Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal

[Citizen]

]You are aware that the DoI is not a legal document and has no force of law, correct?
[/B]



I am positive that NYPD made some stops that were unreasonable and unconstitutional. Which is why, as I posted above, each case has to be judged individually, on it's merits (or lack of). To declare all stop and frisk as illegal is rubbish.

Has no force of law? Heh, heh, heh. Oh, yes it does, even though government will go a long, long way to avoid admitting it.

Two angles to this.

The first few lines of the second paragraph are discussing natural law, the law of human nature. Government violates those laws at its own risk just as surely as an engineer violates the laws of physics at his own risk when designing a bridge.

And, the entire legitimacy of every state government since July 5, 1776 depends on that second paragraph. The second paragraph contains the justifications for the break from England. If the philosophical justifications in the second paragraph are not valid, then the revolution itself was not legitimate and England is still the rightful government of this country; if that second paragraph is wrong, every state government since the revolution is illegitimate, as is the federal government created by those states.

The only way the revolution was legitimate is if that second paragraph is legitimate. And, since that time, the only way state and national governments could remain legitimate is if they adhered to those principles.

So, you're right. The DoI has no force of law. It is superior to law. Statutes and regulations and state coercion and threats are petty things by comparison.

 

[pkbites]

The DoI has no force of law. It is superior to law. Statutes and regulations and state coercion and threats are petty things by comparison.

This Kumbaya rhetoric is pointless and serves no basis in reality to the legal issues we are discussing. What's next, the 10 commandments?

 

[carolina guy]

And, I'm pretty sure a federal court has already declared that mere presence in a high-crime area is neither justification for a seizure of the person, nor an officer-safety search.

Black v. US (4th District)

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf

 

[carolina guy]

This Kumbaya rhetoric is pointless and serves no basis in reality to the legal issues we are discussing. What's next, the 10 commandments?

Just out of curiosity...do you feel that common law has any place in the US?

 

[carolina guy]

Has no force of law? Heh, heh, heh. Oh, yes it does, even though government will go a long, long way to avoid admitting it.

Two angles to this.

The first few lines of the second paragraph are discussing natural law, the law of human nature. Government violates those laws at its own risk just as surely as an engineer violates the laws of physics at his own risk when designing a bridge.

And, the entire legitimacy of every state government since July 5, 1776 depends on that second paragraph. The second paragraph contains the justifications for the break from England. If the philosophical justifications in the second paragraph are not valid, then the revolution itself was not legitimate and England is still the rightful government of this country; if that second paragraph is wrong, every state government since the revolution is illegitimate, as is the federal government created by those states.

The only way the revolution was legitimate is if that second paragraph is legitimate. And, since that time, the only way state and national governments could remain legitimate is if they adhered to those principles.

So, you're right. The DoI has no force of law. It is superior to law. Statutes and regulations and state coercion and threats are petty things by comparison.

I would throw the Magna Carta and Common Law into the mix...

 

[Repeater]

"Stop and Frisk" as applied

The Judge did not rule S&F to be unconstitutional; rather she ruled the NYPD applied S&F illegally. That's a big difference.

 

[carolina guy]

The Judge did not rule S&F to be unconstitutional; rather she ruled the NYPD applied S&F illegally. That a big difference.

She ruled that blanket application of S&F to be illegal.

 

[Repeater]

She ruled that blanket application of S&F to be illegal.

Where in her opinion does she do that? Cite, please. This gets is right:

Stop and Frisk on Trial in NYC: Race, Crime and Constitutional Policing

On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Schiendlin ruled that the New York City Police Department's use of "Stop and Frisk," a policing tactic in which officers detain and search citizens on the street who are guilty of suspcious behavior, is unconstitutional as currently practiced.

Jacob Sullum at Reason gets to the real problem, one that applies to OC and CC folks as well: furtive movements as the basis for the stop:

Why a Federal Judge Says the NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk Program Is Unconstitutional

Since stops are always supposed to be based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and cops are free to prevaricate, unchallenged, on the forms they fill out, the fact that they fail to even name the crime they claim to have suspected more than a third of the time suggests a pretty casual attitude toward the Fourth Amendment. The reasons they offer for suspecting someone was up to no good are similarly vague. Two of the most popular are "high crime area" and "furtive movements." Regarding the latter excuse, Scheindlin observes:

Two officers testified to their understanding of the term "furtive movements." One explained that "furtive movement is a very broad concept," and could include a person "changing direction," "walking in a certain way," "[a]cting a little suspicious," "making a movement that is not regular," being “very fidgety," "going in and out of his pocket," "going in and out of a location," "looking back and forth constantly," "looking over their shoulder," "adjusting their hip or their belt," "moving in and out of a car too quickly," "[t]urning a part of their body away from you," "[g]rabbing at a certain pocket or something at their waist," "getting a little nervous, maybe shaking," and "stutter[ing]." Another officer explained that "usually" a furtive movement is someone "hanging out in front of [a] building, sitting on the benches or something like that" and then making a "quick movement," such as "bending down and quickly standing back up," "going inside the lobby... and then quickly coming back out," or "all of a sudden becom[ing] very nervous, very aware." If officers believe that the behavior described above constitutes furtive movement that justifies a stop, then it is no surprise that stops so rarely produce evidence of criminal activity.

