Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
zoocrew

"Stop and Frisk" on Trial

Recommended Posts

In New York City, the policy of "stop and frisk" by law enforcement has been challenged, claiming that minorities, particularly black and Latino young males, are being targeted more so than other demographics. The mayor of New York, Bloomberg, claims the policy has helped reduce crime. The hearing is on going.

 

My link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well stop and look who are the ones doing it?:clapping:

Because that is not politically correct.

 

"black and Latino young males, are being targeted more so than other demographics" probably because statistically they are responsible for more of the crimes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well stop and look who are the ones doing it?:clapping:

 

Hmmmm. Seems a reading of the Constitution might be in order. If your statement had been more black males are in prison than whites because more of them commit crimes than whites, I would agree. However, it's my understanding this isn't in response to a crime, or exigent circumstances, or threatening behavior. It's just pulling over people in high-crime areas just because. Less than 10% result in an arrest. Not a fan am I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that is not politically correct.

 

"black and Latino young males, are being targeted more so than other demographics" probably because statistically they are responsible for more of the crimes.

 

Funny how people say they believe in the Constitution right up to the point that it gets in their way. Under the Constitution we are suppose to be protected from unreasonable search and seizures. I'd say being frisked because a cop "thinks" you look suspicious is a little bit unreasonable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how people say they believe in the Constitution right up to the point that it gets in their way. Under the Constitution we are suppose to be protected from unreasonable search and seizures. I'd say being frisked because a cop "thinks" you look suspicious is a little bit unreasonable.

 

100% agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am still trying to find out what is being challenged with this. This is old case law long ago settled by the SCOTUS.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk\

 

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

 

The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

 

The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

 

After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how people say they believe in the Constitution right up to the point that it gets in their way. Under the Constitution we are suppose to be protected from unreasonable search and seizures. I'd say being frisked because a cop "thinks" you look suspicious is a little bit unreasonable.

 

It's a form of bigotry when a cop thinks you look suspicious because you are Black or Latino, while as opposed to some other race. drinks.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a form of bigotry when a cop thinks you look suspicious because you are Black or Latino, while as opposed to some other race. drinks.gif

And that explains why we usually stopped the white folks that were hanging out inside Allgood mobilehome park ( place occupied almost totally by minorities)how? I know the concept is well beyond your scope TP but here goes. My TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE dictate what or who I as a LEO find suspicious. In this case there is little to no reason for two white teen males to be there other than to buy drugs. I then act accordingly within the confines of ALL applicable laws. It really is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that explains why we usually stopped the white folks that were hanging out inside Allgood mobilehome park how? I knoe the concept is well beyond your scope TP but her e goes. My TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE dicttate what or who I as a LEO find suspicious. I thrn act accordingly within the cofines of ALL applicablr laws. It really is that simple.

 

It's only a concept, ah, Mr.Dis?

 

That is what I was thinking about your idea of how stop and frisk works, according to law. pardon.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a form of bigotry when a cop thinks you look suspicious because you are Black or Latino, while as opposed to some other race. drinks.gif

 

Well, in light of Mr. Dis's post, if the popo are in a high crime black/latino neighborhood and their frisks fall under the standard listed, then SCOTUS has indeed said it's ok. Reason they're not being discriminated against is because the majority there are black/latino and it's a high-crime area. I'm still not thrilled with it, but that does explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wanted to give a per sonal account of why frisks are necessary and what happens if you do not do them. Firstly bear in mind that frisks are very common in the law enforcement trade. Doing them properly makes us safe and can lead to positive proactive law enforcement.Not doing them when needed can get you killed. Trust me, that is how i got shot. I just hadn't made it to the frisk part by the time of the shooting. I did tell him to take his hands out of his pockets and he did, he came out shooting.

