Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Court strikes down NYPD’s ‘stop and frisk’ policy

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786

    Court strikes down NYPD’s ‘stop and frisk’ policy

    Told you it would end soon.......

    In an interim order issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, the New York Police Department is required to immediately halt its controversial “stop and frisk” policy unless officers have a specific cause to initiate a search.

    The ruling comes ahead of a full trial for two lawsuits filed by blacks and Latinos living in the Bronx who say the policy makes them feel like second-class citizens.

    “While it may be difficult to say when precisely to draw the line between constitutional and unconstitutional police encounters such a line exists, and the NYPD has systematically crossed it when making trespass stops outside buildings,” the judge wrote.

    Critics of the policy, who’ve long been vocal about wanting to see “stop and frisk” ended, say it has caused vastly more searches of racial minorities, even though statistics do not support the theory that they pose more of a threat to public safety.

    Instead, the policy saw searches skyrocket more than 600 percent since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office, according to NYPD data. As a result, police made significantly more small drug possession arrests thanks to the random searches, and a disproportionate percentage have consistently been racial minorities.

    In a ruling in mid-2012 that approved a class action lawsuit over the policy, Judge Scheindlin observed as much, writing (PDF) that out of 2.8 million “stop and frisk” searches from 2004 through 2009, “over fifty percent of those stops were of Black people and thirty percent were of Latinos, while only ten percent were of Whites.”

    In her ruling Tuesday, the judge was even more resolute. “For those of us who do not fear being stopped as we approach or leave our own homes or those of our friends and families, it is difficult to believe that residents of one of our boroughs live under such a threat,” she wrote. “In light of the evidence presented at the hearing, however, I am compelled to conclude that this is the case.”

    Her order does not require the department to rewrite its policy, only that officers establish reasonable suspicion before initiating a search. Further rulings on two related lawsuits are expected in the coming weeks.

    “With today’s ruling, the federal court has stated loudly and clearly that a major part of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program is unconstitutional and that the time has come for the courts to order a halt to illegal stops,” New York Civil Liberties Union Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn told CBS New York. “If New York City has any sense, it will use this ruling as an opportunity to start a wholesale reform of stop and frisk.”

    Allowing officers to “stop and frisk” people they think may be engaged in illegal activity has been the city’s policy since 1964.
    Raw Story (http://s.tt/1y8zL)

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,476
    Stop and Frisk has not been struck down. This ruling by Judge Shiendlin is actually explained much better in this article


    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/j...sRYAj2DIGXiuXK

    In essence, there are buildings in NYC where landlords have empowered the NYPD to patrol and challenge suspicious people in the hallway. Part of the agreement is that they will sign supporting affidavits against anyone found trespassing therein; These buildings are known as "Clean Halls" buildings.

    There are prominently displayed signs to warn trespassers they are subject to arrest.

    What Judge Shiendlins decision says is you must have an articulable reasonable suspicion before approaching anyone in the halls, rather than virtually approaching anyone you find in the halls and demanding proof of residence, which is not unreasonable.

    Stop Question and Frisk is not an NYPD policy, but a clearly articulated law enforcement power granted under article 140.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law of NYS...and it is still in effect.

    It states as follows;

    1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
    arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
    place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
    when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
    committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
    defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
    explanation of his conduct.
    2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
    services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
    or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
    suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
    commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
    law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
    conduct.
    3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
    subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
    may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
    may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
    substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
    sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
    he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
    of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
    crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
    questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully
    possessed, or arrest such person.



    Shiendlins ruling means merely being present in the hallways of a Clean Halls building is not enough to stop and question someone, despite enrollement in the Clean Halls program; The Officer must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the person does not belong, prior to stopping someone.

    -

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,088
    Quote Originally Posted by 32green View Post
    Stop and Frisk has not been struck down. This ruling by Judge Shiendlin is actually explained much better in this article


    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/j...sRYAj2DIGXiuXK

    In essence, there are buildings in NYC where landlords have empowered the NYPD to patrol and challenge suspicious people in the hallway. Part of the agreement is that they will sign supporting affidavits against anyone found trespassing therein; These buildings are known as "Clean Halls" buildings.

    There are prominently displayed signs to warn trespassers they are subject to arrest.

    What Judge Shiendlins decision says is you must have an articulable reasonable suspicion before approaching anyone in the halls, rather than virtually approaching anyone you find in the halls and demanding proof of residence, which is not unreasonable.

    Stop Question and Frisk is not an NYPD policy, but a clearly articulated law enforcement power granted under article 140.50 of the Criminal Procedure Law of NYS...and it is still in effect.

    It states as follows;

    1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
    arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
    place located within the geographical area of such officer's employment
    when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
    committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
    defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
    explanation of his conduct.
    2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
    services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
    or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
    suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
    commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
    law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
    conduct.
    3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
    subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
    may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
    may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
    substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
    sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
    he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
    of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
    crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
    questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully
    possessed, or arrest such person.