Further, instilling fear as a rationale excuse a police state and makes no one safer, least of all legal gun carriers:

Scheindlin rejects another argument Bloomberg uses to defend the stop-and-frisk program:

One NYPD official has even suggested that it is permissible to stop racially defined groups just to instill fear in them that they are subject to being stopped at any time for any reason—in the hope that this fear will deter them from carrying guns in the streets. The goal of deterring crime is laudable, but this method of doing so is unconstitutional.

Bloomberg himself has offered a similar rationale, likening street stops to DUI checkpoints, which aim to deter drunk driving rather than catch drunk drivers. Accordingly, the mayor says, the fact that guns are found during a tiny and shrinking percentage of stops shows the program is working. This argument abandons any pretense that the program is constitutional, since the Supreme Court has approved random stops of motorists at DUI checkpoints under a special traffic safety rationale that does not apply to the NYPD's stops of pedestrians, which are supposed to be based on individualized suspicion.

It's one thing for officers to frisk during a legal investigative detention pursuant to a legitimate claim of "officer safety" by the evidence shows that in NYC, the cops are using S&F mostly to intimidate the people into being submissive to the demands of the gun-hating Mayor. That's not public safety or officer safety.

 

[Citizen]

I would throw the Magna Carta and Common Law into the mix...

You could. You just have to understand a few points and be ready to counter them.

For example, Magna Carta was really a Middle Ages baronial document designed to protect nobles from the king. It wasn't intended to protect the nobles' serfs. It wasn't until Edward Coke came along and revised the significance of Magna Carta in the late 1500s/early 1600s that Magna Carta took on its almost mythical power. So, if anybody knows the real score, pre-Coke, you want to be able to quickly counter-argue.

I'm gonna guess Coke did that in the late 1500's when Elizabeth I was still alive. Coke was a lawyer and judge. He was a tried-and-true supporter of the government. Until Elizabeth promoted him. Suddenly, in his new, higher judgeship he shifted gears and came out as a champion of liberty. In fact, either Elizabeth or James I promoted him Chief Justice of the Kings Bench to shut him up, the reasoning being that he couldn't thwart political intentions as easily in that position because he would only be hearing certain kinds of appeals. It didn't particularly work. If you want to learn about one of the champions of liberty, this is a guy worth reading about.

As far as the common law goes, its got plenty of great points, but remember that it was invented by people who had not the benefit of reading John Locke.

 

[CT Barfly]

And it is Democrats that are running the show up there, imagine that! Just like the actual slave trade -- Democrats wanted to keep slavery and Republicans fought to abolish it! It is amazing how much black Americans have forgot in 150years. You would think they would all be Republicans, but they are all members of the party that wanted to keep them enslaved.

Very insightful. It's much easier to chant for more police presence, fewer guns in the hands of ANYBODY and fewer civil liberties for ALL in order to stop the violence that arises from poverty. Otherwise, you'd actually have to tackle the cycle of poverty and NOBODY wants to address that...it's too hard.

It's not about the nail!

[video=youtube;-4EDhdAHrOg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg[/video]

 

[CT Barfly]

Technically, the stop-question-frisks that result in drug seizures are unreasonable. Terry only allows a protective pat-down of the outer garments for a weapon when an officer has reason to believe a subject is dangerous. NY law does NOT allow for "fututzing" with the contents of a pocket or a bag to determine if it's a napkin, baggie of CDS or a ham sandwich. The item must be immediately recognizable as a weapon to allow removal. Mere suspicion that it is non-weapon contraband does not allow seizure/charge/arrest.

In reality, officers are being exhorted at roll-call to "get their numbers up" and to be more "productive." I have experienced the results first-hand and I can tell you that these stops are indeed searches that use physical threats, intimidation and outright invasion of pockets, bags, etc without consent and people get charged for drug violations ALL THE TIME. In fact, the NUMBER ONE reason for arrest after a SQF is...CDS! There's no excuse, Terry is for officer safety, not getting drugs off the street and it is a violation of defendants' 4A rights when drug possession charges follow.

Judge Sheindlin called it right. What a lot of folks don't understand is the HIDDEN toll from widespread 4A deprivation. For every arrest (for CDS or weapons), there are literally HUNDREDS/THOUSANDS of non-productive stops. These people go on their merry way after an adversarial encounter and most never give it a second thought. Any human who would advocate for this kind of treatment of the population as a whole just means they don't give a crap about the 4A. The yield rate of these stops was exceedingly low...0.2% gun hits! A FIFTH OF ONE PERCENT. Literally 500 stops per gun.