• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
Routine Police "Stop and Frisk" Tactic Ruled Illegal

The very fact that this title has an excuse to be written about any city in the USA should make every citizen of our nation scared, sad, and righteously indignant.

How the HELL was this allowed for even one second in the first place?

I thought NY was bad enough with their old gun control laws. Between the new ones and this, I am just beside myself. WTF man.. WTF?????
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The very fact that this title has an excuse to be written about any city in the USA should make every citizen of our nation scared, sad, and righteously indignant.

How the HELL was this allowed for even one second in the first place?

I thought NY was bad enough with their old gun control laws. Between the new ones and this, I am just beside myself. WTF man.. WTF?????

Its a sign of the deterioration. The situation is actually pretty grim.

Some "big picture" examples: (Reader note: don't read these just before bedtime. If you do, I'm not responsible for your lost sleep.)


We have a senate that hasn't passed a budget in two years. Doesn't sound so bad. Easy to point fingers at Harry Reid. But, evaluate it against how things should be running in a smooth and correctly operating government--its really, really bad. Who in their right mind thinks its OK to operate the government (or any busines or family checkbook) without a budget? This is a huge red flag that government spending is not even close to being under control. Its also a huge red flag about the mentality of those responsible regarding what they think they can get away with and their regard for the constitution. Their political careers and holding onto power are more important than responsibly operating the government for the rest of us. Just go back and read up on the last ten years of the Roman Republic and how those politicians ignored the Roman constitution--this is the period just before Rome slid into the tyranny of the emporers.

The fedgov is functionally bankrupt. Thus the massive deficits (more spent than income). And, nobody is doing anything about it! All the howling and fearmongering about the so-called sequesters is smoke and noise about a roughly 2% piece of government spending.

The Speaker of the House admitted congress doesn't read the bills before passing them. This is disastrous. The bills are written by lobbyists who are unaccountable to the voters. How skewed is this!?!

The fedgov was happy to institute the ruinous program called Obamacare despite the unpopularity. The Republicrats didn't vote for it, but neither did they get up and walk out like happens in the Knesset or Poland's parliament. And, many if not all state governments are going along with it.

The mere existence of DHS and TSA show totalitarianism is just around the corner. Writers were already using the term soft tyranny three years ago. Just look at that word homeland. Goebbels would have promoted the propagandist who invented that word.

A few years ago we actually had some so-called leaders using the term jobless recovery to describe the hoped-for reversion from the biggest economic disaster since 1929. There are no adjectives to describe the callousness of pretending a recovery while millions remained out of work. This is the same bunch who yesterday were crowing about the stock market hitting new highs, as though indexes for a few dozen companies reflecting the activity of monied investors has much of anything to do with your unemployed neighbor who does odd jobs to feed his family.

The government has racked up some $55T (that's trillion with a t.) in debts and obligations as of a year ago and the number is climbing. There is no possible interpretation of the necessary and proper clause or the general welfare clause that authorizes such massive indebtedness, nor the taxation that would be needed to pay it off. This is beyond disastrous. Even the military has said the national debt is a national security issue. And, they're more right than they might know. All it would take to really cause problems is a downgrade in USSA's credit rating. This is because a downgrade would mean higher interest rates for new debt. We're already spending billions on interest; raise the interest and suddenly the fedgov can only borrow less, while paying more to do it. And, we've got another fiscal cliff/debt ceiling coming in late March or early April.

If you really want to lose sleep, look into the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve (aka the Fed) and the federal debt. The Fed has been printing money out of thin air like mad since late 2008, and it hasn't caused a genuine resurgence. Meantime, the fedgov is now running spending over $1T a year, supported by massive borrowing. The whole game is completely unsustainable. It will collapse. There is no if, only when. Bernanke is doing everything he can to push the when further into the future. Just do a little research into this, enough to grasp the full import and consequences. I guarantee you won't sleep for a week.

Its bad, folks.
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Of course, the areas where these abuses occur, are mostly in poor, minority communities.--modern day form of slave trade, IMO.

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

matt2636

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
201
Location
cedar rapids
The Answer:



I see, so the Terry Stop is Constitutional, as long as the officer has an Reasonable--articulable of course--suspicion that safety is an issue during the investigation of suspicious behavior.

Basically, depending on how, what, when, where, why, the stop-and-frisk is occurring, the officers are engaged in a Constitutional act. It appears, in the NY case, the officers didn't meet that Reasonable standard, or wasn't able to articulate their reasoning behind the stop-and-frisk.


yeah but "officer saftey" wouldnt be in jeporady if he would have just left the situation alone right? i mean officer have no legal obligation to protect you according to warren vs. district of columiba. so really isnt he just putting himself in harms way?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
There is no such concept in law as "reasonable articulable suspicion that officer safety is an issue."