    Shiendlins ruling means merely being present in the hallways of a Clean Halls building is not enough to stop and question someone, despite enrollement in the Clean Halls program; The Officer must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion that the person does not belong, prior to stopping someone.

    -
    =================================================

    I have no problems with "terry stops" and the criminal procedure law of NY as it relates to "safe halls".

    I thought Jet Dawgs article was more about the stop and frisk law, as it pertains to folks just going about there business in public places.

    Stop and frisk is unconstitutional, was just a matter of time till it got shot down.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    Stop and frisk was another weapon used to subject AA's and Latinos to lower class citizenship.

    Completely unconstitutional no matter what Bloomberg and Giuliani say and think. More to come as this unconstitutional practice and others will come to an end.

    The power belongs to the people, not the gov't

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    Stop and frisk was another weapon used to subject AA's and Latinos to lower class citizenship.

    Completely unconstitutional no matter what Bloomberg and Giuliani say and think. More to come as this unconstitutional practice and others will come to an end.

    The power belongs to the people, not the gov't
    ================================================

    I don't think so.

    I think it was more intended to do good by helping to crack down on gang/thug crime, by frustrated politcians and law enforcement. I honestly don't believe there was any sinister plan at all of degrading Blacks or Latinos.

    But it is wrong, at least in the sense that it violates the 5th amendmant, and I can understand why some would call thiis blatant violation of the 5th evil.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,476
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    =================================================

    I thought Jet Dawgs article was more about the stop and frisk law, as it pertains to folks just going about there business in public places.

    Stop and frisk is unconstitutional, was just a matter of time till it got shot down.
    First of all, its not shot down. Second of all, CPL 140.50 does not empower law enforcement to stop folks just going about their business. Read what I posted.

    I had the unique role of being in NYC when there was 2000 homicides a year...and when there was 500 and less.

    Jetdawgg can yell about AA's and HIspanics...all he wants.

    I worked along side of AA's and Hispanics as we cleaned up the crime scenes connected to the deaths of...wait for it....AA's and hispanics.

    I have never once been to a shooting involving a white kid as the victim.

    WHy would I risk my pension for "AA's and Hispanics"...it makes no sense.

    In my perspective, we saved the lives of 1500 AA's and Hispanic kids a year for well over 15 years....a whole generation grew up without witnessing the violence of the 80's and early 90's. A fresh start.

    What is happening now, imho, is that the excesses of the Compstat era are being addressed and rightly so. Cops are being pushed to do more and they often cannot articulate their encounters. Fine. THat needs to be addressed and I have no problem with that. The pendulum swings back.

    But at least 10000 people are alive now, than would have been, unless the NYPD acted as it did when Guiliani took over.

    That...is a fact.

    -

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,088
    Quote Originally Posted by 32green View Post
    First of all, its not shot down. Second of all, CPL 140.50 does not empower law enforcement to stop folks just going about their business. Read what I posted.

    I had the unique role of being in NYC when there was 2000 homicides a year...and when there was 500 and less.

    Jetdawgg can yell about AA's and HIspanics...all he wants.

    I worked along side of AA's and Hispanics as we cleaned up the crime scenes connected to the deaths of...wait for it....AA's and hispanics.

    I have never once been to a shooting involving a white kid as the victim.

    WHy would I risk my pension for "AA's and Hispanics"...it makes no sense.

    In my perspective, we saved the lives of 1500 AA's and Hispanic kids a year for well over 15 years....a whole generation grew up without witnessing the violence of the 80's and early 90's. A fresh start.

    What is happening now, imho, is that the excesses of the Compstat era are being addressed and rightly so. Cops are being pushed to do more and they often cannot articulate their encounters. Fine. THat needs to be addressed and I have no problem with that. The pendulum swings back.

    But at least 10000 people are alive now, than would have been, unless the NYPD acted as it did when Guiliani took over.

    That...is a fact.

    -
    ================================================

    First off I would like to thank you for your response and the services you have provided to your community. I recognize and truly believe you are one of the good guy's, a hero of mine to be honest. And I believe the things you post in the political section to be true, accurate and factual. I also recognize my shortcomings as they relate to LE in the great state of NY and as in this case stop and frisk laws in NYC.

    Just saying I appreciate your attempt to help educate me.

    I did read CPL 140.50 and I saw no mention of "being able to reasonably articulate" mentioned in it. With out seeing those words, I understood it to be different then a Terry Stop, Iffin you add "being able to reasonably articulate a suspicion" then it appears to be the same as a Terry Stop, to me.

    Is stop and frisk just another name for a terry stop?

    I suddenly feel like I am stepping into my neighbors dispute with his wife, Kinda like Piers Morgan telling me I shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Cause I don't live in NYC.

