Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   A federal judge has ruled that henceforth, police in NYC cannot put their hands on your crotch without a really really good reason   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Judges' Rules, federal judges, berg administration, fourth amendment, New York Police Department, New York County District Attorney, nyc  
•       •       •

4991 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Aug 2013 at 11:47 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-08-12 09:59:13 AM  
Well, there goes my vacation plans.
 
2013-08-12 10:04:06 AM  
The simple fact that it is MY crotch is a pretty good reason.

Just sayin'.
 
2013-08-12 10:04:20 AM  
But your honor, he was acting suspiciously. He was wearing dark skin that made it seem like he was getting ready to hide in the shadows, and why would he be doing that if he was planning on following the law?
 
2013-08-12 10:09:06 AM  
Is the city now expected to argue that "being brown" constitutes "good reason"?
 
2013-08-12 10:11:27 AM  
I bet a lot of those stopped were wearing sneakers...for sneaking!
 
2013-08-12 10:18:53 AM  
But the TSA continues to grope innocent people every day of the year.

/I try to enjoy the pat-down and sometimes will ask them if they want to get together after work for coffee.
 
2013-08-12 10:23:00 AM  
NYC police will do whatever the hell they want until such time as their superior officers tell them to stop.  And not a moment before.
 
2013-08-12 10:32:17 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: NYC police will do whatever the hell they want until such time as their superior officers tell them to stop.  And not a moment before.


You've never heard of Judge Shira Scheindlin, have you?

// PROTIP: Do NOT piss of Judge Shira Scheindlin
 
2013-08-12 10:54:26 AM  
In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.
 
2013-08-12 11:14:55 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: NYC police will do whatever the hell they want until such time as their superior officers tell them to stop.  And not a moment before.

You've never heard of Judge Shira Scheindlin, have you?

// PROTIP: Do NOT piss of Judge Shira Scheindlin


You mean the judge that ruled "Stop and Frisk" unconstitutional, only to lift the ban days later, due to the "burden" it would place on the poor little police officers?

Very harsh.
 
2013-08-12 11:26:58 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: NYC police will do whatever the hell they want until such time as their superior officers tell them to stop.  And not a moment before.

You've never heard of Judge Shira Scheindlin, have you?

// PROTIP: Do NOT piss of Judge Shira Scheindlin

You mean the judge that ruled "Stop and Frisk" unconstitutional, only to lift the ban days later, due to the "burden" it would place on the poor little police officers?

Very harsh.


Pick another one, then.

I was referring more to the way she runs her courtroom - her reputation (which I know from general news readings and from a friend who argued cases in front of her) is that she tolerates no shiat and will make you hurt for futzing around with the law.
 
2013-08-12 11:31:48 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: NYC police will do whatever the hell they want until such time as their superior officers tell them to stop.  And not a moment before.

You've never heard of Judge Shira Scheindlin, have you?

// PROTIP: Do NOT piss of Judge Shira Scheindlin

You mean the judge that ruled "Stop and Frisk" unconstitutional, only to lift the ban days later, due to the "burden" it would place on the poor little police officers?

Very harsh.

Pick another one, then.

I was referring more to the way she runs her courtroom - her reputation (which I know from general news readings and from a friend who argued cases in front of her) is that she tolerates no shiat and will make you hurt for futzing around with the law.


She may well be a very tough judge, but she hasn't altered stop and frisk in any way.  If anything, her remedies will be pointed to as proof that the "problem is being addressed", when in fact her remedies will have no effect whatsoever.
 
2013-08-12 11:49:44 AM  
That's going to cost you extra.

/grope grope.
 
2013-08-12 11:50:15 AM  
Asian massage, however, remains available on almost every block of Manhattan.
 
2013-08-12 11:50:19 AM  

Dimensio: Is the city now expected to argue that "being brown" constitutes "good reason"?


Well, Bloomberg has argued in the past that most of the people "match descriptions of suspects in crimes"...
 
2013-08-12 11:51:04 AM  
I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years and never had a cop grab my crotch. I feel cheated now.
 
2013-08-12 11:51:31 AM  
So no more hugs for the former mayor?
 
2013-08-12 11:51:37 AM  
Before we continue this discussion though -- are the cops hot?
 
2013-08-12 11:53:42 AM  

zarberg: I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years and never had a cop grab my crotch. I feel cheated now.


you sound white
 
2013-08-12 11:53:53 AM  
That isn't what the ruling says at all. The ruling says it's unconstitutional, but can continue, and an outside lawyer will be retained to provide reports on it every six months, but there's no injuction to stop or change the program in any specific way.
 
2013-08-12 11:53:54 AM  

dead: But the TSA continues to grope innocent people suspects every day of the year.

 
2013-08-12 11:54:31 AM  

freewill: Asian massage, however, remains available on almost every block of Manhattan.


As it should be.
 
2013-08-12 11:54:49 AM  
TFA: Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was "not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk."

Sorry, Subby, but no. In the future, you might want to try reading your own article.
 
2013-08-12 11:54:50 AM  
"right wing" new york city groping brown people.
 
2013-08-12 11:57:19 AM  

firefly212: The ruling says it's unconstitutional, but can continue


The ruling says it's constitutional due to the racial profiling. Stop and frisk itself can continue, provided they address the race issue.
 
2013-08-12 11:59:05 AM  

dead: But the TSA continues to grope innocent people every day of the year.

/I try to enjoy the pat-down and sometimes will ask them if they want to get together after work for coffee.


purr very loudly and say a little harder please
 
2013-08-12 12:00:19 PM  

zarberg: I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years and never had a cop grab my crotch. I feel cheated now.


One of the drawbacks of being white... you should sue for racial discrimination.
 
2013-08-12 12:02:01 PM  
www.danielbjohnson.com
 
2013-08-12 12:02:04 PM  

dead: /I try to enjoy the pat-down and sometimes will ask them if they want to get together after work for coffee.


i bite my lip and sigh and ask them to do it again.  and call me a "dirty little whore"
 
2013-08-12 12:02:27 PM  
Not to be an ITG but I would have to be arrested for a cop to put their hands on me. Anytime other than that I'd better be paying her.
 
2013-08-12 12:04:38 PM  
Anthony Weiner's penis files an appeal.
 
