• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
A police state in New York makes life difficult. This ruling balances thing just a little bot:

Bronx Residents Accosted by NYPD Win Landmark Court Ruling Deeming "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Illegal
A federal judge has ruled that New York City police are not allowed to routinely stop pedestrians outside of private residential buildings in the Bronx. The stops are part of the so-called Clean Halls program, which has prompted allegations of police harassment by some residents who say they are being accosted outside of the buildings in which they live. Previous data on the New York Police Department’s "stop-and-frisk" policy has shown African-American and Latino men make up a hugely disproportionate share of those stopped.

Police respond: "This will cost lives!"

Stop-And-Frisk: Ray Kelly Warns NYC Mayoral Candidates That End To NYPD Program Will Cost Lives
— Police Commissioner Ray Kelly had ominous words for any mayoral contender looking to change the city's most controversial crime-fighting tactics.

Ending stop-and-frisk or dismantling the city's expansive counter-terrorism efforts would put the city at risk, Kelly said during a rare interview Thursday night at the 92nd Street Y.

“The things that we’re doing here are working and I would hate to see them change significantly," said Kelly, warning that, "People will die as a result."

Well, **** ** **, then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Law abiding folks will die because they can't fight back when the bad guys ignore NYC's draconian gun laws.

Random warantless groping does not save lives. It just allows a police state to enforce its anti-Liberty laws using anti-Liberty techniques.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Of course, the areas where these abuses occur, are mostly in poor, minority communities.--modern day form of slave trade, IMO.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Yes, I can recall a gentleman complaining he was being frisked several times a day. I mean, really, do we have to rely on the courts?

There is an alternative to relying on the Courts. The problem is you can't get enough people together to collectively, passively, buck the System.

The Courts are the default for Americans not wanting to take the time to collectively put feet to the ground, and really make an impact.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
A police state in New York makes life difficult. This ruling balances thing just a little bot:

Bronx Residents Accosted by NYPD Win Landmark Court Ruling Deeming "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Illegal


Police respond: "This will cost lives!"

Stop-And-Frisk: Ray Kelly Warns NYC Mayoral Candidates That End To NYPD Program Will Cost Lives


Well, feel me up, then.

As stated in Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford which was quoted in Terry v Ohio, no right is held more sacred or more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of the their own persons, free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Cops can't give themselves authority.

I do wonder, though. For all their suspicionless stops-and-frisks, why hasn't the practice been stopped before this point? I'm thinking that any criminal defense attorney worth two cents would have any evidence from a suspicionless stop-and-frisk tossed out, meaning the cops woulda found this practice fruitless. And, I'm thinking that by now a conviction arising from a suspicionless stop-and-frisk woulda made it to the appeals court level. Know what I'm thinking? The cops weren't finding much, if anything at all, during their stops-and-frisks. I think the Commissioner might be lying.

I wanta see his stats on overall number of suspicionless stops-and-frisks and number of arrests arising therefrom. I think we'd find out pretty quick whether he's lying or how far he's stretching the truth.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
As stated in Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford which was quoted in Terry v Ohio, no right is held more sacred or more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of all individuals to the control and possession of the their own persons, free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Cops can't give themselves authority.

Policy give the officers the authorization to stop-and-frisk, not the officers themselves. Let's be clear about that fact. It isn't as if a group of officers just decided, on their own, t stop-and-frisk so-called "suspicious" individuals.

I do wonder, though. For all their suspicionless stops-and-frisks, why hasn't the practice been stopped before this point? I'm thinking that any criminal defense attorney worth two cents would have any evidence from a suspicionless stop-and-frisk tossed out, meaning the cops woulda found this practice fruitless. And, I'm thinking that by now a conviction arising from a suspicionless stop-and-frisk woulda made it to the appeals court level. Know what I'm thinking? The cops weren't finding much, if anything at all, during their stops-and-frisks. I think the Commissioner might be lying. *snippers*

It wasn't stopped because it was not--as much as I understand-- challenged in court. How many of those individuals who are stop-and-frisked, can afford to fight this in court. Most likely, the vast majority of them are relying on a public defender.

