Stop and Frisk

[Rob G]

NYPD's 'stop-and-frisk' practice unconstitutional, judge rules (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL SOURCE)

By Bernard Vaughan

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. judge ruled on Monday the New York Police Department's "stop-and-frisk" crime-fighting tactic was unconstitutional, dealing a stinging rebuke to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who vowed to appeal the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin called it "indirect racial profiling" because it targeted racially defined groups, resulting in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics while the city's highest officials "turned a blind eye," she said.

"No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," Scheindlin wrote in her opinion.

But Bloomberg stood his ground. "People also have a right to walk down the street without being killed or mugged," he said at a news conference, repeating his conviction that the program resulted in a drastic reduction in crime that made New York the "poster child" for safe U.S. cities.


Political pundits said the ruling would tarnish Bloomberg's legacy and may trip up NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who President Barack Obama has indicated may be a possible nominee for U.S. secretary of homeland security.

"It will be a heavy lift to designate someone who's been excoriated by a federal judge for civil rights violations," said Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and prosecutor who is a professor at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

As part of her ruling, Scheindlin ordered the appointment of an independent monitor and other immediate changes to police policies. Her "remedies" address two lawsuits, one brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the other by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Several black and Hispanic men named as plaintiffs gathered at a CCR press conference, some choking back tears as they cheered the ruling for exposing racial profiling by U.S. authorities.

"When I got the call this morning the first thing I did was cry," said David Ourlicht, 25, who was stopped at St. John's University in Queens in 2008, ostensibly for walking in a suspicious way with a bulge under his winter clothing.


"It's a really good picture of what's going on in society," said Ourlicht, who is a mixed race man of black and white heritage.

Bloomberg told reporters his administration will appeal the ruling. That will take place as soon as the monitor makes any kind of request, at which time the city will seek an immediate stay pending the outcome of the appeal, said Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo.

Bloomberg has resisted interference in his police policies, especially that of stopping, questioning and frisking anyone for "reasonable suspicion" in high-crime areas. An added benefit, he said at the press conference, was "the possibility of being stopped acts as a vital deterrent."

The mayor has sought to preserve a legacy that includes a 30 percent reduction in violent crime since 2001, the year he was first elected. Bloomberg will leave office on January 1 after 12 years in office.

All four leading candidates in next month's Democratic mayoral primary have taken a stand against "stop and frisk," but none of them has said they would abolish the police practice.


The judge, who presided over the nine-week trial without a jury, ruled that the effectiveness of "stop and frisk" was irrelevant.

"Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime -preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example - but because they are unconstitutional, they cannot be used, no matter how effective," the ruling said.

Scheindlin's ruling was not surprising. She has almost single-handedly overseen lawsuits against the NYPD's stop and frisk program after being randomly selected to preside over a lawsuit following the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed black man, by the NYPD's now-disbanded Street Crime Unit. Police Commissioner Kelly has complained that Scheindlin favors civil liberties groups.

In her ruling, Scheindlin said police officers felt pressure to increase the number of stops after Bloomberg took office in January 2002 and brought in Kelly as police commissioner.

As a result, officers often frisked young minority men for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband before letting them go, in a violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, the judge said in her 195-page decision.

The judge selected as the monitor Peter Zimroth, 70, who once worked as the city's top lawyer from 1987 to 1989.

The judge also ordered the NYPD to adopt a written policy specifying circumstances where stops are authorized; adopt a trial program requiring the use of body-worn cameras in one precinct in each of the city's five boroughs; and to set up a community-based remedial process under a court-appointed facilitator.

[Ken]

Well say hello to high crime again.

[Rob G]

Ken, do you really think this law helped lower crime that much. This is a question. You would know better than I. I am too far removed from the city to know. But for me the racial profiling part is irrelevant. Its simply unconstitutional to detain or search someone without reasonable suspicion of a criminal activity.

[Ken]

I do believe that this "policy" helped to lower crime. Its not "reasonable" to suspect a black male of possessing something illegal?

[Rob G]

The preceding three posts were transcribed by me from Facebook. Moved here so we could have this conversation unmolested or restrained due to the racial entanglements involved.

So Ken. I know you’re not saying that "being black" is good enough for reasonable suspicion. I mean statistically a case could be made for that but i don’t think that what you’re saying.

In any case NO ONE can be detained or searched without a reasonable suspicion of a crime. Basically a Law officer can not interfere in your life in any real capacity if you’re not displaying anything that would allude to criminal activity. They can stop and ask your name but that’s all you need to tell them. They cannot interrogate you or demand ID or detain you or search you. And that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

I don’t support these things because i am a liberal and am trying to stick up for the poor victimized blacks. I am for these things because i have been victimized by aggressive police and witnessed it many times.

I think there is a trap here that is often walked into by white law abiding men like us. We tend to think, well we don’t break law so why do we care if a cop wants to stop, talk, search us.
More cynical versions of guys like us might even say "most of the blacks are crooks anyway, so search those shits." "Most arabs are terrorists anyway so fuck those guys."

As though these are things that don’t effect law abiding white dudes like us. They do and they will. It all comes around.

These constitutional rights were written because every law officer since day abused their power. And its not completely thier fault. Or that is to say i dont believe that alot of the law officers that violate your right wake up and say "I am gonna violate some law abiding citizens rights today because i wanna feel powerful and be dick." They have a tough job and a huge legal burden in many cases both of which general require greater training and resources to get done then they are normally provided with. So they take short cuts.
Often times they know who the crooks are but are restained through legal burdens to achieve an arrest and/or conviction. So they take short cuts and they get comfortable doing it. To the point where they so often inapproprieatly infringe on law abiding citizens that one stands up for their rights the cops then follow up with intimidation and often a false charge of one of the catch all crimes like disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc.