2013-08-12 12:05:34 PM  
noooooo

images.wikia.com

wait.. what are we actually talking about?
 
2013-08-12 12:06:00 PM  
They really hate it when you fake orgasm in the middle.
 
2013-08-12 12:06:06 PM  

darth_badger: [www.danielbjohnson.com image 358x630]


True Blood last night.
 
2013-08-12 12:07:31 PM  
Is it still ok for the TSA to toss my junk at the airport?
 
2013-08-12 12:08:43 PM  

stuffy: They really hate it when you fake orgasm in the middle.


So does the TSA.

media.mlive.com
 
2013-08-12 12:09:43 PM  

remus: In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.


What if it kept the world from blowing up?  See how silly it seems to say "...for any reason"?  You'd take a grope to keep the planet from exploding.  Wouldn't you?  The question now is just how much less of a reason is still acceptable.
 
2013-08-12 12:11:08 PM  

Theaetetus: Sorry, Subby, but no. In the future, you might want to try reading your own article.


So wait, District Judges can't overturn the Supreme Court?
 
2013-08-12 12:12:25 PM  
meanwhile back in reality, law enforcement will continue to do as they damn well please across the entire country
 
2013-08-12 12:13:20 PM  

remus: In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.


The people that are "for" this are not the people being targeted by the NYPD.  The ruling says that if the racial bias is removed from the day-to-day implementation of the policy it can be continued.

Watch the same people biatch and moan (as they do with the TSA) if/when that happens.
 
2013-08-12 12:15:06 PM  
Pfff. Being Black is a "good reason". Can't just let the darkies walk wherever they want!
 
2013-08-12 12:16:10 PM  

Theaetetus: firefly212: The ruling says it's unconstitutional, but can continue

The ruling says it's constitutional due to the racial profiling. Stop and frisk itself can continue, provided they address the race issue.


In other words... it's ok to violate a persons rights as long as you violate EVERYONES's rights equally!
 
2013-08-12 12:18:03 PM  

stuffy: They really hate it when you fake orgasm in the middle.


Who's faking?
 
2013-08-12 12:21:54 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: stuffy: They really hate it when you fake orgasm in the middle.

Who's faking?


Really.  Without the "happy ending" it's not even worth breaking the law.
 
2013-08-12 12:22:40 PM  

RightWingWacko: Theaetetus: firefly212: The ruling says it's unconstitutional, but can continue

The ruling says it's constitutional due to the racial profiling. Stop and frisk itself can continue, provided they address the race issue.

In other words... it's ok to violate a persons rights as long as you violate EVERYONES's rights equally!


That's part of the ruling, but the judge actually wrote that it violates both the 4th and 14th amendment rights, the racial component was addressed as a violation of the 14th amendment, but the 4th amendment violation assessed by the judge was only addressed via the outside counsel evaluation and six month reports.

Also, I'm giving Thaetus the benefit of the doubt that he meant *un*constitutional and just hurriedly wrote constitutional.
 
2013-08-12 12:23:46 PM  

KrispyKritter: meanwhile back in reality, law enforcement will continue to do as they damn well please across the entire country


Be sure to ask a Texas State Trooper for your free roadside body cavity search. Seems they're giving them out all willy nilly -- but only if you're female.
 
2013-08-12 12:26:50 PM  
FTA:  the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in New York

So it's still OK to stop and frisk white folks?
 
2013-08-12 12:27:34 PM  
Hey, NYPD! I got your really really good reason RIGHT HERE!
 
2013-08-12 12:27:54 PM  
Papelbon, you're on notice.
nomaas.org
 
2013-08-12 12:28:08 PM  
They need to quit dicking around and just come out and plainly state that this is fine as long as they only do it to white people.
 
2013-08-12 12:29:25 PM  

dead: But the TSA continues to grope innocent people every day of the year.

/I try to enjoy the pat-down and sometimes will ask them if they want to get together after work for coffee.


I fly at least 10 times a year, and have never been frisked.

/Middle-aged white male privilege RULES
 
2013-08-12 12:30:03 PM  

zarberg: I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years and never had a cop grab my crotch. I feel cheated now.


Try stuffing something large in your shorts.
 
2013-08-12 12:31:12 PM  

Prof. Frink: zarberg: I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years and never had a cop grab my crotch. I feel cheated now.

Try stuffing something large in your shorts.


Or wear a hoodie and baggy pants
 
2013-08-12 12:32:16 PM  

Theaetetus: TFA: Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was "not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk."

Sorry, Subby, but no. In the future, you might want to try reading your own article.


A quick composite from Google News puts the rest of the media with Subby. But you're right.
 
2013-08-12 12:33:14 PM  
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 all seems rather straightforward to me.  The police randomly stopping innocent people and frisking them, looking for contraband, is EXACTLY the thing this was supposed to stop.
 
2013-08-12 12:33:14 PM  

MBooda: Papelbon All MLB players who have not been castrated, you're on notice.
[nomaas.org image 485x426]



/he's quite a ball player!
 
2013-08-12 12:35:17 PM  
"But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."
   -Attorney General Ed Meesse.   (October 14, 1985, US News And World Report)

See, they're not stopping innocent people.  Everybody stopped is a suspect and suspects are criminals! Guilty criminals!  Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
i20.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-12 12:38:42 PM  

monoski: Prof. Frink: zarberg: I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years and never had a cop grab my crotch. I feel cheated now.

Try stuffing something large in your shorts.

Or wear a hoodie and baggy pants


Wait your choice of clothing has an effect on how you are perceived.  Amazing.
 
2013-08-12 12:39:24 PM  

MBooda: Papelbon, you're on notice.
[nomaas.org image 485x426]


farm2.staticflickr.com

"Stop, right there, what you packing, slugger?"
 
2013-08-12 12:40:06 PM  

Sybarite: I bet a lot of those stopped were wearing sneakers...for sneaking!


The problem with sneakers is too many secrets.
 
2013-08-12 12:40:09 PM  

Petit_Merdeux: MBooda: Papelbon All MLB players who have not been castrated, you're on notice.
[nomaas.org image 485x426]


/he's quite a ball player!


So you're saying as long as he's got two balls on him, and A Rod doesn't matter.
 
2013-08-12 12:42:36 PM  

Headso: zarberg: I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years and never had a cop grab my crotch. I feel cheated now.

you sound white


lol, nice.