They seem to have justified their policy--or whatever you call it--by:

A federal judge ruled in January 2013 that the New York Police Department’s practice of stopping people suspected of trespassing outside private buildings in the Bronx was unconstitutional. The decision appeared to be one of the more significant federal rulings during the Bloomberg administration on the Police Department’s use of stop-and-frisk tactics.

The case was narrowly focused on police stops in front of the private residential buildings enrolled in the Trespass Affidavit Program, or TAP, in the Bronx. Under that program, which includes several thousand residential buildings, property managers asked the police to patrol their buildings and to arrest trespassers. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/stop_and_frisk/index.html

Apparently, the stop-and-frisk policy--or whatever it is--has not been completely ruled not Constitutional.
 
Last edited:

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Well, feel me down then ...

It's hilarious that an innocuous phrase got censored. Up or down; no difference?

The NY ACLU has these documents:

NYCLU Lawsuit Challenges NYPD Arrest of Brooklyn Woman for Filming Stop-and-Frisk

NYCLU Legal Victory Ends NYPD Practice of Keeping Innocent New Yorkers’ Information in Stop-and-Frisk Database

Judge Finds NYPD Routinely Makes Unconstitutional Street Stops Outside Clean Halls Buildings Across the Bronx

So, as it turns out, Bloomberg's Goon Squad was stopping all kinds of people, feeling them closely (assault) then entering personal information into a database for an indefinite period. Sounds a lot like the obsolete East Germany.

Gee, I thought Erich Honecker was dead.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Policy give the officers the authorization to stop-and-frisk, not the officers themselves. Let's be clear about that fact. It isn't as if a group of officers just decided, on their own, t stop-and-frisk so-called "suspicious" individuals.

It wasn't stopped because it was not--as much as I understand-- challenged in court. How many of those individuals who are stop-and-frisked, can afford to fight this in court. Most likely, the vast majority of them are relying on a public defender.

They seem to have justified their policy--or whatever you call it--by:

Apparently, the stop-and-frisk policy--or whatever it is--has not been completely ruled not Constitutional.

Hahahahahaahahahahaa!! And, she doesn't think the people above the street cop are not cops themselves. Nevermind that any cops genuinely supportive of 4A rights can nullify the policy by ignoring it. I don't recall any cops objecting to the policy when it was much broader a couple years ago. Not until a police lieutenant came forward and validated the assertions of a few community or civil rights groups a couple years ago.

In Terry v Ohio, SCOTUS expressly acknowledged the practice was occurring and that black communities were complaining about it. Think about that for a moment, folks. Cops usurped authority and were stop-and-frisking people long ago already. And, it was Terry v Ohio that slapped down the practice of stop-and-frisking people at cops's discretion by requiring RAS. So, its not like this is an area of law where things are foggy. Its clear the practice of discretionary stop-and-frisks were invented by cops in violation of the 4A and one of the most protected rights, was shot down by SCOTUS, and then recently re-usurped.
 

boyscout399

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
905
Location
Lyman, Maine
Policy give the officers the authorization to stop-and-frisk, not the officers themselves. Let's be clear about that fact. It isn't as if a group of officers just decided, on their own, t stop-and-frisk so-called "suspicious" individuals.

A policy which violates the Constitution is not justification for violating the Constitution.

If a police department has a policy that says anyone holding signs at a protest event is going to be tased and their signs taken from them, any officer that follows that policy is still violating the Constitution and is liable for his actions.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
How to enforce the New&Improved draconian gun laws?

Golly, without S&F or something like the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi), how will those new gun control laws be enforced?

Eight bullets in a pocket? Who's to know?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Golly, without S&F or something like the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi), how will those new gun control laws be enforced?

Eight bullets in a pocket? Who's to know?