The way it works, to correct the horrible misstatement above, is that IF the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, then the officer may lawfully detain the person. During that detention, the officer may temporarily take the firearm for officer safety.

Folks, don't let a particular poster twist words in a way that mangles the intended meaning of the law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
From Terry v. Ohio
5. 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 [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.
Many court rulings have held that a cop can disarm a citizen for virtually any reason because "officer safety" was invoked, later by the way, I find it comforting that the instances of "arbitrarily disarming" citizens and then claiming "officer safety" is being challenged in court. Cops are learning that the "dangerous" part, in this excerpt from Terry, is what they must be able to cite and then justify to a judge to prevent sanctions from being applied to them and their department. if the cop can "prove" that you were dangerous to him then the disarming is lawful. If he can not then the disarming is unlawful. Retaining a competent attorney is the key to exposing misinformed or undereducated cops.

US v. Black is a pivotal opinion on this front in my view.
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
There is no such concept in law as "reasonable articulable suspicion that officer safety is an issue."
First part.

The way it works, to correct the horrible misstatement above, is that IF the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, then the officer may lawfully detain the person. During that detention, the officer may temporarily take the firearm for officer safety.
Second part.

Folks, don't let a particular poster twist words in a way that mangles the intended meaning of the law.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
B92FSL part.

i dont see how im twisting anything when im using the law as an argument
He, eye95, is not referring to you. B92FSL seems to be focus of his post.

Though, he has provided a opportunity for all to see a liberal in action where the twisting of words are used by liberals to justify their anti-liberty and anti-citizen agenda. B92FSL is well know around these parts for twisting words.....not that there is anything wrong in twisting words, just as long as the words deserve twisting.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
From Terry v. OhioMany court rulings have held that a cop can disarm a citizen for virtually any reason because "officer safety" was invoked, later by the way, I find it comforting that the instances of "arbitrarily disarming" citizens and then claiming "officer safety" is being challenged in court. Cops are learning that the "dangerous" part, in this excerpt from Terry, is what they must be able to cite and then justify to a judge to prevent sanctions from being applied to them and their department. if the cop can "prove" that you were dangerous to him then the disarming is lawful. If he can not then the disarming is unlawful. Retaining a competent attorney is the key to exposing misinformed or undereducated cops.

US v. Black is a pivotal opinion on this front in my view.

+1
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
First part.

Second part.

B92FSL part.

He, eye95, is not referring to you. B92FSL seems to be focus of his post.

Though, he has provided a opportunity for all to see a liberal in action where the twisting of words are used by liberals to justify their anti-liberty and anti-citizen agenda. B92FSL is well know around these parts for twisting words.....not that there is anything wrong in twisting words, just as long as the words deserve twisting.

100% correct assessment of my post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
"Stop & Frisk" ILLEGAL - court requires LEO Encounters be recorded

The reaction from the Statists truly is revealing:

'Welcome to Chicago' NYPD cops warn Gotham residents officers will become overly cautious with stop-frisk, predict crime hike - Crime spiral in our future, Finest warn

13N_STOPFRISK_IPAD--525x435.jpg

Numerous members of New York’s Finest blasted Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin’s ruling against stop-and-frisk, which included the appointment of an outside monitor and a requirement that cops in some of the most crime-ridden precincts wear cameras to record their conduct.

“If that’s what the judge wants, crime’s going to go up,’’ the Bronx cop said.

Bloomberg is pissed:

13.1n004.Stop-Frisk.c--300x300.jpg

A federal judge declared the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program unconstitutional yesterday and in an unprecedented move appointed an outside monitor to rein in the controversial tactic — prompting a furious Mayor Bloomberg to warn that crime would skyrocket if the ruling stands.

“I worry for my kids, and I worry for your kids. I worry for you and I worry for me,” Bloomberg said at a City Hall press conference with Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

“This is a very dangerous decision made by a judge that I think just does not understand how policing works and what is compliant with the US Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court,” the agitated mayor said.

“We believe we have done exactly what the courts allow and what the Constitution allows.”

The Post thinks obeying the Bill of Rights is dangerous:

Death wish, the sequel
This one will hurt: A federal judge took a powerful whack at New York City’s crime-fighting efforts in ruling against the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policies. If the judge’s ruling is allowed to stand, the price to the city will be incalculable. And the victims of her judicial caprice will overwhelmingly be our city’s poor and minority populations.

Unlike the above, the National Journal actually discusses why S&F -- as applied -- is unconstitutional:

Why 'Stop and Frisk' Was Ruled Unconstitutional
It is important to recognize the human toll of unconstitutional stops. While it is true that any one stop is a limited intrusion in duration and deprivation of liberty, each stop is also a demeaning and humiliating experience. No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life. Those who are routinely subjected to stops are overwhelmingly people of color, and they are justifiably troubled to be singled out when many of them have done nothing to attract the unwanted attention. Some plaintiffs testified that stops make them feel unwelcome in some parts of the city, and distrustful of the police. This alienation cannot be good for the police, the community, or its leader. Fostering trust and confidence between the police and the community would be an improvement for everyone.