/and probably accurate
 
2013-08-12 12:43:43 PM  
And FARK THE TSA
just for good measure.
 
2013-08-12 12:44:18 PM  

pudding7: Sybarite: I bet a lot of those stopped were wearing sneakers...for sneaking!

The problem with sneakers is too many secrets.


Or Cooty's Rat Semen

ishootthepictures.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-12 12:45:40 PM  

LessO2: stuffy: They really hate it when you fake orgasm in the middle.

So does the TSA.

[media.mlive.com image 380x258]


Here's a fun idea:
1. Go to fast food restaurant.
2. Grab a bunch of single-serving mayo packages (but make sure the total volume is below 100ml or whatever the current TSA limitation is)
3. Make a pinhole in each of them.
4. Stuff them in your pants.
5. Go to the airport and hope for a vigorous patdown.
 
2013-08-12 12:45:42 PM  

basemetal: Well, there goes my vacation plans.


What sucks is it could lead to crime rates returning up to levels they were before, sorry you get frisked so much, maybe if 80% of the violent crimes weren't in your neighborhood.....
 
2013-08-12 12:45:49 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: Dr Dreidel: Marcus Aurelius: NYC police will do whatever the hell they want until such time as their superior officers tell them to stop.  And not a moment before.

You've never heard of Judge Shira Scheindlin, have you?

// PROTIP: Do NOT piss of Judge Shira Scheindlin

You mean the judge that ruled "Stop and Frisk" unconstitutional, only to lift the ban days later, due to the "burden" it would place on the poor little police officers?

Very harsh.

Pick another one, then.

I was referring more to the way she runs her courtroom - her reputation (which I know from general news readings and from a friend who argued cases in front of her) is that she tolerates no shiat and will make you hurt for futzing around with the law.

She may well be a very tough judge, but she hasn't altered stop and frisk in any way.  If anything, her remedies will be pointed to as proof that the "problem is being addressed", when in fact her remedies will have no effect whatsoever.



I don't know...I like this remedy:

"Judge Scheindlin also ordered a number of other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear body-worn cameras in an effort to record street encounters. "

Mandatory body cameras on police...about farking time!
 
2013-08-12 12:46:02 PM  
So NYC is the liberal utopia people dream of? No guns and you get your wiener rubbed every block.
 
2013-08-12 12:46:22 PM  
Let NYC devolve back into the total sh*thole it was back in the 70s and 80s when the democrats ran things. See how many f*cks are given.
 
2013-08-12 12:47:40 PM  
Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was "not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection."

Still ok to stop black men for no reason. Don't panic.
 
2013-08-12 12:49:37 PM  
Well, if you keep raising suspicion they'll rise to the occasion
 
2013-08-12 12:51:10 PM  

Quinzy: monoski: Prof. Frink: zarberg: I lived in Brooklyn for 5 years and never had a cop grab my crotch. I feel cheated now.

Try stuffing something large in your shorts.

Or wear a hoodie and baggy pants

Wait your choice of clothing has an effect on how you are perceived.  Amazing.


You could be sporting a Hitler mustache and a pink dress, but the 4th amendment still applies.
 
2013-08-12 12:51:13 PM  
What's Sgt. Kabukiman going to do now?
www.troma.com
 
2013-08-12 12:51:35 PM  

crazytrain: Let NYC devolve back into the total sh*thole it was back in the 70s and 80s when the democrats ran things. See how many f*cks are given.


You're right, stop and frisk is what turned this city around. That and soda bans.
 
2013-08-12 12:52:17 PM  

RightWingWacko: In other words... it's ok to violate a persons rights as long as you violate EVERYONES's rights equally!


More that under present precedent, you do not have a right to not be stopped and frisked by a police officer if the following applies:

1) reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop based on "specific and articulable facts";

and

2) a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous."

of course, where the heck articulable reasonable suspicion is in the 4th amendment i dont know . . . .
 
2013-08-12 12:56:35 PM  

MBooda: What's Sgt. Kabukiman going to do now?
[www.troma.com image 300x260]


I'm more interested in hearing from his partner, there, Lt. Bukkakewoman.
 
2013-08-12 01:01:38 PM  

Teiritzamna: RightWingWacko: In other words... it's ok to violate a persons rights as long as you violate EVERYONES's rights equally!

More that under present precedent, you do not have a right to not be stopped and frisked by a police officer if the following applies:

1) reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop based on "specific and articulable facts";

and

2) a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be "armed and dangerous."

of course, where the heck articulable reasonable suspicion is in the 4th amendment i dont know . . . .


That's a wildly over-optimistic interpretation of the current precedent... do you really think that, in a program where 88 percent of people arent cited or arrested for anything, that cops had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that would justify a stop, let alone a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be armed?

The reality is that the program would end if white people and people of all ages who vote in greater numbers were subject to this same unreasonable idiocy, NYC will never have a racially unbiased stop and frisk program because when you start stopping and frisking I-bankers, lawyers, and business owners, the obviously unlawful program converts from a great tool for oppression into an all-out lawsuit magnet.
 
2013-08-12 01:04:55 PM  
steamingpile:

What sucks is it could lead to crime rates returning up to levels they were before

Could?  You're kidding right?
 
2013-08-12 01:05:42 PM  
Most excellent and farking OBVIOUS.
 
2013-08-12 01:10:33 PM  

firefly212: That's a wildly over-optimistic interpretation of the current precedent... do you really think that, in a program where 88 percent of people arent cited or arrested for anything, that cops had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that would justify a stop, let alone a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be armed?


Actually i am just articulating the standard.  I personally think reasonable suspicion for a stop is one of the more ridiculous things to flow from the Court, especially as it is a lower standard than probable cause, which was defined by the court as a reasonable belief that certain facts were probably true.  When you have a test so mushy that it is weaker than, "i have a solid belief that these facts are true" its not a surprise that what you have created is a blank check to frisk "undesirables."

/still get rage shakes remembering my reading from Crim Pro and watching "of course a cop can frisk a guy if he is terrified that he might get shot" turn into "welp, you can stop and feel up someone pretty much whenever you want."
 
