NYC's Stop and Frisk laws deemed unconstitutional

[hamburglar3]

Looks to me that the judge didn't say the stops are unconstitutional. They're just being conducted unconstitutionally. It's not the stop and frisk that is so terrible, it's that they're targeting minorities. So... they appointed a monitor. My guess is that the practice will basically continue, just with more majority-race stops to make it "fair".

It does sound like they might reform their criteria for the stops but I'm not too hopeful. The 4th amendment stomping will continue.

I wonder what the racial percentages of each group of the city is currently?

 

[StateLine]

Looks to me that the judge didn't say the stops are unconstitutional. They're just being conducted unconstitutionally. It's not the stop and frisk that is so terrible, it's that they're targeting minorities.

^^^^This. Terry vs. Ohio has been lawful and Constitutional for 45 years. It is the manner in which the NY police were applying it that caused the ruckus. "Terry stops" are a very effective tool for identifying and apprehending criminals. But you have to play by the rules. It really all boils down to reasonable articulable suspicion and an ability to accurately document WHY the officer conducted the investigatory detention and subsequent "pat down" search.

 

[captdave77]

The judge did not stop the practice. It really isn't a win.

 

[captdave77]

^^^^This. Terry vs. Ohio has been lawful and Constitutional for 45 years. It is the manner in which the NY police were applying it that caused the ruckus. "Terry stops" are a very effective tool for identifying and apprehending criminals. But you have to play by the rules. It really all boils down to reasonable articulable suspicion and an ability to accurately document WHY the officer conducted the investigatory detention and subsequent "pat down" search.

It's the random part that is the problem.

I don't like warrantless searches in any form including TSA, but this was over the top. The 4th prohibits the government from searching people just to make sure they aren't breaking the law.

 

[Indirect Fire]

^^^^This. Terry vs. Ohio has been lawful and Constitutional for 45 years. It is the manner in which the NY police were applying it that caused the ruckus. "Terry stops" are a very effective tool for identifying and apprehending criminals. But you have to play by the rules. It really all boils down to reasonable articulable suspicion and an ability to accurately document WHY the officer conducted the investigatory detention and subsequent "pat down" search.

What the NYPD was doing and I mean hundreds of thousands of documented contacts every year was nothing even remotely related to "Terry vs Ohio". Completely insane in fact, if you have been in areas where these stops were conducted (been there). A friends wife is one of the many whom just got used to stopping opening her purse and telling officers where she was going. Way out of control..... Sure it prevented crime and got some guns off the street.

The standard in NYC was nothing close to the rest of the country. "Stop and frisk"....sheesh

 

[captdave77]

"Why did you stop me?"
"Because it is 95º and you are wearing a jacket."
"It's a suit jacket!"
"Empty you pockets please."

 

[Indirect Fire]

"Why did you stop me?"
"Because it is 95º and you are wearing a jacket."
"It's a suit jacket!"
"Empty your pockets please."

That's about it.....

"About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011" (CBS news) with an average of 1 in 8 being accused of a crime.

Insurgencies have started over less..

 

[zesty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City

I think that they were profiling based on crime percentages. If young black males were arrested for 50% of crimes, they were supposed to account for 50% of stops. The problem is that they are only 25% of the population and it's not like 50% of them are criminals. The judge didn't like their math for the profiling.

Nevermind that the stops and profiling are both wrong to start with.