news NYPD’s stop-and-frisk use violated rights: ruling

[Orion VII 4 Life]

It still comes down to what a cop deems as suspicious and they're the trained professionals.  Stop and Frisk is a very aggressive and PROACTIVE approach to tackle crime and it is working.  If you notice, the judge didn't rule that Stop and Frisk as a whole is illegal because it was ruled LEGAL years ago by the court because any competent person knows that without Stop and Frisk, the job of a cop would be extremely difficult.

I want to know what "suspicious activity" the majority of S&F victims were up to when they got stopped and frisked... I'm not out there in the field but it seems to me like the bulk of it is just the cops stopping and frisking random people (usually minorities) to meet their quotas when they can't find anyone truly acting suspicious. When you're stopping someone, you should be stopping someone who is acting suspiciously and not just walking down the street, and you can't be searching people without a warrant or consent period. Also remember that for the cop to be able to legally hold a person, the person has to be suspected of a crime.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I want to know what "suspicious activity" the majority of S&F victims were up to when they got stopped and frisked... I'm not out there in the field but it seems to me like the bulk of it is just the cops stopping and frisking random people (usually minorities) to meet their quotas when they can't find anyone truly acting suspicious. When you're stopping someone, you should be stopping someone who is acting suspiciously and not just walking down the street, and you can't be searching people without a warrant or consent period. Also remember that for the cop to be able to legally hold a person, the person has to be suspected of a crime.

There are many things that can deem someone as suspicious.  If you dress like a thug with your pants hanging off of you or wear certain things affiliated with gangs and hang out where known criminals hang out at, guess what? You may be deemed as suspicious because it would be too much of a coincidence that you would be up to no good based on those circumstances.  We can sit here and BS each other and pretend as if everyone is so innocent, but that's just not the case.  If you don't want to be deemed as suspicious, then don't conduct yourself in a way to draw attention to yourself or dress in a way that would draw suspicion to yourself.  That's like a guy going out and wearing known clothing and colors that are affiliated with a gang, hanging out in known drug spots and then complaining that he was profiled.  I mean give me a break.  

 

And in your case, you can't seriously sit here and tell me that you didn't expect to be stopped when you were walking around an airport taking photos.  That's exactly what terrorists do.  They walk around and stake out places that they want to bomb and take photos, so yeah your behavior would be deemed suspicious, whether you like it or not.  Surely you had no intentions of bombing the place but these days even young teens are used as sacrificial lamb if you will with these crazy terrorists, so you just can't take any chances.

[realizm]

It still comes down to what a cop deems as suspicious and they're the trained professionals.  Stop and Frisk is a very aggressive and PROACTIVE approach to tackle crime and it is working.  If you notice, the judge didn't rule that Stop and Frisk as a whole is illegal because it was ruled LEGAL years ago by the court because any competent person knows that without Stop and Frisk, the job of a cop would be extremely difficult.

OK I am acknowledging your point here, but the general problem is this: The PO's are supposed to stop and frisk if the person is deemed to be in suspicious activity. I cannot exactly tell you if this is actually what the NYPD is actually doing according to the stats and the recent scandals that has recently occurred. In the news even the NYPD nearly shot a man who was actually an actor performing in a film shoot! Fortunately one of the other officers was quick witted and pulled the gun away quickly before the actor got shot. Too close of a call and really stupid on the part of the trigger happy cop, he couldn't see the cameras rolling? He really needs to get his vision checked. It's in the Daily News.

 

Now according to Orion's experience, the deal is this: He does not have to consent to a search, nor did he have to be interrogated and harassed like a criminal, I have to disagree with that. He wasn't a deadly threat with intent to harm! The PAPD took this way too far. I will say no more as this is a public forum but this, a lawyer has confirmed what he is saying as 100% correct. And it does make total sense to me.