2013-08-12 01:16:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: She may well be a very tough judge, but she hasn't altered stop and frisk in any way. If anything, her remedies will be pointed to as proof that the "problem is being addressed", when in fact her remedies will have no effect whatsoever.


She even explicitly stated that she is not ending stop and frisk. This basically was a 'feel up more white people so you don't look so racist' ruling.

mbillips: I fly at least 10 times a year, and have never been frisked.

/Middle-aged white male privilege RULES


How many times you been in the nudie booth?

/Groped almost weekly.

firefly212: do you really think that, in a program where 88 percent of people arent cited or arrested for anything,


A 12% probability that the person has something illegal on them makes a fishing expedition, not 'reasonable suspicion based up on specific and clearly articulable facts' that the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime.

firefly212: The reality is that the program would end if white people and people of all ages who vote in greater numbers were subject to this same unreasonable idiocy,


I used to think that. But the TSA is still here.
 
2013-08-12 01:17:02 PM  

freewill: Asian massage, however, remains available on almost every block of Manhattan.


Because a consensual exchange of money in the free market is the same as a cop grabbing your junk on the chance that you may have drugs?
 
2013-08-12 01:19:07 PM  

nocturnal001: Because a consensual exchange of money in the free market is the same as a cop grabbing your junk on the chance that you may have drugs?


No, not the same, but if you're disappointed with this ruling, it'll just have to do.
 
Ral
2013-08-12 01:21:42 PM  
Excellent.  Finally a judge is putting a stop to these baseless "stop and frisk you because I feel like it" incidents.  Terry Stops are enough of a gray area.  But we need to put an end to discarding any pretense of probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
 
2013-08-12 01:26:39 PM  
In a ruling released Monday morning, three months after hearing nine weeks of testimony in a class-action lawsuit challenging the policy, Manhattan federal court judge Shira Scheindlin found that "the city acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD's practice of making unconstitutional stops and conducting unconstitutional frisks."


OMG, all those Tea Party activists were RIGHT!  Why didn't we listen to them before it was too late?   We're living under Shira Law now! noooooooo
 
2013-08-12 01:36:57 PM  

paygun: They need to quit dicking around and just come out and plainly state that this is fine as long as they only do it to white people.


It would be legal IF they were doing it to white people TOO.

There. Simple enough?
 
2013-08-12 01:38:46 PM  

freewill: nocturnal001: Because a consensual exchange of money in the free market is the same as a cop grabbing your junk on the chance that you may have drugs?

No, not the same, but if you're disappointed with this ruling, it'll just have to do.


I'm very appointed with this ruling actually.
 
2013-08-12 01:44:24 PM  
WordyGrrl:  Texas State Trooper ... roadside body cavity search... female.

Yes, it looks as if they may have instructed highway patrol officers to do cavity searches of people being detained in traffic stops.  Two separate incidents from different parts of the state with the same MO: traffic stop, suspicion alleged, female officer summoned, roadside UFIA.
 
2013-08-12 01:47:52 PM  

Theaetetus: firefly212: The ruling says it's unconstitutional, but can continue

The ruling says it's constitutional due to the racial profiling. Stop and frisk itself can continue, provided they address the race issue.


Which is consistent with  Terry v. Ohio the issue was not that  police were using Terry stops,   it was the basis on which they wer choosing to stop people. The Constitution requires that, at a minimum the officer have a "reasonable Suspicion" which is defined as "an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity "   and the Court has further clarified: "A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause. A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch.  "

The problem with what the NYPD has been doing is that they have been, by their own admission, conducting blanket Terry stops of anyone in a particular neighborhoip who is walking, or in the lobby of a building "without apparent purpose" etc, this is not okay under the Terry standard and this what they have to stop doing
 
2013-08-12 01:49:07 PM  

remus: In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.


Do you go through the scanner or allow someone in a TSA uniform to touch you at the airport?

Same thing.
 
2013-08-12 02:00:03 PM  

Dimensio: Is the city now expected to argue that "being brown" constitutes "good reason"?


They already tried that argument.  The police tried to explain why 88% of the stops were "brown people" with the excuse that the overwhelming majority of crime is committed by brown people.  The judge rightfully called them on their bullshiat.

I'm glad this violation of the Constitution has finally been stopped, though it took far too long.  Next up, the Patriot Act.
 
2013-08-12 02:07:13 PM  

remus: In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.


OnlyM3: "right wing" new york city groping brown people.


And the Mayor justifies it by saying that not enough non-whtie people are being searched.
 
2013-08-12 02:08:30 PM  

scanman61: "Judge Scheindlin also ordered a number of other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear body-worn cameras in an effort to record street encounters. "

Mandatory body cameras on police...about farking time!


It doesn't say how many of them will be wearing the cameras.  If it's less than 10%, it won't be long before they start calling them the "Mayberry RFD patrols".  The NYPD will break out an endless loop of cops helping old ladies across the street and stopping traffic for kittens.
 
2013-08-12 02:09:12 PM  

d23: remus: In before the apologists arrive, already saw some on other sites saying that they were ok with this policy because it stopped crime. Unbelievable that some people would accept this for any reason.

The people that are "for" this are not the people being targeted by the NYPD.  The ruling says that if the racial bias is removed from the day-to-day implementation of the policy it can be continued.

Watch the same people biatch and moan (as they do with the TSA) if/when that happens.


They are already doing that in this thread, "boo hoo they're starting to search white people".
 
2013-08-12 02:09:12 PM  

OgreMagi: I'm glad this violation of the Constitution has finally been stopped, though it took far too long. Next up, the Patriot Act.


You might want to read the article again.  Absolutely nothing has stopped.
 
2013-08-12 02:10:23 PM  

Ral: Terry Stops are enough of a gray area.


Most people haven't read the Terry ruling and the police always misrepresent it.  What the courts said in the ruling is the police must have a compelling reason to search you and your car without a warrant.  The police lie and say the ruling gives them the authority to search as they please.

The compelling reason the ruling cites is, "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous."

Furthermore, "The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate."

In other words, there has to be a damn good reason to search without a warrant.  Your car is fits the description of a car used for a drive by shooting that just occurred a mile from, for instance.  Not, you were going 10MPH over the speed limit and I don't like your looks.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html
 
2013-08-12 02:10:32 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: ZOMG! Violence is racking our communities, why don't the police do something!?!?!?

