Police stop more than 1 million people on street

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Good thread.

It's quite obvious that the police have changed from their traditional "to serve and protect" role in nothing more than predators.

Where I live, they are targeting women driving alone in nice cars - easy to intimidate and likely to pay.

a hundred 's

I live in NYC and I'm afraid of the "stop and frisk" every once in a while. The thing is, they generally only do it in certain neighborhoods, like in the South Bronx, where crime and drugs are really high, however, that doesn't mean they can't do it anywhere they'd like.

Usually they do things like hang out in a neighborhood known for dope, if they see a junkie looking person they might stop him and question him and possibly frisk him.

The problem with this whole policy is that it flies in the face of Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is one of the major differences between the English and American legal systems. In England, a police officer only needs "reasonable cause to suspect" to search and arrest a suspect, "reasonable cause to suspect" is a lot more subjective than what the fourth amendment states.

Is there crime? Yes. Does Stop and Frisk catch criminals? Yes. Is it constitutional? I don't think so.


It's stupid to just label this policy as "racist" when, I feel, it's entirely unconstitutional regardless of what race you are. I've known plenty of white people who have been "stopped and frisked" multiple times. "White guy in a black neighborhood? Must be buying drugs!"

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Shadowflux]

would be interesting to see the statistical breakdown of crime rate before these measures were enacted, then after, then stop the measures and see if the rates rise, then back once again to random searches.

ultimately, if the rate is significant in reduction of crime, then you have to consider the benefits.

Going out into public, in public funded roads and streets, your bound to have to deal with things you dont have to deal with at home (such as strangers near you, people photographing you if they want, etc)...so its a gray area at best.

You are protected against unlawful searching of course, but that is for your property and yourself while on your property.
Ever been to a airport or courthouse? they have been doing random searches for ages without many people complaining.

I am not in favor of this just to be clear, but I dont see it as some illegal operation they are doing and if it is proven scientifically to massively reduce crime in inner citys, then I think it is logically a reasonable course of action.

As far as profiling issues...well, simple fact is, if some crackhead looking person is acting really nervous at the sight of a police officer, then ya...maybe that person should have to deal with a quick frisk. The only people that flip out bigtime when seeing a cop on the road are people speeding or typically doing something wrong.

Again, not a fan whatsoever of authority with potential abusive power in their hands, but not overly concerned about it either (considering I try not to break the laws overall...so, nothing to fear when I go out into public areas)

Someone asked referencing the 10% rate "what's wrong with that". It's a little thing called the fourth ammendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm very tired of "public good" arguments being used to dismember the constitution. And that doesn't even address the fact that targeting 100% of the innocent on the random chance that some might be a criminals shows a total disregard for the presumption of innocence paradigm our legal system is based on.

Know your rights and best of luck to all.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

You are protected against unlawful searching of course, but that is for your property and yourself while on your property.
Ever been to a airport or courthouse? they have been doing random searches for ages without many people complaining.

Only because we have become sheeple and do not stand up for our rights.

As far as profiling issues...well, simple fact is, if some crackhead looking person is acting really nervous at the sight of a police officer, then ya...maybe that person should have to deal with a quick frisk. The only people that flip out bigtime when seeing a cop on the road are people speeding or typically doing something wrong.

Wrong. The more police do the illegal stops and searches, the more normal people will begin to act nervous when they see a cop. And remember who is getting to decide when a person "deserves" to be stopped and searched. Fox guarding the henhouse?

Again, not a fan whatsoever of authority with potential abusive power in their hands, but not overly concerned about it either (considering I try not to break the laws overall...so, nothing to fear when I go out into public areas)

Count yourself lucky (so far) that they haven't decided to check YOU out. Alas, another one forgetting the slippery slope concept, and how that ultimately leads to the loss of rights.

[edit on 10/9/2009 by centurion1211]

ultimately I agree...this is a very slippery slope and ultimately there needs to be some serious considerations to where it is, where it could go, and what the benefits verses loss are.

Let me ask you a question...if they asked first if they could give you a quick frisk, would that make you more comfortable? (anyone saying no could end up being tailed while they are in the general public should the officer feel strongly something is off in the first place. that might be a decent compromise)

Originally posted by SaturnFX
ultimately I agree...this is a very slippery slope and ultimately there needs to be some serious considerations to where it is, where it could go, and what the benefits verses loss are.

Let me ask you a question...if they asked first if they could give you a quick frisk, would that make you more comfortable? (anyone saying no could end up being tailed while they are in the general public should the officer feel strongly something is off in the first place. that might be a decent compromise)

No, because it creates a guilty until proven innocent premise, which unless you live in Louisiana is against the very foundation of our justice system.

As I said previously, the police have now become predators and your ideas would only help them become more so.

The "stop and frisk policy" really just matches up with and extends their "random bag check point policy" where everyone, that's everyone, has to consent to a search of their bag if you happen to walk by the table.

People can say what they want in other states but it is a slightly different game here in New York City.