    2000 murders a year, that's like what, 6 a day, and now down to,, 1 or 2 a day, You should rightfully feel proud of you and your fellow officers work

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    Do you pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,472
    Just let them kill each other.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    ================================================

    I don't think so.

    I think it was more intended to do good by helping to crack down on gang/thug crime, by frustrated politcians and law enforcement. I honestly don't believe there was any sinister plan at all of degrading Blacks or Latinos.

    But it is wrong, at least in the sense that it violates the 5th amendmant, and I can understand why some would call thiis blatant violation of the 5th evil.
    Creating a two class system is never any good when we have a Bill Of Rights and a Constitution Everyone deserves equal protection under the laws, that why it has been restricted

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    Quote Originally Posted by 32green View Post
    First of all, its not shot down. Second of all, CPL 140.50 does not empower law enforcement to stop folks just going about their business. Read what I posted.

    I had the unique role of being in NYC when there was 2000 homicides a year...and when there was 500 and less.

    Jetdawgg can yell about AA's and HIspanics...all he wants.

    I worked along side of AA's and Hispanics as we cleaned up the crime scenes connected to the deaths of...wait for it....AA's and hispanics.

    I have never once been to a shooting involving a white kid as the victim.

    WHy would I risk my pension for "AA's and Hispanics"...it makes no sense.

    In my perspective, we saved the lives of 1500 AA's and Hispanic kids a year for well over 15 years....a whole generation grew up without witnessing the violence of the 80's and early 90's. A fresh start.

    What is happening now, imho, is that the excesses of the Compstat era are being addressed and rightly so. Cops are being pushed to do more and they often cannot articulate their encounters. Fine. THat needs to be addressed and I have no problem with that. The pendulum swings back.

    But at least 10000 people are alive now, than would have been, unless the NYPD acted as it did when Guiliani took over.

    That...is a fact.

    -
    I have lived in areas where young white males are victims of homicides and other crimes.

    Violating the rights of individuals is wrong and protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    I have lived in areas where young white males are victims of homicides and other crimes.
    Aaaaaand? Your point? My point is why would white black and hispanic cops risk their pensions for being proactive in the defense of black and hispanic citizens...if this is a inherently racist policy? Sitting in their cars and doing nothing would be a far more harmful thing to do to these communities if malice was their intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    Violating the rights of individuals is wrong and protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution
    Of course it is. Now tell me where Stop and Frisk was struck down.

    SImple enough.

    Have at it. I'll wait.



    -
    Last edited by 32green; 01-10-2013 at 08:22 PM.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    "Proactive" = Stepping on the rights of others. Creating an elite class of people. How backward thinking is that? Don't you think that the underclass will revolt at some point?

    The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not state anything about the gov't protecting the citizens from crime. Only having a Naval force and raise/maintain an Army/Military and swift trials for crimes committed.

    The title of the OP states that the law was stuck down. It is not out yet, but it will be soon. Too bad it was not sooner

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    "Proactive" = Stepping on the rights of others. Creating an elite class of people. How backward thinking is that? Don't you think that the underclass will revolt at some point?

    The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not state anything about the gov't protecting the citizens from crime. Only having a Naval force and raise/maintain an Army/Military and swift trials for crimes committed.

    The title of the OP states that the law was stuck down. It is not out yet, but it will be soon. Too bad it was not sooner
    What does that have to do with States protecting their citizens?

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not state anything about the gov't protecting the citizens from crime. Only having a Naval force and raise/maintain an Army/Military and swift trials for crimes committed.
    Is this your aim? A land with only a military..... and no police?

    WOuld... that the good lord grant you your desires!

    Oh, and please get back to me and tell me how it went.







    -

  16. #16
    I am for ANY activity which helps police maintain peace and prevents crime.
    If it's "stop and frisk" great.
    Here in Charleston SC, the police have heavied up patrol activity and have made a significant increase in vehicle and foot traffic stops. Yes, the vast majority have been minorities. And yes, crime has plummeted.
    The NAACP is outraged. But lives (especially younger black males) are being saved.
    Profiling is good and smart police work.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    Quote Originally Posted by 32green View Post
    Is this your aim? A land with only a military..... and no police?

    WOuld... that the good lord grant you your desires!

    Oh, and please get back to me and tell me how it went.







    -

    The police cannot protect you. Americans have the right to bear arms for protection.

    I am a firm believer in the Right To Bear Arms and I am fully capable of displaying that capability to an intruder

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    What does that have to do with States protecting their citizens?
    The Constitution/BOR is not overruled by state laws. Thus SAF is being dismantled.

    The gov't cannot protect you

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    The police cannot protect you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    The gov't cannot protect you








    -

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    The Constitution/BOR is not overruled by state laws. Thus SAF is being dismantled.

    The gov't cannot protect you
    The police may not be able to protect me but the idea that a hormone and drug infested NY city teenager with a semi automatic hand gun is going to protect me on the streat is outright bat **** crazy.

Tags for this Thread

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
  •  

Follow Us