomed to the stop-and-frisk policing strategy, word that a federal judge had ruled that the practice violated the constitutional rights of minority New Yorkers prompted some residents to say that they understood — and even supported — the rationale behind the strategy, though not how it unfolded around them day after day.

    Winston Cooper, 62, said he had been stopped about eight times. “We all want security, but we don’t want security by treading on your constitutional rights,” he said.mes

    Taurel Price, left, with Christian Reyes, at the Brownsville Houses, said he did not think the police would change.

    Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s decision only affirmed what many people in Brownsville said they already knew: that the Police Department practice violated their rights with tactics that amounted to racial profiling. Yet only some called for an end to the practice.

    “We all want security, but we don’t want security by treading on your constitutional rights,” said Winston Cooper, 62, who told of being stopped about eight times, sometimes just for re-entering his building. “I would understand if there’s a genuine thing — that’s cool,” he added. “But don’t tell me every night, people are coming in, needing to be stopped.”

    Distrust of the police runs deep in the Brownsville Houses and the Langston Hughes Houses, which are part of a police service area in East Brooklyn that had 3,020 police stops in the first quarter of 2013. And young black men (and some not so young), who have borne the brunt of the stops, said they had little hope that even as the rule book of stop-and-frisk policing changed, the practice would change along with it.

    “Thank God,” muttered Steve Doughty, 38, when he heard about the judge’s decision, standing outside the Brownsville Houses on Blake Avenue. He said he had been stopped several times, once for walking between his building and his parked car while wearing a hoodie.

    He quickly dismissed any possibility of an improvement. “It’s what’s instilled in the cops,” he said. “They just have this instilled racism in them.”

    Yet like others interviewed in Brownsville on Monday morning, he said he also appreciated the need for a strong police presence to combat crime in this, one of the city’s most dangerous neighborhoods. He added, however, that large, frequent police patrols should be enough to deter those looking for trouble.

    Others said they could see the merits of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s argument that stop-and-frisk tactics could be an invaluable crime-fighting tool, one that city officials insist has helped cut crime in New York to record lows. But if the idea sounded good, they said, the way the practice played out in a real-life, high-crime neighborhood amounted to a perversion of justice.

    “They stop you for the stupidest stuff,” said Eugene Myers, 57, “but for the real stuff, it seems like the police don’t even go after that.” He had been stopped for wearing a hoodie or for resembling suspects in other crimes, he said, but assaults in the hallways of his building seemed to go unnoticed.

    While several said that guns and drugs were major problems in the neighborhood and that stops were a legitimate way to address them, they said that in their experience, the stops targeted appearances and behaviors that had little or no relation to crime.

    “Do what you’re supposed to do, but stop stopping people who aren’t doing anything,” said Dante Johnson, 43, unspooling a list of innocuous activities he said he had seen people stopped for, like riding bikes and walking dogs.

    In a courtyard of the Brownsville Houses, a group of young men gathered around, one holding a smartphone, reading aloud a news account of the court ruling. They had each been stopped dozens of times, they said, and all said they believed the Police Department had institutional quotas for stopping and frisking; a few, reflecting the neighborhood’s endemic wariness of the police, said the practice was a conspiracy among officers to give young black men records and turn them out of their homes.

    “They’ve been talking about the stop-and-frisk thing for five, six, seven years and nothing’s changed,” said Gregory Campbell, 41. “They just say it, say it, say it, but the cops come out here and keep doing it. It’s going to take a lot more than just talk.”

    And to the residents of Police Service Area No. 2, that was all Judge Scheindlin’s decision was: talk.

    “The judge is in the chamber,” said Demetrius Denson, 35. He said that though officers might be instructed to use less force or stop fewer people, officers could sidestep any new rules by provoking people on the street into acting nervously or suspiciously.

    He lived in Brownsville until about three years ago, he said, but moved upstate because “it’s too much like a jail.”

    Taurel Price, 22, said he had racked up more than $400 in traffic tickets from being pulled over in his own car.

    “It might change in certain areas,” he said, “but definitely not in Brownsville.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/ny...l?ref=nyregion

  13. #13
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Just can't help themselves .


    New York Daily News Freaks Out After Stop-And-Frisk Ruling

    By Jack Mirkinson

    It's always strange to see the New York Daily News be less restrained than the New York Post, but that's what happened on the day after a federal judge handed down a stinging ruling calling the city's stop-and-frisk policy an unconstitutional example of racial profiling run amok.

    The Daily News promptly slapped a vintage photo of a dead body on its page, over the headline, "MURDER, SHE WROTE: Fear over return to bloody bad old days."