Lets not forget the Orwellian posters telling us to "Watch out" and if we "See something, say something." Oh, and the audio announcements "Backpacks and other large containers are subject to search", even the Metrocard machine (train tickets) tells us to "Report suspicious people or activity to NYPD".

It's creepy, honestly, to know that you're being watched and at any minute they could label you a criminal.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Count yourself lucky (so far) that they haven't decided to check YOU out. Alas, another one forgetting the slippery slope concept, and how that ultimately leads to the loss of rights.

[edit on 10/9/2009 by centurion1211]

Heh, I wish...but completely wrong. I am so shellshocked by my actual story and current life that I simply dont talk about it.
I have been into the lions mouth and chewed raw from it (and ultimately I am a very law abiding citizen). I am now without any civil rights and a battle coming up for me is for them to restore them.

My general paranoia from people with badges or authority is supertuned and on high alert

It is my direct experience dealing with the overwhelming draconian aspects and slimy practices of the law and authority abusing the law that makes me "in the know" about what is and isnt allowed legally, what is something to be concerned over.
random people being patted now and again on the street is somewhat concerning, but not as much to me as other measures (patriot act...cough) that have been blown through.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Police records indicate that officers are drawn to suspicious behavior: furtive movements, actions that indicate someone may be serving as a lookout, anything that suggests a drug deal, or a person carrying burglary tools such as a slim jim or pry bar.

Police records can indicate that pigs fly if they decide to write the script that way. I wonder what the official police records indicated when some of "New Yorks finest" decided to sodomize a man in the police station bathroom?

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
The New York Police Department is among the most vocal defenders of the practice. Commissioner Raymond Kelly said recently that officers may stop as many as 600,000 people this year. About 10 percent are arrested.

"This is a proven law enforcement tactic to fight and deter crime, one that is authorized by criminal procedure law," he said.

That indicates that 500,000+ people were wrongfully detained and harassed. If one of those victims decides to visit havoc (or worse) on these state-uniformed-perps, I as a jury member will make it my overriding goal to see this victim of police state tactics walk away Scott free.

quick (and useless senario)

Man walking down main street, soaked in a red bloodlike liquid, twitching and murmuring that she had it coming...he is holding a large kitchen knife that also has wet liquid on it.

Keystone cop observes the man and figures...right to bear arms, freedom of speech, and since when am I the fashion police

Human cop stops the man, detains him, runs tests, and even though technically the man did nothing wrong, he damn sure set off the red flags.

Which cop is doing their job, and which cop are you trying to push as what cops should be?

yes, this is a overly exaggerated example, but it all relates the same...when do personal rights stop and public safety start? I say, if your in taxpayers land verses personal land, your subject to things you typically are protected from so long as civil rights are observed.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by stevegmu

 

the police should be frisking 2 million people/year and getting 200000 criminals off the streets?

We have soldiers that are supposedly dieing to protect our freedoms. Yet people that share your view point are ready to give them up to any one that offers them "protection". I hope that those that share your view point can overcome your fears and cowerdess and understand why a free society must truly be the home of the brave. Retain your rights!

I remember sitting in an "American Government" course in college. It was less than a year after 9/11. When the professor asked how many people would rather live in a dictatorship, where there future was chosen and they could live without fear and uncertainty, more than 2/3 of the class raised their hand.

Americans want to live in a world where all they have to do is punch in, punch out, and watch Survivor. They want to feel coddled. They rather live through the debasement of daily searches and inhumane treatment. If it means they are "secure" in their little bubble. I don't think those of us still fighting for the real America, the America that the constitution promises, realize the masses don't want it. They want Big Macs with large fries and a Coca Cola while they ride in their Yukon and watch all 12 games on sunday.

We're either selfish or hopeless romantics. We're either trying to push our will on people that truly don't want it, or we're screaming across the void, hoping millions start to miss something they never knew they had.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
quick (and useless senario)

Man walking down main street, soaked in a red bloodlike liquid, twitching and murmuring that she had it coming...he is holding a large kitchen knife that also has wet liquid on it.

Keystone cop observes the man and figures...right to bear arms, freedom of speech, and since when am I the fashion police

Human cop stops the man, detains him, runs tests, and even though technically the man did nothing wrong, he damn sure set off the red flags.

Which cop is doing their job, and which cop are you trying to push as what cops should be?

yes, this is a overly exaggerated example, but it all relates the same...when do personal rights stop and public safety start? I say, if your in taxpayers land verses personal land, your subject to things you typically are protected from so long as civil rights are observed.

Give us all a break. We're not talking here about something so obvious as what you posted.

We're talking about a scenario where a cop decides that you look a little "nervous", so must be up to some no good and decides to hassle you.

reply to post by jdub297


Active policing doesn't mean making up excuses to hassle cittizens. The pure presence of a police officer lowers crime. Why do you think police "substations" work. Why do decoy cars on the highway work? It works because the presence alone is a deterent.

In several cities around me they notice a twenty percent or greater decrease in crime when substations are set up. A twenty percent decrease with nothing but a presence. Seems like a good strategy to me.