Cops: Okay.

ZOMG! Why are you occupying our communities and locking up our innocent black brothers!


Something tells me you haven't studies US crime rate statistics anytime in the past few years.
 
2013-08-12 02:11:34 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: OgreMagi: I'm glad this violation of the Constitution has finally been stopped, though it took far too long. Next up, the Patriot Act.

You might want to read the article again.  Absolutely nothing has stopped.


It will stop soon enough.  When they remove the racial bias in the frisks and start doing it to a majority of white people, the outrage will be deafening.
 
2013-08-12 02:11:40 PM  

firefly212: Also, I'm giving Thaetus the benefit of the doubt that he meant *un*constitutional and just hurriedly wrote constitutional.


That. :)
 
2013-08-12 02:17:00 PM  

OgreMagi: Marcus Aurelius: OgreMagi: I'm glad this violation of the Constitution has finally been stopped, though it took far too long. Next up, the Patriot Act.

You might want to read the article again.  Absolutely nothing has stopped.

It will stop soon enough.  When they remove the racial bias in the frisks and start doing it to a majority of white people, the outrage will be deafening.


I don't see how any of the judge's remedies will do a damn thing to alter the program in any way.
 
2013-08-12 02:27:53 PM  
I don't have the ol' GED in law, but from what I understand Terry Search (external pat down of clothing for weapons and nothing else), is allowed when there is reasonable suspicion someone has, is, or is about to commit a crime.  Reasonable Suspicion requires specific and articulable facts.  If the police are not able to articulate Reasonable Suspicion for searching you and you can prove it, say with audio video recording, than the person who had their 4th Amendment violated needs to lawyer-up for a possible pay-day.

US 7th Circuit Court ruled in Nov 2012 folks may record police while performing their duty so I'm sure this is already happening.
 
2013-08-12 02:28:00 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: WordyGrrl:  Texas State Trooper ... roadside body cavity search... female.

Yes, it looks as if they may have instructed highway patrol officers to do cavity searches of people being detained in traffic stops.  Two separate incidents from different parts of the state with the same MO: traffic stop, suspicion alleged, female officer summoned, roadside UFIA.


Plus, that "same glove was used on both victims" thing. Haven't heard of this stunt being pulled on male drivers/passengers, but I'm sure there are plenty more incidents that go unreported because the victims are too traumatized and scared to do anything about it. I could have sworn there were laws that prevented people from sticking their body parts into your body parts without permission. This has nothing to do with being tough on crime and everything to do with intimidating the hell out of non-LEOs.
 
2013-08-12 02:28:26 PM  
Ok so I have a question. Do they have any statistics on what the ratio of people stopped, race and if they found anything? Might make for an interesting read. I mean if 90% of people stopped were let go for no violation then yeah i see yer point, however if 90% were found to be violating the law it kinda adds credence to their argument.
 
2013-08-12 02:29:19 PM  

Dimensio: Is the city now expected to argue that "being brown" constitutes "good reason"?


Oh, Bloomberg has been there, done that.
 
2013-08-12 02:32:17 PM  

Netrngr: Ok so I have a question. Do they have any statistics on what the ratio of people stopped, race and if they found anything? Might make for an interesting read. I mean if 90% of people stopped were let go for no violation then yeah i see yer point, however if 90% were found to be violating the law it kinda adds credence to their argument.


90% subjected to stop and frisk are NOT arrested.  That's from the article.
 
2013-08-12 02:34:32 PM  

OgreMagi: Ral: Terry Stops are enough of a gray area.

Most people haven't read the Terry ruling and the police always misrepresent it.  What the courts said in the ruling is the police must have a compelling reason to search you and your car without a warrant.  The police lie and say the ruling gives them the authority to search as they please.

The compelling reason the ruling cites is, "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous."

Furthermore, "The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate."

In other words, there has to be a damn good reason to search without a warrant.  Your car is fits the description of a car used for a drive by shooting that just occurred a mile from, for instance.  Not, you were going 10MPH over the speed limit and I don't like your looks.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html


That may be true, but alas, the stop and frisk has evolved to be a far more base thing than what was considered in Terry.  After cases like Illinois v. Wardlow (finding that police could stop and frisk youths "in a bad neighborhood" majorly because they ran), United States v. Sokolow (profiling is enough to satisfy reasonable suspicion as long as the profile is not solely based on race), even the execrable Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court (finding valid a state statute requiring parties to provide their identity when asked by the police, and validating a scenario where a cop stopped a kid, asked his name and then arrested him when he didn't answer), the law is much, much more pro stop and frisk that a reading of terry would suggest.

/If only we were back in the times of Mapp v. Ohio.
//wait! that was 1961.  nevermind.
 
2013-08-12 02:36:14 PM  
From another article on the same subject:

"The mayor took on the judge directly - saying that she had "ignored the real-world realities of crime" and showed a disregard for the good intentions of the Police Department. He said the police must be allowed to do their job without being micromanaged and second-guessed by judges or monitors."

Suuuuure, there, Mr. Bloomberg.  Let's let them do their jobs without being held to any kind of standards or having any checks in place.  No way that will turn out bad.
 
2013-08-12 02:38:32 PM  

Teiritzamna: OgreMagi: Ral: Terry Stops are enough of a gray area.

Most people haven't read the Terry ruling and the police always misrepresent it.  What the courts said in the ruling is the police must have a compelling reason to search you and your car without a warrant.  The police lie and say the ruling gives them the authority to search as they please.

The compelling reason the ruling cites is, "Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous."

Furthermore, "The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate."

In other words, there has to be a damn good reason to search without a warrant.  Your car is fits the description of a car used for a drive by shooting that just occurred a mile from, for instance.  Not, you were going 10MPH over the speed limit and I don't like your looks.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html

That may be true, but alas, the stop and frisk has evolved to be a far more base thing than what was considered in Terry.  After cases like Illinois v. Wardlow (finding that police could stop and frisk youths "in a bad neighborhood" majorly because they ran), United States v. Sokolow (profiling is enough to satisfy reasonable suspicion as long as the profile is not solely based on race), even the execrable Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court (finding valid a state statute requiring parties to provide their identity when asked by the police, and validating a scenario where a cop stopped a kid, asked his name and then arrested him when he didn't answer), the law is much, much more pro stop and frisk that a reading of terry would suggest.