 

Same goes with stop and frisk. You don't have to consent to a search if the PO has no intentions nor a reason to detain you. If he violates that, he is violating your constitutional rights (Which goes back to the reasons of the court's ruling on this class action civil lawsuit against the NYPD), therefore giving you you every right to take that police officer to civil court!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

OK I am acknowledging your point here, but the general problem is this: The PO's are supposed to stop and frisk if the person is deemed to be in suspicious activity. I cannot exactly tell you if this is actually what the NYPD is actually doing according to the stats and the recent scandals that has recently occurred. In the news even the NYPD nearly shot a man who was actually an actor performing in a film shoot! Fortunately one of the other offers was quick witted and pulled the gun away quickly before the actor got shot. Too close of a call and really stupid on the part of the trigger happy cop, he could'nt see the cameras rolling? He really needs to get his vision checked. It's in the Daily News.

 

Now according to Orion's experience, the deal is this: He dos not have to consent to a search, nor did he have to be interrogated and harassed like a criminal, I have to disagree with that. He wasn't a deadly threat with intent to harm! The PAPD took this way too far. I will say no more as this is a public forum but this, a lawyer has confirmed what he is saying as 100% correct. And it does make total sense to me.

 

Same goes with stop and frisk. You don't have to consent to a search if the PO has no intentions nor a reason to detain you. If he violates that, he is violating your constitutional rights (Which goes back to the reasons of the court's ruling on this class action civil lawsuit against the NYPD), therefore giving you you every right to take that police officer to civil court!

You're right, but why would you NOT consent to a search unless you have something to hide? That's what I would ask as a police officer. Cops have seconds in some cases to make a split decision which could mean their life or someone else's.  It's very easy to sit back and pass judgment on them and say that they should be able to know this or that when we aren't in their shoes.  The fact of the matter is that part of their job is based on instincts and the courts know this.  This is why Stop and Frisk can never be deemed illegal on its basic principles, because everyone knows that part of a cop's job relies on their personal experiences and experiences on the job.  These all play a role on how they perform and the decisions that they make and all of the training in the world can't change that.

 

When you know that Blacks for example are known to commit the most crime (particularly urban youth males), you simply cannot overlook that as a cop and no matter how much training you get, that will be in the back of your mind, the same way the stat of White men being known to be serial killers stands out.  Being a cop is not a cut and dry thing.  There's a ton of people skills and instincts at play.

[realizm]

There are many things that can deem someone as suspicious.  If you dress like a thug with your pants hanging off of you or wear certain things affiliated with gangs and hang out where known criminals hang out at, guess what? You may be deemed as suspicious because it would be too much of a coincidence that you would be up to no good based on those circumstances.  We can sit here and BS each other and pretend as if everyone is so innocent, but that's just not the case.

So hip hop style of dress is now a crime dude? I can't recall NYS ever passing legislation on that.

 

 

You're right, but why would you NOT consent to a search unless you have something to hide?

Simple. Because the person feels violated? Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and also the 14th Amendment which was supposed to guarantee of due process and equal protection?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So hip hop style of dress is now a crime dude? I can't recall NYS ever passing legislation on that.

 

 

Simple. Because the person feels violated? Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and also the 14th Amendment which was supposed to guarantee of due process and equal protection?

It is a known fact that certain types of dress are used by gang members and they use certain colors and initiation tactics.  It isn't a crime, but I would be a fool to knowingly wear certain things that I know that the cops affiliate with certain gangs.  The cops most certainly DO keep a database and note the styles that gang members wear AND the colors and they look for these things when they're out on the beat and in high crime areas.  Tell me how you're going to be PROACTIVE and fight crime?  You think patrolling the streets and just driving around is going to do that?? Nope.

 

I've had my bag searched at random in Grand Central a few times and I didn't feel violated at all.  I allowed them to search my bag and it was a very quick and painless process.  The only person that would feel violated is someone who is on an ego trip.  I'm understanding to the fact that we live in a dangerous world after 9/11 and I appreciate the cops' efforts to tackle crime, so if I needed to be searched to ensure my safety, I would have no problem with it.  It's not all about my rights.  It's about EVERYONE's rights and the right to live in a safe environment, and understanding that my rights have to be sacrificed a bit for the good of EVERYONE.