Oh, I'm sure the cops will pretty quickly start Terry Stops to check for magazine capacity, just like they did in CA about 12031(e)-checks for load-chamber violations. Give 'em a couple years and they'll start asking for express statutory authority to check any gun for magazine capacity, bypassing Terry requirements for RAS.

And, it won't take cops long to start patting pockets looking for that spare magazine or those loose bullets, "because, they're associated with a gun."
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Hahahahahaahahahahaa!! And, she doesn't think the people above the street cop are not cops themselves. Nevermind that any cops genuinely supportive of 4A rights can nullify the policy by ignoring it. I don't recall any cops objecting to the policy when it was much broader a couple years ago. Not until a police lieutenant came forward and validated the assertions of a few community or civil rights groups a couple years ago.

In Terry v Ohio, SCOTUS expressly acknowledged the practice was occurring and that black communities were complaining about it. Think about that for a moment, folks. Cops usurped authority and were stop-and-frisking people long ago already. And, it was Terry v Ohio that slapped down the practice of stop-and-frisking people at cops's discretion by requiring RAS. So, its not like this is an area of law where things are foggy. Its clear the practice of discretionary stop-and-frisks were invented by cops in violation of the 4A and one of the most protected rights, was shot down by SCOTUS, and then recently re-usurped.


I understand what you're stating.

So, you're asserting that Terry v. Ohio is applicable in this case?

Let's read what SCOTUS stated...

The question:

Question

Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

The Answer:

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_67

I see, so the Terry Stop is Constitutional, as long as the officer has an Reasonable--articulable of course--suspicion that safety is an issue during the investigation of suspicious behavior.

Basically, depending on how, what, when, where, why, the stop-and-frisk is occurring, the officers are engaged in a Constitutional act. It appears, in the NY case, the officers didn't meet that Reasonable standard, or wasn't able to articulate their reasoning behind the stop-and-frisk.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
A policy which violates the Constitution is not justification for violating the Constitution.

If a police department has a policy that says anyone holding signs at a protest event is going to be tased and their signs taken from them, any officer that follows that policy is still violating the Constitution and is liable for his actions.

I didn't state otherwise.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Sorry, babe. Your numerous examples of intellectual dishonesty, evasions, and self-contradictions means I don't answer your questions or discuss things with you.

That's all I require, to substantiate what I stated in my post.

It was nice chatting with you, BTW. We should do it more often.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching individuals act as if the Constitution, and what is, and is not constitutional, holds some definitive end.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Sorry, babe. Your numerous examples of intellectual dishonesty, evasions, and self-contradictions means I don't answer your questions or discuss things with you.

Wisdom.

I wish more posters around here would exhibit that wisdom.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA

Great graphic. I especially liked the stat about 88% of stop-and-frisks resulted in nothing.


It occurs to me that the Russian Gulag method would probably be effective here. I'm referring to a tactic used by Soviet prison camp inmates. A few of them understood that a bureaucracy runs on rules. Bureaucrats are highly allergic to deviating from the house rules. It opens the bureaucrat to bad performance reviews, punishment, and there is always a subordinate who is looking to step up.

The prisoners noticed that a formal written complaint by a prisoner had to be investigated; it was a bureaucracy rule. So, several inmates got together and started writing complaints. More inmates joined in. So many that at the height of the campaign, inmates were divvying up the list of potential complaint subjects. They tied up so much man-power at the prison that the bureaucracy came to a halt, doing little else except investigating complaints, literally. Eventually, a complaint was misrouted to a Politburo member. Boy, that got lots of attention. By the time it was done, the warden was retired early, conditions improved, a few inmates were transfered, and at least one inmate was released.

Basically, the tactic is to make the bureaucracy follow its own rules; use the bureauracy's own rules against it.

Imagine if 200,000 stop-and-frisk detainees wrote formal complaints. NYPD internal affairs would be tied in knots.
 
Top