 

Anyway a perfect true story. New Years eve we got a call for a prowler armed with a knife outside a mobile home. Pretty specific for a prowler considering. Anyway 3 of us responded with me being the last to arrive. The first officer arrived and met with the complainant. When I arrived I saw him talking to the complainant and the second officer talking to a guy in a leg cast outside. 2nd officer had performed a frisk already. I assumed it was the prowler but found it odd that he was in a cast. I walked up just in time to hear the officer ask how he got there. "so and so brought me". Where is he at? As if on cue a car pulls up. "there is so and so". Ok, so I assume this guy is just a driver and I go to get his story. So I ask him what was going on. He was in the car with an older lady, the guys were in their low 20s and she was 40ish. He indicated she was his mother. To better facilitate the interview I had him stepout of the car. Now you need to remember that frisks are at the officer's descretion however officer safety ALWAYS takes prescedence. When he stepped out I could tell he was wearing jeans and a T-shurt tucked into his pants. I saw all the way around his waist and felt comfotable that he did not have a large weapon immediately available so I elected not to frisk him. This was unfortunate given the circumstances that I was not aware of yet. It turns out he was the "bad guy" who had been arguing ith his step brother, the original complainant and the guy in the cast was just another friend of theirs and not really the bad guy. I did not get far into the interview before the primary officer with all the info came up. I told him right away that this guy had not been patted down nor had I dealt with the mother at all. So here is where it goes bad. the primary officer who knows this was indeed the bad guy elected to not pat him down as well. The guy keeps putting his hands in his jeans pockets with the PO telling him to leave them out where we could see them. After the third round the PO had enough and laid hands on him to pat him down. This was a very appropriate / prudent course of action at that time. As soon as that happened he started fighting. Mom came at us from the other side of the car. I left the PO to deal with the guy and I went to mom to put her back in the car. We had no idea if she might have had a bazooka on her at this point and she could not go unaddressed. So in the mean time the 2nd officer had come over and joined the fight with the first. They did get him under control and arrested him with mom getting close to arrest as well for not complying to my directions to get back in the car. Both of the other officers had minor injuries from the scuffle and we all wound up in IA for a "excessive use of force" complaint. that is the nature of the situations faced in general law enforcement work. Things seldom are what they seem at the onset and it can go down hill very fast. So when we try to be the kinder gentler LEO we wind up getting in a fight and going in front of IA. Sounds totally logical right? And now these yahoos are trying to say we should stop doing the Terry pat downs? Really? How do you guys like living without LEOs because we will be loosing a bunch of them if this gets taken out of the "toolbox". and those officers that don't get hurt or killed will soon quit because the danger is too great to not be allowed to frisk these folks for officer safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in light of Mr. Dis's post, if the popo are in a high crime black/latino neighborhood and their frisks fall under the standard listed, then SCOTUS has indeed said it's ok. Reason they're not being discriminated against is because the majority there are black/latino and it's a high-crime area. I'm still not thrilled with it, but that does explain it.

 

Here's more news on this.

 

My link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Dis,

 

I think a lot of people confuse "search" and "pat down" and think they are the same thing.

 

A pat down is what is typically known as a "frisk" and doesn't involved looking at the contents of a purse, pockets, etc.

It's simply where the officer "pats" or "rubs" along your bodyline, OUTSIDE of the clothing to feel for

large dense objects that may be a weapon.

 

Would you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's more news on this.

 

My link

 

That does indeed shed more light on this. Sounds like Nanny Bloomberg has gone where other mayors have not gone before. Gee, Rudy made the city safe again without all these shenanigans.

 

that is the nature of the situations faced in general law enforcement work. Things seldom are what they seem at the onset and it can go down hill very fast. So when we try to be the kinder gentler LEO we wind up getting in a fight and going in front of IA. Sounds totally logical right? And now these yahoos are trying to say we should stop doing the Terry pat downs? Really? How do you guys like living without LEOs because we will be loosing a bunch of them if this gets taken out of the "toolbox". and those officers that don't get hurt or killed will soon quit because the danger is too great to not be allowed to frisk these folks for officer safety.

 

Agreed on this situation, and I completely understand about things going south very quickly. The situation you describe is different from what I'm taking away from the NYC thing. The NYT article zoo links to is instructive as to what the actual complaints/procedures are. I back LE's right to be safe, and that's different from what's going on in NYC, as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr.Dis,

 

I think a lot of people confuse "search" and "pat down" and think they are the same thing.