/If only we wer ...


That's why I am 100% against ever giving the police more power.  They will always abuse it.  When the legal standard is "reasonable suspicion", the cops will say, "you look suspicious because I say so."
 
2013-08-12 02:48:32 PM  
Boy 9/11 made all New Yorkers blithering panty waste.
 
2013-08-12 02:52:38 PM  

OgreMagi: That's why I am 100% against ever giving the police more power. They will always abuse it. When the legal standard is "reasonable suspicion", the cops will say, "you look suspicious because I say so."


Also the other great problem with exclusionary cases under the 4th amendment, the claimants tend to suck.  I mean to have a valid exclusionary case, you must have something to exclude.  Thus the majority of parties raising their 4th amendment rights in court look terrible.  Oh so its a dispute between Missouri's finest who seemed a bit exuberant and a guy who had kiddie porn and meth in his house?  Gee, which way do i think law and order judges will go.

It makes the history of post warren court 4th amendment (and 5th amendment) cases a series of small cuts where the Court says "but these are basically good cops, and this guy seems guilty as hell and why should he get away with something he clearly did because of a small error . . ." and we end up with cases like United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, where our Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen, said it was cool that customs agents could hold a woman for 16 hours, incommunicado, in a holding area because they had "reasonable suspicion" she was carrying drugs (i.e. she was brown, spoke Spanish, and seemed a bit stiff), and force her to shiat in a bucket in front of them.  Unfortunately for her, she was smuggling drugs, which made it much easier for the majority to say that all of the above was reasonable.  Because that is clearly what Terry v. Ohio was about.

/that would be my vote for worst 4th amendment case
 
2013-08-12 02:55:07 PM  

pmdgrwr: Boy 9/11 made all New Yorkers blithering panty waste.


Suggestion:  When insulting others, learn to distinguish between homophones, and how to use English plurals.  Otherwise it somewhat blunts the impact.
 
2013-08-12 03:04:20 PM  

Teiritzamna: OgreMagi: That's why I am 100% against ever giving the police more power. They will always abuse it. When the legal standard is "reasonable suspicion", the cops will say, "you look suspicious because I say so."

Also the other great problem with exclusionary cases under the 4th amendment, the claimants tend to suck.  I mean to have a valid exclusionary case, you must have something to exclude.  Thus the majority of parties raising their 4th amendment rights in court look terrible.  Oh so its a dispute between Missouri's finest who seemed a bit exuberant and a guy who had kiddie porn and meth in his house?  Gee, which way do i think law and order judges will go.

It makes the history of post warren court 4th amendment (and 5th amendment) cases a series of small cuts where the Court says "but these are basically good cops, and this guy seems guilty as hell and why should he get away with something he clearly did because of a small error . . ." and we end up with cases like United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, where our Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen, said it was cool that customs agents could hold a woman for 16 hours, incommunicado, in a holding area because they had "reasonable suspicion" she was carrying drugs (i.e. she was brown, spoke Spanish, and seemed a bit stiff), and force her to shiat in a bucket in front of them.  Unfortunately for her, she was smuggling drugs, which made it much easier for the majority to say that all of the above was reasonable.  Because that is clearly what Terry v. Ohio was about.

/that would be my vote for worst 4th amendment case


Yep.  And "good people" don't have a problem with that.  Until those good people find themselves on the other end and are wondering why the police do not respect the Constitution.

As I've stated numerous times.  They police will ALWAYS abuse any power they are given.  And it's only a matter of time before that abuse is directed non-criminals.  See "asset forteitures" for perfect examples.
 
2013-08-12 03:14:26 PM  
Sources on exactly how all this works if anyone can provide them.

I'm not familiar with this stop and search stuff. When in the states I always decline being searched then accept a weapons search and surprisingly the law was impressively good with the results of the weapons search on several occasions over my 4.5 month trip snowboarding and surfing on the "West Side" of the country.

/been to
Minnesota  at least 1000 times and was only ever bothered once.
// I've never been to the east side
///west side is the best side (so far)
 
2013-08-12 03:18:43 PM  

spentshells: Sources on exactly how all this works if anyone can provide them.

I'm not familiar with this stop and search stuff. When in the states I always decline being searched then accept a weapons search and surprisingly the law was impressively good with the results of the weapons search on several occasions over my 4.5 month trip snowboarding and surfing on the "West Side" of the country.

/been to Minnesota  at least 1000 times and was only ever bothered once.
// I've never been to the east side
///west side is the best side (so far)


Why would you agree to a search?  You said you declined, then you said you allowed it.  A weapons search is no different than a stolen goods or a drug search.  Saying the magic word "weapon" does not erase your rights.
 
2013-08-12 03:22:57 PM  

Farce-Side: From another article on the same subject:

"The mayor took on the judge directly - saying that she had "ignored the real-world realities of crime" and showed a disregard for the good intentions of the Police Department. He said the police must be allowed to do their job without being micromanaged and second-guessed by judges or monitors."

Suuuuure, there, Mr. Bloomberg.  Let's let them do their jobs without being held to any kind of standards or having any checks in place.  No way that will turn out bad.


He also says the cops were stopping too many white people and not enough black and Latinos:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mayor-bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-d is proportionately-stop-whites-minorities-article-1.1385410
 
2013-08-12 03:26:51 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: ZOMG! Violence is racking our communities, why don't the police do something!?!?!?

Cops: Okay.

ZOMG! Why are you occupying our communities and locking up our innocent black brothers!


and yet LA managed a much more significant drop in crime and violence than NY  by doing the exact opposite of what the NYPD did.  In fact there is some strong sociology that show that what the NYPD did actually INCREASED violence in the city because studies have show that even among the criminal element, a perception that hte system is fair and working  tend to decrease violence, whereas a perception that it is unfair and abritraty tends to cause more violence...exactly what happened in NYC
 
2013-08-12 03:28:48 PM  

Magorn: Oh_Enough_Already: ZOMG! Violence is racking our communities, why don't the police do something!?!?!?

Cops: Okay.