[realizm]

It is a known fact that certain types of dress are used by gang members and they use certain colors and initiation tactics.  It isn't a crime, but I would be a fool to knowingly wear certain things that I know that the cops affiliate with certain gangs.  The cops most certainly DO keep a database and note the styles that gang members wear AND the colors and they look for these things when they're out on the beat and in high crime areas.  Tell me how you're going to be PROACTIVE and fight crime?  You think patrolling the streets and just driving around is going to do that?? Nope.

 

I've had my bag searched at random in Grand Central a few times and I didn't feel violated at all.  I allowed them to search my bag and it was a very quick and painless process.  The only person that would feel violated is someone who is on an ego trip.  I'm understanding to the fact that we live in a dangerous world after 9/11 and I appreciate the cops' efforts to tackle crime, so if I needed to be searched to ensure my safety, I would have no problem with it.  It's not all about my rights.  It's about EVERYONE's rights and the right to live in a safe environment, and understanding that my rights have to be sacrificed a bit for the good of EVERYONE.

  

OK fair enough.

 

I for one wouldn't consent to a search if it was a stop and frisk, I would be highly offended.

 

However if I was in a check zone in Grand Central, an airport or in a federal building then of course I wouldn't object (these TSA goons, that's another story). That wouldn't be racial profiling in those cases, because really almost everyone has to be searched, different situation. And definitely not, I wouldn't be wearing gang colors, nor do I let my pants drop low because that depicts a defeatist jail mentality, which I totally disagree with. Admittedly a kid say who is dressing in gang colors is a moron, not only because he may even look suspicious just to cops, but even to other gang members. either way he's asking for trouble.

 

I can remember in HS how many kids got totally beat down by Bloods just because they are wearing red, KNOWING that if they do that the gang members will be asking if they represent their gang.

[Turbo19]

One thing I just want to put out there though, in general I don't believe choice of fashion constitutes any form of search or other stop by PD. Reality is this is New York City, an urban environment influenced by many cultures, so it shouldn't be unusual for anyone to be walking down the block in urban and other similar clothing.

 

Furthermore, if coincidentally an individual sports colors from a local gang there still isn't enough basis for a stop as no crime has been committed and on those grounds I'd justify that as discrimination.

[Kamen Rider]

Someone dressed head to toe in blood red, don't think there might be a possibility the person is a Blood?

[Turbo19]

Someone dressed head to toe in blood red, don't think there might be a possibility the person is a Blood?

Please, that doesn't prove anything.

[realizm]

One thing I just want to put out there though, in general I don't believe choice of fashion constitutes any form of search or other stop by PD. Reality is this is New York City, an urban environment influenced by many cultures, so it shouldn't be unusual for anyone to be walking down the block in urban and other similar clothing.

 

Furthermore, if coincidentally an individual sports colors from a local gang there still isn't enough basis for a stop as no crime has been committed and on those grounds I'd justify that as discrimination.

Someone dressed head to toe in blood red, don't think there might be a possibility the person is a Blood?

 

 

 

Thank you for your amazingly insightful and well thought out one sentence comment as a contribution to this conversation, Mr. Kamen well appreciated. Thank you.

[Kingsbridgeviewer382]

And now cops are are going to get cameras equipped with their uniforms by the orders of the judge. Any thoughts?

[Turbo19]

And now cops are are going to get cameras equipped with their uniforms by the orders of the judge. Any thoughts?

Quite honestly, that sounds like a pain in the ass to implement, and likely won't accomplish much as the only use for such cameras would be as evidence in a court of law, which may or may not show bias against either party.

 

Really, NYPD just needs to stop the practice. All racial implications aside there is still much liability to be had in these stops.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

And now cops are are going to get cameras equipped with their uniforms by the orders of the judge. Any thoughts?

Heard of those, also heard of media companies buying the footage from the PDs using them for use in "cops"-style TV shows. Not a bad idea.