 

A pat down is what is typically known as a "frisk" and doesn't involved looking at the contents of a purse, pockets, etc.

It's simply where the officer "pats" or "rubs" along your bodyline, OUTSIDE of the clothing to feel for

large dense objects that may be a weapon.

 

Would you agree?

 

That is the way we did it. I would usually ask them at that time if i could "check their person". If they comsented it gave you the right to put your hands in their pockets and such. I always asked if they had any guns, knives or handgrenades they wanted to tell me about first though to lighten the mood a little. Most of the time there was nothing to be feared by them. I would just pull out pocket knives and such and place them on the hood in front of them. All that just got me to the point where it was going to be hard to pull a gun on me like happened before. However, I will never forget the painter that let me check his person and I found that clear bag containing a green leafy substance believed to be marijuana. His comment " ohh. I forgot that was there." :rofl: :rofl: I impoounded his van with the broken rear window, had him call someone to pick him up and made him pour out his "stash" onto the roadway. Hey... I could not let him drive away, that would have been illegal.:pardon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does indeed shed more light on this. Sounds like Nanny Bloomberg has gone where other mayors have not gone before. Gee, Rudy made the city safe again without all these shenanigans.

 

 

 

Agreed on this situation, and I completely understand about things going south very quickly. The situation you describe is different from what I'm taking away from the NYC thing. The NYT article zoo links to is instructive as to what the actual complaints/procedures are. I back LE's right to be safe, and that's different from what's going on in NYC, as I understand it.

 

 

We NEVER had any quotas at all. We were expected to show initiative and produce stats though. If you sat in your car all day and did nothing but answer calls it would look bad on you. My specialty was drug and DUI intediction. Just trying to make the streets safe by "meeting and greeting" the public. Most of my stops resulted in a warning but I made many stops and found many criminals. I got one of my biggest arrests from stopping a car for driving on a closed road. The guys had stolen 2 Mustangs from KSU that day. They ran when I tried to stop them. after the chase we found the briefcase to one of the Mustang owners and a set of tail lights in their car. They also had counterfeit 20's on them. The day shift guys found one of the Mustangs on a hill off the closed road the next day where they were stripping it. After that almost every Metro LE Agency wanted to talk to these guys about the Mustang thefts in their areas. All because I tried to stop them for driving on a closed road.:drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always laugh at theses 'statistics'. Most inner city high crime areas are predominantly black. High crime areas get more attention. LE working in those areas obviously will have more frequent encounters from the predominate race.

 

You could go on and talk about how black males who represent about 6% of the population commit about 50% of violent crimes. But that is another topic.

 

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin .......

 

City Faces $200K Settlement In APD Strip Search

 

Atlanta is on the verge of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to two men who say Atlanta police strip-searched them in the middle of a busy street.

 

http://www.wsbtv.com...p-search/nDK2X/

 

 

Edited by CitizenCain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why are they frisking all the minorities? I would be frisking the females with the big boobies, they have more places to hide stuff.

 

:drinks:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kidding.

:nea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why are they frisking all the minorities? I would be frisking the females with the big boobies, they have more places to hide stuff.

 

:drinks:

 

 

Kidding.

:nea:

:lol:

No you're not. 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why are they frisking all the minorities? I would be frisking the females with the big boobies, they have more places to hide stuff.

 

:drinks:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kidding.

:nea:

 

You can frisk the females too... you jus t can't use your hands unless you have a VERY GOOD reason. We were taught to use the hilt of our flashlight. The reasoning beingvthat if you ran it across their clothing it would make a metalic clank if it went across a knife or gun. We could also use the backs of our hands. I never did that but I used the flashlight a few times. Just think about what it looks like when you get wanded witj a metal detector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg is a well rounded waste of oxygen.

 

Look who's trashing the top .01 percent of those earning incomes these days ... and a fellow who is contributing his time and effort through public service too boot.