...

I emphasize at the outset, as I have throughout the litigation, that this case is not about the effectiveness of stop and frisk in deterring or combating crime. This Court's mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, not its effectiveness as a law-enforcement tool. Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime—preventative detention or coerced confessions, for example—but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.

Simply stated, the ends to not justify the means.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
I'm going to go against the general consensus here and say this is a bad ruling.

The 4th Amendment does not protect against search and seizure, it protects against unreasonable search and seizure. It does not define unreasonable as it's impossible to list all possible scenarios.

Stopping and frisking a 50 year old librarian walking down main street Glenbulah at 3 in the afternoon is unreasonable.

Stopping and frisking a young male loitering in a high crime neighborhood at 3 in the morning is reasonable.

It has to do with context. I'm certain some of the S&F NYPD did were unreasonable, but each has to be judged individually. This is a blanket ruling and it stinks!

It does reveal the hypocrisy of liberals, though. They rant and rave about stopping violence, but their only method is to violate the Constitution (i.e. gun control). But a method that actually works, and actually affects law breakers, then they start showing concern for what the Bill of Rights says. And in this case it doesn't say what they say it's saying. More evidence of how completely full of fecal matter the left is.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'm going to go against the general consensus here and say this is a bad ruling.

The 4th Amendment does not protect against search and seizure, it protects against unreasonable search and seizure. It does not define unreasonable as it's impossible to list all possible scenarios.

Stopping and frisking a 50 year old librarian walking down main street Glenbulah at 3 in the afternoon is unreasonable.

Stopping and frisking a young male loitering in a high crime neighborhood at 3 in the morning is reasonable.

It has to do with context. I'm certain some of the S&F NYPD did were unreasonable, but each has to be judged individually. This is a blanket ruling and it stinks!

It does reveal the hypocrisy of liberals, though. They rant and rave about stopping violence, but their only method is to violate the Constitution (i.e. gun control). But a method that actually works, and actually affects law breakers, then they start showing concern for what the Bill of Rights says. And in this case it doesn't say what they say it's saying. More evidence of how completely full of fecal matter the left is.

Actually, SCOTUS has already said that any search absent a warrant is presumtively unreasonable unless it fits an already-recognized exception to warrant clause (Weeks?).

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


Use as your standard the second paragraph from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths...all men are created equal...to protect these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." If all are equal, then none can give authority to another to compel a third person unless that third person consents to be governed. That is to say, I cannot compel you unless you consent to be governed by me. And, if I cannot personally compel you, neither can I delegate a non-existent authority to others (police) to compel you.

Absent your consent, the only possible justification I could have for seizing and/or searching you is defense of self and others--"to protect these rights governments are instituted among men." And, the only way I could legitimately claim to be defending self or others (preventing a rights violation like robbery or other crime) is if I was pretty darn sure you were about to commit a crime (probable cause) or had committed a crime. This is why Terry Stops are such a violation of rights--on mere suspicion, rather than probable cause, a cop can seize a person and investigate him. The abhorrent element is that, lacking probable cause, the government admits right up front that it knows it will be seizing innocent equals. There is no possible way to legitimize Terry Stops--seizures on suspicion rather than probable cause. Furthermore, the US Supreme court invented Terry out of thin air.

So, while Terry Stops may seem reasonable, they only seem that way as long as one omits to consider a number of things like consent of the governed among equals, seizing innocent people, and vast amounts of entirely predictable police abuse of even the relaxed standard of reasonable suspicion.

There is nothing reasonable about a Terry Stop. Quite the contrary. In order to validate these oppressions, one must suspend reason--stop reasoning before considering the whole picture.
 
Last edited:

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
I'm going to go against the general consensus here and say this is a bad ruling.

The 4th Amendment does not protect against search and seizure, it protects against unreasonable search and seizure. It does not define unreasonable as it's impossible to list all possible scenarios.

Stopping and frisking a 50 year old librarian walking down main street Glenbulah at 3 in the afternoon is unreasonable.

Stopping and frisking a young male loitering in a high crime neighborhood at 3 in the morning is reasonable.

It has to do with context. I'm certain some of the S&F NYPD did were unreasonable, but each has to be judged individually. This is a blanket ruling and it stinks!

It does reveal the hypocrisy of liberals, though. They rant and rave about stopping violence, but their only method is to violate the Constitution (i.e. gun control). But a method that actually works, and actually affects law breakers, then they start showing concern for what the Bill of Rights says. And in this case it doesn't say what they say it's saying. More evidence of how completely full of fecal matter the left is.