But i will be damned if I am gonna be victimized so they can take their short cuts. Thats bull shit. And our predecessors secured many of these rights for us at great cost and for a reason. So weather this helps crime or not its too high a price to be paid and its also a slippery slope situation that i feel is part of great slide occuring on many fronts where are rights are being diminished.

[Ken]

Well, you have made many excellent points here Rob, and I agree with many of them, however I also think that “Stop and Frisk” is responsible for the huge decrease in crime and the decrease in the murder rate, and as a result, it’s a program that CANNOT be ignored or gotten rid of because the benefit to the public good is way to beneficial.

Its always going to be the same argument whenever you bring up the Constitution, so let me just avert that part of it be declaring that, for me, I think that it is reasonable to relinquish, perhaps only temporarily, or perhaps permanently, certain rights if the benefits outweigh the cost. Now, that being said, I know this is a slippery slope. What happens if the cops abuse their power? What if, by my reasoning, we become a police state? A dictatorship? Ad infinitum. For the sake of argument, let’s ignore that facet and focus on the Stop and Frisk program by itself.

I’m sure you know the statistics; minorities commit most crimes in NY, blacks, Hispanics, etc. Yes, whites commit crimes, but at a much slower rate and more spread out among the rest of the state. Violent crimes are more prevalent in low socio-economic areas populated mostly by blacks and Hispanics. These are FACTS.

What about the law-abiding blacks and Hispanics in these areas? Aren’t they victims of these crimes? Don’t they have a right to walk down the streets without fear of getting shot to death? If I was forced to live in these areas by circumstance, I wouldn’t want this program to disappear. I WORK in an area like that. I want to feel safe as I drive through the neighborhood, or walk to my car, or walk down the block to the store.

Blacks and Hispanics can’t seem to get control of the violence in their neighborhoods themselves, for whatever reason. They can’t seem to get it together; their family system is broken, they don’t rely on education to pull themselves up, they are dependent on a welfare system that they believe is not temporary but permanent, they perpetuate the gang system, populate the country’s jail systems, and perpetuate child abuse both physical and sexual (a little known fact that they try to keep hidden). These people need our help. They can’t do it on their own, history has shown that.

I think there is a lot more at stake here. I believe that if minorities have ANY hope, its with programs like these, because without programs like Stop and Frisk, the law-abiding citizens who want to raise up out of the ghettos can’t get to school because they will get initiated into gangs, or killed while trying to walk to school, or shot in their own beds by fools doing drive-bys.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I also feel that people should have a responsibility to their country. Its everyone’s responsibility to become a productive member of society. One cannot be productive without a job, or if they are in jail, or are on welfare in perpetuity. Since they can’t seem to rise up and become productive themselves, they need to get with the program, instead of being a drain on the country.

[Rob G]

Well put ken,

Your facts are 100% correct and relevant. And that’s why I wanted to have this conversation here instead of on facebook. I agree with what you say totally and in addition the things you raised are at the core of the matter.
Interesting part about the good folks that leave in those neighborhoods. I seldomly consider those folks. In general I think things play out this way.
Those minority communities are poor and rampant with crime. They end up living in the areas where it is cheapest. These places become ghettos. The white people and or people with means flee the area. Thus compounding the concentration and isolation of these folks. The public facilities suck because these communities don’t have money. The schools are shit for the same reason. Now the cops still have to police these areas. But even the regular folks there seem to have contempt (just or not) for the police. So slowly the cops just sort of stay out of those areas. The rest of us just don’t care. The end result is sort of “Let the animals do what they want just keep them away from us.” While some of these concepts seem harsh they are the natural evolution of these circumstances and most parties have an understandable position here.
That I think is the status quo and it seems to work. Atleast for the White people who for the most part are contributing to society and managing to not commit crimes. And I supposed we all think well when the minorities are willing to get their shit together they will and all will fine. Problem is the status quo will fail us eventually. As these ghetto communities reproduce at much higher rates the drain becomes too great. So something has to be done.
The first and easiest step is to reduce the crime and the terror hold that their own criminals have on these communities. “Stop and frisk”. This also serves “our” community in both an actual and preventative way. But of course lost in the sauce is the large number of primarily minorities being subjected to unwarranted and violating searches. I find it particularly disturbing to search a female as a proper search should include contacting the groin with the edge of your hand. I really don’t like this being done and theres a series of pretences here.
The first is this being justified after 911. The pretense being “We’re only go do this to terrorist looking guys.” So we say “good fuck em’ and I am not worried about the few good ones.”
Then of course like most laws its turned on the minority community. Which ofcourse it should be because they commit far and way the most crimes. But again the pretense is “It’s a law for the coloreds, not regular people just going to work”. And again we say “Good, fuck em, and I am not worried about the good ones that get screwed.” Well I am worried about the good ones. But more so I am worried for me and mine. Any tools you give the cops they will use. And their general mode of operation with anyone is always with a touch of intimidation. But generally you don’t have to victim to this intimidation if you know your rights. But now your rights are changed and more and more they can do things to you that are improper. I really don’t like it. And its not because I see it driving us into a military state. I just see where more and more when not commiting a crime a person can be subjected to more and more infringement and intimidation.
Now to get back to your point. The “Liberty vs security” conundrum. That line does have to be able to move a little bit. I can live with the TSA areas at airports and subways for a while. But I am greatly inflexible on a lot of other things. Because the rights you give up seem to never be returned. But there are many situations that are not getting better and I could be wrong. I will thing more on these matters.