 

If you look at the 'leadership' of the nation, one notices a predominance of those whose wealth provides them time to undertake public service and Bloomberg is among the wealthiest of the lot.

 

Given the policies of the GOP have been to drastically cut taxes for these people - tax benefits that mean billions over the course of a decade to someone of Bloomberg's wealth - I can't help but marvel at the apparent love-hate relationship you have with these folks.

 

I mean the idea that these folks deserve to pay less than 15 percent income tax on their incomes and to call anyone who says they should pay more is a socialist suggests that you should be deferential to Hizonner, da Mayor of New York.

 

But instead, you're down right dismissive.

 

It just seems that since you've decided to sublimate your interests to those in the upper reaches of income - Wall Streets' Masters of the Universe - allowing them to define the economy and establish laws that favor them, you'd be equally deferential to Mayor Bloomberg, who is one of the true top ten or twenty in that group.

 

pubby

 

PS: I actually do appreciate your apparent stroke of independence in this and wonder only why it doesn't extend beyond this man? I think it may be because he's just one of the few of this 'master of the universe' group that you know anything about. I'd almost wager if you knew what others from his income group thought (like you do him) you'd be as quick to reject them as you are him.

 

PPS: In the Atlanta case, A body cavity search of most probably a gay guy (drop'em and bend over) in the middle of Peachtree street at high noon is most assuredly a bad idea. If you think they may have a 380 stuffed up their wazoo, cuff'em and take 'em in to the jail before you do the search. I don't blame the city council for approving the settlement ... and firing the cop who instigated it.

 

PPPS: In the case of NYC, too much is just too much. I think I saw one set of statistics that suggested that every person of color in NYC had been stopped and frisked, an average of 2.5 times in the past year.

 

The point being there needs to be some element of probable cause to effect the stop and frisk operation. There is not that much probable cause; rather it is more like the cops there are just playing the role of bullies and bullying the random person of color seemingly for the thrill of doing so.

 

No one is saying that cops shouldn't have any concern for their personal safety but then they are not hired to bully citizens simply because they want to do so on a whim.

 

Is what they're doing 'too much' ???

 

Well, they've been doing basically what they're doing since Rudy was Mayor and they may have gotten out of hand. That, I think, is up to their courts to decide. (I know there are black judges in the city, BTW, and I suspect that if they or their sons were stopped and frisked a dozen times - that may have been too many times, especially if they told the officers, you can't do that, I'm the judge and got konked on the head for their effort.) The point being that somewhere along the line too many stop and frisks becomes too many and the policy is corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this and wonder "why has a police officer never frisked me?"

 

I'm thinking its because MY actions have never put a police officer in the position of needing to protect himself from me?

 

I think 99.999% of police officers are good at reading body language.

 

If an officer pulls me over, I run, he traps me, I roll the window up, I hid my hands in my pockets and I give the officer an attitude... He most likely needs to take extreme care.

 

If an officer pulls me over, I stop, roll down the window, put both hands on top of the steering wheel, say yes sir and no sir... He most likely will treat me the same way I treat him.

 

Where does personal accountability enter into the debate?

Edited by mojo413
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real thing to keep in mind here is that the stop and frisk in NYC is "on trial" ... which means that they are happening so often that it is raising the question of whether it is being employed as a necessary police protective exercise in caution or a fun way for bullies in blue to intimidate anyone of color they choose.

 

The real point is that the plaintiffs, under the first amendment, are making their best case it has gone too far. That is not to say that it has and it is up to the courts to decide. This is YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH - i.e. your right to ask redress of grievances, in this case, to the court.

 

There is no guarantee that the judge will find that the plaintiffs are right but they have every right to make their case.

 

That is what is happening. It is up to the federal court in NY whether they make their case.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PPS: In the Atlanta case, A body cavity search of most probably a gay guy (drop'em and bend over) in the middle of Peachtree street at high noon is most assuredly a bad idea. If you think they may have a 380 stuffed up their wazoo, cuff'em and take 'em in to the jail before you do the search. I don't blame the city council for approving the settlement ... and firing the cop who instigated it.