I am a firm believer that terry stops , to include terry stops with pat frisk (given articulable suspicions justifying a frisk in addition to the stop) are entirely consistent with the 4th amendment. Iow, brief investigatory seizures based on RAS are entirely "reasonable". We probably agree there.

I also don't think that showing that stopping people disparately based on race, age and gender shows bias, since according to crime VICTIMS (see the NCVS - National Crime Victimization Survery) there are incredible disparities in those demographics when it comes to Part I offenders. Iow, certain age groups, males vs. females and racial demographics are much more likely to commit part I crimes than others. If cops stopped all groups EQUALLY, *that* would be problematic since ceteris paribus, the groups with the highest offender rates per VICTIMS are likely to be the groups with the highest # presenting ofc's with RAS to stop them. Makes sense. Heather McDonald has done some stellar work on these #'s. See her work at City Journal as well as her book "are cops racist" for metric buttloads of supporting stats

I *do* think that NYPD is stopping and especially frisking people wihtout proper RAS cause. THAT is the problem. It's not that terry stops are bad. It's that they are ABUSING terry stops and making stops and frisks without articulable basis for either. Bloomberg, a statist nightmare, is okey dokey with that, but I'm not.

As a LEO, I live, eat and breathe RAS- I'm currently out injured based on a violent felon arrest I made a few days ago that stemmed from SOLID RAS. It's the bread and butter of good police work - investigatory stops based on RAS. I dont want NYPD sullying the concept by making bogus stops with LESS than RAS.
 

pkbites

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ,
Use as your standard the second paragraph from the Declaration of Independence:

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


I *do* think that NYPD is stopping and especially frisking people wihtout proper RAS cause. THAT is the problem. It's not that terry stops are bad. It's that they are ABUSING terry stops and making stops and frisks without articulable basis for either.

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

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
"Actually, SCOTUS has already said that any search absent a warrant is presumtively unreasonable unless it fits an already-recognized exception to warrant clause"

Correct. Also remember that a pat FRISK is not a search for evidence as in a "search" but is a protective prophylactic frisk for safety. It's scope is much more limited than a search, it's purpose is different than a search (a search is for evidence. a frisk is for protection), etc.

That's why FRISKS can be done with less than probable cause, but merely sufficient "frisk factors" iow specific articulable reasons to suspect the person is armed and dangerous. Same suspicions need not rise to the level of PC.

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

That is entirely correct. However presence in a high crime area CAN BE CONSIDERED as PART of the totality of circumstances that may lead to RAS. Iow, it is not RAS that a crime is occurring merely because a person is in a high crime area (and at o dark thirty). However, same presence IN ADDITION to other factors can give rise to RAS.


I quote: In making a determination of whether the above four facts support a finding of reasonable suspicion
the court examined the United States Supreme Court case of Illinois v. Wardlow.vii The court noted
that although the Supreme Court stated that presence in a high crime area, “standing alone” does not
create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, it is still a relevant factor that officers can consider
when making a decision regarding reasonable suspicion. As such, the officer in Jones, was permitted
to validly consider this as one relevant factor.

http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/2012_6th_us_jones.pdf

It's ALWAYS about TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCEs

btw, this article references that no seizure occurs when an officer yells "stop", that the seizure does not occur unless the fleeing person SUBMITS to the command.

This is NOT true in WA state. Because we place far more limits on lEO's and search and seizure, under WA case law, the seizure occurs WHEN the officer yells "stop", thus the ofc. must have RAS to yell "stop" or everything after that will be thrown out (fruit of the poisonous tree). In most jurisdictions, the officer yells stop, the guy takes off and then dumps some drugs THUS giving PC, that would be kosher since the ofc. didn't need RAS to yell "stop", it only applies if and when the subject DOES stop. Not so in WA. Again, more limitation on WA leo's
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
You are aware that the DoI is not a legal document and has no force of law, correct?




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

Of course I agree. Stop and frisk (one or both) are valid constitutional practices that LEO's can use in complete adherence to 4th amendment limitations on search and seizures. NYPD imo has engaged in a consistent INSTITUTIONAL pattern of violating the principles of Terry imo. Iow, it's common practice, it isn't discouraged, etc. which is problematic. Of course the devil is in the details. I am sure there are tons of NYPD cops who in good faith do their best to follow the limitations of terry. I am also sure that on the whole, the dept. encourages violation of the limitations of terry and that supervisors look the other way when violations of terry occur. That's based on looking at a LOT of NYPD cases presented by critics of their program.

Again,. I live eat and breathe RAS, believe such stops are constitutional ,a nd I will continue to make terry stops to help serve the public
 
Top