    There is actually much evidence to suggest that stop-and-frisk has not played much of a role in curbing New York's murder rate.
    The Post, meanwhile, went with the much more straightforward "CUFFED!":



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=new-york

  14. #14
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Stop-and-Frisk: Why We Have Courts

    by Geoffrey R. Stone

    Every once in a while, I burst with pride in the American legal system. It doesn't happen as often as I would like, but Monday was such a day.

    On Monday, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, a federal judge in New York City, handed down her decision in Floyd v. The City of New York. The plaintiffs in Floyd challenged the constitutionality of New York City's stop-and-frisk policy. In a truly remarkable and courageous opinion, Judge Scheindlin held that policy unconstitutional.

    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated." To the Framers of our Constitution, this was a fundamental precept of American freedom. This guarantee preserves our privacy and dignity, and reaffirms that in a self-governing society the government must respect the rights of the individual.

    As the Supreme Court recognized more than a century ago, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the . . . law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law."

    To this end, the Supreme Court has long held that a police officer cannot constitutionally search or seize an individual unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime.

    In 1968, however, in a case called Terry v. Ohio, the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren, carved out a carefully limited exception to the probable cause requirement, holding that a police officer can constitutionally "stop" an individual on the street for questioning if the officer has "reasonable grounds to suspect" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and that the police officer can constitutionally "frisk" that person for weapons if he has "reasonable grounds to suspect" that the individual is "armed and presently dangerous."

    The Court was fully aware that this was a constitutionally precarious decision, for it authorized "substantial interference" with the liberty and dignity of the individual by police officers whose judgment will naturally be "colored by their primary involvement in 'the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.'" Moreover, the Court acknowledged that this practice could very well "exacerbate police-community tensions in the crowded centers of our Nation's cities."

    Nonetheless, Chief Justice Warren held that the practice of stop-and-frisk, if carefully administered and implemented, could serve important law enforcement goals and was therefore not an "unreasonable search and seizure" in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    In her decision in Floyd, Judge Scheindlin found that the New York Police Department had used stop-and-frisk an astonishing 4.4. million times between 2004 and 2012. After carefully scrutinizing the Department's use of this practice, she concluded that the activities of the Department violated not only the Fourth Amendment, but also the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee all persons "the equal protection of the law."

    Judge Scheindlin found that in 88 percent of these stops, the individual was innocent of any wrongdoing; that in 98.5 percent of the frisks, no weapon was found; that 83 percent of the Department's stop-and-frisks were directed at blacks and Hispanics, even though blacks and Hispanics make up only 52 percent of the population; that the police were 40 percent more likely to use force when dealing with blacks and Hispanics than when dealing with whites; and that the officers were 40 percent more likely to find weapons and 28 percent more likely to find contraband when they frisked whites than when they frisked blacks and Hispanics.

    Judge Scheindlin therefore held that, although the use of stop-and-frisk is constitutionally permissible if it is undertaken in accord with constitutional requirements, the New York City Police Department had in fact employed this practice in a manner that blatantly violated both the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

    A decision like the one in Floyd illustrates why we need a strong and independent federal judiciary. For most New Yorkers, the Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy seemed something to applaud. It helped bring down crime and made the City safer. Moreover, most New Yorkers knew to a moral certainty that they themselves would never be subjected to the indignity and public humiliation of a stop-and-frisk. So, why not have such a policy?

    The American judiciary exists, first and foremost, to protect the constitutional rights of those who are not in the majority. It exists to ensure that our government treats all of us with respect.

    It exists to protect the rights of the disadvantaged, the oppressed, the powerless and the despised, even when disadvantaging them advantages the rest of us.

    Three cheers for Judge Scheindlin. She is what the American judicial system, at its best, is all about.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr...&ir=New%20York

  15. #15

    Default

    Deterrence. This has now been going on for something like twenty years. The criminal class operating in the areas in question know there is a good chance that at any given time on the street they may be stopped and frisked. And if they get caught, especially with a gun, they're going to do a few year upstate. So they've become much more careful about carrying guns and drugs casually. This means there's much less likely to be a gun in the mix when the get into an altercation. This doesn't mean that they don't have a gun back in the apartment, and may at some point decide to hunt someone down and shoot them. But if they have a gun on them, it's much more likely to get used at the spur of the moment (they see a rival gang member in their territory, a rival drug dealer on their street corner, etc.)

    Without stop and frisk, you going to see a lot more casual shootings in bad neighborhoods.

    I do get the racial issue in this, and I can understand why innocent people who get swept up in it would be pissed. What I'd do it allow it, but drive it by crime statistics. I'd only allow it in the the police precincts with the top 20% highest crime statistics. This way it can't be claimed to be driven directly by race.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Since the data shows the gun seizure rate has been miniscule at less than 0.02%, by what logic do you draw the conclusion that stop and frisk influences the homicide rate?

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software