 

Chances are excellent he will be back on the job in no time. He will appeal his case before an arbitration board and they will rehire him, happens all the time. At worse he will keep his police accreditation and go to another county. Short of murder everyone in government has a sort of unspoken tenor. It makes a mockery of the tax payer, the system and why trust in government is at an all time low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a simple answer to this.

 

Hire smoking hot white women to do the frisking.

 

Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wanted to give a per sonal account of why frisks are necessary and what happens if you do not do them. Firstly bear in mind that frisks are very common in the law enforcement trade. Doing them properly makes us safe and can lead to positive proactive law enforcement.Not doing them when needed can get you killed. Trust me, that is how i got shot. I just hadn't made it to the frisk part by the time of the shooting. I did tell him to take his hands out of his pockets and he did, he came out shooting.

 

Anyway a perfect true story. New Years eve we got a call for a prowler armed with a knife outside a mobile home. Pretty specific for a prowler considering. Anyway 3 of us responded with me being the last to arrive. The first officer arrived and met with the complainant. When I arrived I saw him talking to the complainant and the second officer talking to a guy in a leg cast outside. 2nd officer had performed a frisk already. I assumed it was the prowler but found it odd that he was in a cast. I walked up just in time to hear the officer ask how he got there. "so and so brought me". Where is he at? As if on cue a car pulls up. "there is so and so". Ok, so I assume this guy is just a driver and I go to get his story. So I ask him what was going on. He was in the car with an older lady, the guys were in their low 20s and she was 40ish. He indicated she was his mother. To better facilitate the interview I had him stepout of the car. Now you need to remember that frisks are at the officer's descretion however officer safety ALWAYS takes prescedence. When he stepped out I could tell he was wearing jeans and a T-shurt tucked into his pants. I saw all the way around his waist and felt comfotable that he did not have a large weapon immediately available so I elected not to frisk him. This was unfortunate given the circumstances that I was not aware of yet. It turns out he was the "bad guy" who had been arguing ith his step brother, the original complainant and the guy in the cast was just another friend of theirs and not really the bad guy. I did not get far into the interview before the primary officer with all the info came up. I told him right away that this guy had not been patted down nor had I dealt with the mother at all. So here is where it goes bad. the primary officer who knows this was indeed the bad guy elected to not pat him down as well. The guy keeps putting his hands in his jeans pockets with the PO telling him to leave them out where we could see them. After the third round the PO had enough and laid hands on him to pat him down. This was a very appropriate / prudent course of action at that time. As soon as that happened he started fighting. Mom came at us from the other side of the car. I left the PO to deal with the guy and I went to mom to put her back in the car. We had no idea if she might have had a bazooka on her at this point and she could not go unaddressed. So in the mean time the 2nd officer had come over and joined the fight with the first. They did get him under control and arrested him with mom getting close to arrest as well for not complying to my directions to get back in the car. Both of the other officers had minor injuries from the scuffle and we all wound up in IA for a "excessive use of force" complaint. that is the nature of the situations faced in general law enforcement work. Things seldom are what they seem at the onset and it can go down hill very fast. So when we try to be the kinder gentler LEO we wind up getting in a fight and going in front of IA. Sounds totally logical right? And now these yahoos are trying to say we should stop doing the Terry pat downs? Really? How do you guys like living without LEOs because we will be loosing a bunch of them if this gets taken out of the "toolbox". and those officers that don't get hurt or killed will soon quit because the danger is too great to not be allowed to frisk these folks for officer safety.

 

Wow, that family belongs on the Springer show. Anyhow thanks for your service to the people, without your service the nation would be a bad place for sure. I think we have the best cops in the world, hands down.

 

This incident you went through was definately cause for a frisk, there was a reported incident. In New York they are frisking people just for the sake of patting them down. This is a violation of Search and Seizure in the Bill of Rights. James Madison's intent "The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized."

 

There is no probable cause in Bloomberg's Frisking but then again this guy has thrown the constitution out the window long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...