ZOMG! Why are you occupying our communities and locking up our innocent black brothers!

and yet LA managed a much more significant drop in crime and violence than NY  by doing the exact opposite of what the NYPD did.  In fact there is some strong sociology that show that what the NYPD did actually INCREASED violence in the city because studies have show that even among the criminal element, a perception that hte system is fair and working  tend to decrease violence, whereas a perception that it is unfair and abritraty tends to cause more violence...exactly what happened in NYC


Even honest people have a breaking point where they will think,"if you are going to treat me like a criminal, then I have nothing to lose."
 
2013-08-12 03:29:23 PM  

spentshells: I'm not familiar with this stop and search stuff. When in the states I always decline being searched then accept a weapons search and surprisingly the law was impressively good with the results of the weapons search on several occasions over my 4.5 month trip snowboarding and surfing on the "West Side" of the country.


At present the Supreme Court's position on a Terry stop is that there is no seizure until you are touched or restrained by a police officer, and that you always have the right to refuse to cooperate.  See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (finding that as long as an individual is capable of refusing to cooperate there has been no seizure and that failure to cooperate is never grounds for reasonable suspicion); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980).  Of course, given that the only people who really know this rule are lawyers, and cops are not required to tell you during a Terry stop that you are free to go or not cooperate (unless facing a state law requiring you identify yourself to the police such as in Hiibel), this "free to leave" standard rarely helps out.

My suggestion: Make friends with a lawyer who has taken crim pro, and pump him full of beer so you can call him if/when you are being harassed by the cops.
 
2013-08-12 03:37:15 PM  
Well there goes my vacation plans. What if I ask them to? Can they grab me then?
 
2013-08-12 03:37:34 PM  

Teiritzamna: pmdgrwr: Boy 9/11 made all New Yorkers blithering panty waste.

Suggestion:  When insulting others, learn to distinguish between homophones, and how to use English plurals.  Otherwise it somewhat blunts the impact.


Maybe he really meant "waste" instead of "waist".  In which case it was mildly amusing.  But probably not.
 
gja
2013-08-12 03:38:48 PM  

OgreMagi: Dimensio: Is the city now expected to argue that "being brown" constitutes "good reason"?

They already tried that argument.  The police tried to explain why 88% of the stops were "brown people" with the excuse that the overwhelming majority of crime is committed by brown people.  The judge rightfully called them on their bullshiat.

I'm glad this violation of the Constitution has finally been stopped, though it took far too long.  Next up, the Patriot Act.


Don't hold your breath, man.
 
2013-08-12 03:53:55 PM  

OgreMagi: Magorn: Oh_Enough_Already: ZOMG! Violence is racking our communities, why don't the police do something!?!?!?

Cops: Okay.

ZOMG! Why are you occupying our communities and locking up our innocent black brothers!

and yet LA managed a much more significant drop in crime and violence than NY  by doing the exact opposite of what the NYPD did.  In fact there is some strong sociology that show that what the NYPD did actually INCREASED violence in the city because studies have show that even among the criminal element, a perception that hte system is fair and working  tend to decrease violence, whereas a perception that it is unfair and abritraty tends to cause more violence...exactly what happened in NYC

Even honest people have a breaking point where they will think,"if you are going to treat me like a criminal, then I have nothing to lose."


seems to be the case, but even more importantly even dishonest people have an ingrained, if grudging, respect for the law when it seems worthy of respect.  Siginificantly, even when overall crie does not drop, Violence specifically does

Here's a long, very good NYtimes article where I got the info from my previous post -a veryinteresting read
 
2013-08-12 04:05:32 PM  
Jesus, old man, how many of those you got?

Three. One shoulder, one hip and one down here, right next to Mr. Wally, where most patdowns never reveal it, as even the most hardened federal agent is often reluctant to feel up another man's groin. Any other questions?


Maybe even too obscure for Fark. But it was a decent movie.
 
2013-08-12 04:19:10 PM  

Arkcon: Jesus, old man, how many of those you got?

Three. One shoulder, one hip and one down here, right next to Mr. Wally, where most patdowns never reveal it, as even the most hardened federal agent is often reluctant to feel up another man's groin. Any other questions?

Maybe even too obscure for Fark. But it was a decent movie.


It was a great film that should have done a lot better at the box office.
 
2013-08-12 04:41:24 PM  

Teiritzamna: the only people who really know this rule are lawyers, and cops are not required to tell you during a Terry stop that you are free to go or not cooperate (unless facing a state law requiring you identify yourself to the police such as in Hiibel), this "free to leave" standard rarely helps out.


I think most readers of Fark criminal law and police conduct threads do know that it matters whether they are free to leave and that they can ask the officer whether they are free to leave.  Many also understand that an encounter with the police may turn out better in terms of not being searched at all if the person is minimally polite to the officer.  Anyway, your posts with the citations to landmark search and seizure cases make the thread worth reading.

WordyGrrl: 4tehsnowflakes: WordyGrrl:   sticking their body parts into your body parts without permission


Moreover, the terrorists are developing body cavity bombs, so do we now get ready to bend over at the airport, train stations, public sporting events etc.?
 
2013-08-12 04:53:42 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: I think most readers of Fark criminal law and police conduct threads do know that it matters whether they are free to leave and that they can ask the officer whether they are free to leave.


Fair 'nuff.  All I meant is that I find the Court's position that "Well everyone knows they aren't seized by the police at a stop and can leave/refuse to cooperate whenever they want" is deeply disingenuous, given that most people, especially many disadvantaged people, when faced with a cop will not think "hey I can totally refuse to talk to him or consent to a search - that shiat isn't even grounds for a determination of probable cause or reasonable suspicion!"

Anyway, your posts with the citations to landmark search and seizure cases make the thread worth reading.
 
Cheers!
 
2013-08-12 05:02:55 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: As well they should, as those are the people committing the crimes they're trying to stop.

fta:  You cannot properly analyze police behavior without analyzing crime. Crime is what drives NYPD tactics; it is the basis of everything the department does.


But yet in places where they don't do this crime has also dropped, so the author is lying/apologizing for the police. The last thing the NYPD needs is another bootlicker condoning their bullshiat.
 
2013-08-12 05:08:24 PM  

Teiritzamna: a lawyer who has taken crim pro


Well, when 4ts did it (back in the day) crim pro was a required course for 1L's.  Many of my classmates went on to specialize in completely unrelated things like international business transactions or land use law.  Calling someone like that would probably be better than calling your Aunt Flo, but that person won't be as familiar with the law of search, seizure and arrest as someone who defends people accused of crimes.
 