The city neighboring mine combined presence with enforcement of outstanding warants. It went from the fourth or fifth most dangerous city of it's size to number twenty three. No increase in searches, no extra road blocks. Just simply getting the cops out of their car to enforce warants and show a presence. Amazing, how simple it is to accomplish without rights violations.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
The problem with this whole policy is that it flies in the face of Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is one of the major differences between the English and American legal systems. In England, a police officer only needs "reasonable cause to suspect" to search and arrest a suspect, "reasonable cause to suspect" is a lot more subjective than what the fourth amendment states.

Is there crime? Yes. Does Stop and Frisk catch criminals? Yes. Is it constitutional? I don't think so.

This has been 'legal' for over 40 YEARS in the United States.

You guys didn't know this?

In 1968, the Supreme Court determined that a "stop and frisk" does not, under certain circumstances, constitute a "search" for 4th amendment purposes.

They cannot be "random" as many have assumed, but have to be based on specific "facts." It doesn't take much, but it takes at least a little more than a "hunch" or a good excuse.

In Terry v. Ohio, the Court addressed exactly this type of conduct.

The Court created the rules governing "Terry Stops," which haven't changed much, but have been pushed and pulled around the edges for nearly half a century.

Talk about 'Johnnie-Come-Lately; where've you been for 41 years?

Under Terry, law enforcement may stop a person if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity is about to or has recently occurred. (Ever hear of "fleeing from the scene of a crime?)

Sounds pretty subjective, right?

Well, not really. The "resaonable suspicion" is required to meet certain minimum standards.

Which ones? The 'Reasonable Person" ones, of course.

If a reasonable person, under similar circumstances, would suspect that activity relates to unlawful behavior that has just happened ("fleeing the scene") or is about to happen ("scoping out the place") an officer can make a stop.

You've got have specific "articulable facts and inferences therefrom." It can't just be a hunch ("he looks like a doper") or at random.

That's why in the places where the cops have to report every stop, (New York City) you don't have people getting nabbed for no reason at all or just to harass them or on the random chance that something will pop up, which seems to happen more often in places that do not require such reports. (Los Angeles used to do this 'til they got shut down for being more criminal than they people they harassed)

So, it is both legal and constitutional, as far as the Supreme Court of the United States is concerned.

Who would've guessed?

jw

[edit on 9-10-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Let me ask you a question...if they asked first if they could give you a quick frisk, would that make you more comfortable? (anyone saying no could end up being tailed while they are in the general public should the officer feel strongly something is off in the first place. that might be a decent compromise)

I denied a cop the right to search my car. The glove box, center console, and trunk were all locked. I refused to open up for a search. I was "detained" for nearly an hour while we waited for a K-9 unit to appear. They found nothing. When I asked what his probable cause was he said, "failure to comply with a police officer's direct request for cooperation."

His original reason for pulling me was "an out of date tag." Unfortunately I knew I had just replaced the expiration sticker on my tag that morning. The first questions out his mouth were... "Aren't you a little young to be driving a cadillac..." "How did you afford a car like this?" "Where do you work?" I was over twenty five and driving a nearly decade old Cadillac coupe.

It wasn't about an expired tag. It was all about trying to nail somebody without evidence. When we both stepped around to the back of the car, to check the sticker, he told me to put my hands on the trunk and cuffed me. Up to that point I had answered clearly and politely making sure to say "sir" and keep my hands in plain view.

The moral of the story is, just because they ask doesn't mean they won't jack you up anyway. Not complying with a request or order is sufficient for probable cause these days.

Originally posted by MikeNice81

The moral of the story is, just because they ask doesn't mean they won't jack you up anyway. Not complying with a request or order is sufficient for probable cause these days.

The moral of the story is that they can do *anything* they want today -- providing they are willing to pay the price tomorrow.

Originally posted by Shadowflux


It's stupid to just label this policy as "racist" when, I feel, it's entirely unconstitutional regardless of what race you are. I've known plenty of white people who have been "stopped and frisked" multiple times. "White guy in a black neighborhood? Must be buying drugs!"

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Shadowflux]

See, that's what I can't stand about PC. It becomes a new morality. Like it's okay to strip people of rights, it's okay to kill people, as long as you treat people "equally".

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I love questioning cops. My favorite is asking them if they have any illegal contraband on them or any non-regulation weapons.

Oh that would be a sight for sore eyes. I have similar situations its just when they decide to cross the questioning side and lean towards the aggressive do i put them back in there place and that they express a deep regret for wasting my time.

Like you mentioned, kids these days....i think its the uniform and the lack of sex which amounts to their over zealous attitude towards ordinary everyday citizens.

reply to post by stevegmu

You do know these programs target high-crime areas, correct?

You do understand the concept of precedence? Regardless of where this is happening, when this activity is accepted by the public, it means we have alllost those respective rights. Again you and those that share your view point need to deal with your fears without supporting the removal of my rights.

Because we have a system that presumes innocence it means often times the guilty go free. Would you also support a system that presumes guilt? It would result in more criminals off the street.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by harvib]