2013-08-12 05:16:53 PM  
Does it have to be their good reason or my good reason?
 
2013-08-12 05:24:53 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Teiritzamna: a lawyer who has taken crim pro

Well, when 4ts did it (back in the day) crim pro was a required course for 1L's.  Many of my classmates went on to specialize in completely unrelated things like international business transactions or land use law.  Calling someone like that would probably be better than calling your Aunt Flo, but that person won't be as familiar with the law of search, seizure and arrest as someone who defends people accused of crimes.


Shhh.  You are ruining my masterful plan to get people to buy me beer.
 
2013-08-12 05:28:21 PM  
Is it possible that the US, and a lot of other countries, are simply at a point where a problem is being faced that can't be solved? On the one hand (keeping in mind that I live in Canada), I don't want the police stopping me and searching me for seemingly no reason, and having substantial powers over me, as the potential for abuse is monstrous. One the other hand, there are a lot of problems - particularly related to terrorism - that the law (and the constitution from which they supposedly emanate) simply can't have imagined, and aren't equipped to deal with?

I think you have to hold on and hope one of the problems just takes care of itself.
 
2013-08-12 07:07:37 PM  

ffenliv: Is it possible that the US, and a lot of other countries, are simply at a point where a problem is being faced that can't be solved? On the one hand (keeping in mind that I live in Canada), I don't want the police stopping me and searching me for seemingly no reason, and having substantial powers over me, as the potential for abuse is monstrous. One the other hand, there are a lot of problems - particularly related to terrorism - that the law (and the constitution from which they supposedly emanate) simply can't have imagined, and aren't equipped to deal with?


Except many of these techniques aren't ostensibly related to terrorism. The police are targeting the same type of people they've been targeting before terrorism was part of our daily lives. And the reason it doesn't make any sense to do so is that crime levels in America are substantially lower now than they were 20-30 years ago, when these measures weren't in use. It's already been shown that the crime level in New York City has dropped at roughly the same level as other American cities that don't use these tactics.

What has a chance of working is seeing crime as a symptom, not the problem, and treating it rather than throwing people in jail, which is only going to make their lives worse. A high school kid who's scared of his neighborhood and carries a small knife is not the same as a gangbanger. It's time we stopped treating them the alike.
 
2013-08-12 07:31:44 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Teiritzamna: the only people who really know this rule are lawyers, and cops are not required to tell you during a Terry stop that you are free to go or not cooperate (unless facing a state law requiring you identify yourself to the police such as in Hiibel), this "free to leave" standard rarely helps out.

I think most readers of Fark criminal law and police conduct threads do know that it matters whether they are free to leave and that they can ask the officer whether they are free to leave.  Many also understand that an encounter with the police may turn out better in terms of not being searched at all if the person is minimally polite to the officer.  Anyway, your posts with the citations to landmark search and seizure cases make the thread worth reading.

WordyGrrl: 4tehsnowflakes: WordyGrrl:   sticking their body parts into your body parts without permission

Moreover, the terrorists are developing body cavity bombs, so do we now get ready to bend over at the airport, train stations, public sporting events etc.?


Only if the Trooper thinks he'll get a nut watching you get rectally explored by one of his minions.
 
2013-08-12 07:45:45 PM  
Does begging = a really good reason?
 
2013-08-12 07:47:52 PM  
Since the 4th amendment doesn't really apply on the streets of NYC, what would happen if a cop, with an NYPD-paid forensic accountant, stopped guys in suits with briefcases on Wall Street and rifled through his/her documents looking for evidence of taking bribes, giving bribes, hiding income, influence peddling (and occasionally illegal concealed weapons and an eight ball of coke might turn up)  and many other white collar type things you might expect self-indulgent, self-obsessed, self-righteous assholes with access to too much money might be guilty of?
 
2013-08-12 08:09:05 PM  

Aquapope: Since the 4th amendment doesn't really apply on the streets of NYC, what would happen if a cop, with an NYPD-paid forensic accountant, stopped guys in suits with briefcases on Wall Street and rifled through his/her documents looking for evidence of taking bribes, giving bribes, hiding income, influence peddling (and occasionally illegal concealed weapons and an eight ball of coke might turn up)  and many other white collar type things you might expect self-indulgent, self-obsessed, self-righteous assholes with access to too much money might be guilty of?


The law would change overnight.
 
2013-08-12 08:14:26 PM  

AngryDragon: Aquapope: Since the 4th amendment doesn't really apply on the streets of NYC, what would happen if a cop, with an NYPD-paid forensic accountant, stopped guys in suits with briefcases on Wall Street and rifled through his/her documents looking for evidence of taking bribes, giving bribes, hiding income, influence peddling (and occasionally illegal concealed weapons and an eight ball of coke might turn up)  and many other white collar type things you might expect self-indulgent, self-obsessed, self-righteous assholes with access to too much money might be guilty of?

The law would change overnight.


The deuce you say!
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-08-12 08:47:36 PM  
Thank you internet porn.

/ the real reason violent crime is down
 
2013-08-12 09:39:17 PM  

Aquapope: Since the 4th amendment doesn't really apply on the streets of NYC, what would happen if a cop, with an NYPD-paid forensic accountant, stopped guys in suits with briefcases on Wall Street and rifled through his/her documents looking for evidence of taking bribes, giving bribes, hiding income, influence peddling (and occasionally illegal concealed weapons and an eight ball of coke might turn up)  and many other white collar type things you might expect self-indulgent, self-obsessed, self-righteous assholes with access to too much money might be guilty of?


Their lawyers, the best money could buy, would get them off.

However, as an upside, if we had more well-heeled capito-spawn getting their "persons papers and effects" searched and seized without the requisite warrant/probable cause, we might have much better 4th amendment jurisprudence.
 
2013-08-12 09:48:22 PM  

KrispyKritter: meanwhile back in reality, law enforcement will continue to do as they damn well please across the entire country


Because they still have an overwhelming support of the population.  Most people have not had a really bad interaction with police and that is what determines opinion.  What happens to others is not considered significant.
 
Displayed 140 of 140 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report