home

Stop and Frisk Ruled Unconstitutional

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:47:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes:

In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy, a federal judge has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in New York, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.

Here is the opinion.

< Eric Holder: Changes in Mandatory Minimum Charging | BOP Issues New Compassionate Release Guidelines >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Stop and Frisk Ruled Unconstitutional | 101 comments (101 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Money Quote (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    "Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime -- preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example," she wrote, "but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective."
     LINK

    Got that Obama/Congress, effectiveness does not make a program legal, and I would add neither does need.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    Culling old folks would really cheapen up those pesky human "entitlements," but I'm not sure Jesus would turn water into wine for it.

    Parent
    The End Does Not Justify The Means (none / 0) (#46)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:27:53 PM EST
    I think you got the money quote.  From what I read this was a major part of the city's argument, and continues to be the proponents argument.

    I am looking forward to the TV shows to come out of the camera recordings ;-).

    Parent

    Now keeping in tune w/mission (none / 0) (#48)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    of this blog...What need or effectiveness is Obama and Congress arguing wrt being illegal?

     (including any unconstitutional findings)

    Parent

    Search This Blog... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    The White House claims it's necessary because it's effective.

    ...several members of Congress have said something to the effect of investigating the claims about effectiveness.  The implication being if it works it's A-OK.

    My point is it's effectiveness is irrelevant to the conversation, it's a distraction from discussing the legality of the spying programs.

    Parent

    I just think a better way to frame it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    would be to say we ALL need to be careful when we choose the end to justify the means...including the parent statement.

    Parent
    Great (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:36:56 AM EST
    Hey professor d1ckweed glad to see my post gave you a platform for your self absorbed condescension disguised as advise.

    But I didn't ask or want it.

    Parent

    Scott there is no malice (none / 0) (#64)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    intended.  I apologize if I have offended you.  I truly thought your first post deserved a "5" rating because you really nailed the point on the effectiveness argument.  I have enjoyed reading your comments and appreciate your point of view.  The implication that something was being done illegaly troubled me.  You stated it perfectly in your second comment...  

    discussing the legality

    I am trying not to overtly discuss these things as they can easily be deleted for being off topic.  Maybe we can discuss this on an open thread.  Again, I apologize.

    Parent

    You ask ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    ... as if thousands -- maybe millions -- of words hadn't been expended on that topic in recent weeks on this very site. What a disengenuous question.

    So I think you should answer it yourself :)

    Parent

    Scott answered it perfectly... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:37:48 PM EST
    SCOTUS had previously ruled the actions constitutional. Need and effectiveness are not valid arguments to the constitutional questions raised wrt certain aspects of NY's application of their program ;-).

    Manipulative in light of the circumstances...maybe, but not disengenuous.  The presumption of something being illegal requires an assumption analogous to innocence until a finding is made in court, imo.  

    Parent

    correction... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:23:48 PM EST
    An action that is debatable should not be called illegal.  It should carry an assumption analogous to innocence until a finding is made in court.

    Parent
    Not a surprise in this case (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    Judge Scheindlin does not appear to be a big fan of the cops.

    Weiner Was Spot On (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:34:48 AM EST
    Too bad Wiener showed his weener and too bad that many think that this has something to do with his effectiveness in being Mayor, but I will take 10 of him over the Bloombergs and  Giulianis out there.

    His comment comparing NYC police tactics to those in Nazi germany were spot on. And the horrified response to his comment was telling. No one wants to have the mirror put in their face, particularly when it comes to systematic and endemic racism that is seen as normal ho hum business as usual. We are like the Nazis, except they were more honest about it.

    Good for him, he has my vote.

    What A Load (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:31:57 PM EST
    The use of police stops has been widely cited by city officials as a linchpin of New York's success story in seeing murders and major crimes fall to historic lows.

    Widely cited, Mr Goldstein? By who? Ray Kelley, Giuliani, Bloomberg and all those who's BS is purely self-serving?

    Crime dropped across the entire US at about the same rate over the last 20 years. Stop and Frisk had zero to do with the drop in crime, and that goes double for Giuliani's fascist approach to policing.

    Hard to believe that the Paper of Record would be spouting such nonsense.

    If the NYPD is so blessed... (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    with the intuition to pick out the armed and dangerous, why was a gun found in only 1/10th of 1% of stops?  A monkey could find more guns than that!

    Sh*t only 12% of stops led to an arrest, mostly drugs.  

    Whether 88% totally f*cking innocent or 99.9%, it's unacceptable in a free society.

    I love how Bloomberg is crying that the city didn't get a fair hearing, the judge was biased...now he knows how the thousands upon thousands of innocent victims of stop & frisk feel, only they have a very valid point.

    Well Said Mr Kdog (none / 0) (#105)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 10:03:12 AM EST
    And I'm sure that Bloomberg would support expanding this program to wealthy white New Yorkers, especially if we could get the same awesome results (sarcasm alert).

    Parent
    Who is 'We' ? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:24:16 PM EST


    More race-baiting. Swell. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:48:55 PM EST
    You must be confusing TalkLeft with TalkOutOfYourAss, which would seem like a better fit for you.

    Oh, gosh darn, TP (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    You missed your chance to ply that stuff 'round these parts during the latest crime of the century. Tsk tsk. You're about three weeks too late.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    Is the finding that it is unconstitutional? Or just unconstitutional the way it is currently implemented?

    The tactics (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    Stop and Frisk has long been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

    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."



    Parent
    Also, (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    The Plaintiffs did not request an end to stop and frisk.

    P. 5 of the opinion says"

    Plaintiffs do not seek to end the use of stop and frisk. Rather, they argue that it must be reformed to comply with constitutional limits.  Two such limits are paramount here:  first, that all stops be based on "reasonable suspicion" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and second, that stops be conducted in a racially neutral manner.


    Parent
    I would guess the NYPD gets a huge FAIL... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    ...on both these requirements. Shot in the dark.

    Parent
    All suspicion is reasonable... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 12:59:32 PM EST
    when we're all suspect.  Some more suspect than others of course, aka non-whites.

    Parent
    kdog, the federal district court (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    confirmed what you have often stated, as applied by the NYPD, NYC stop and frisk is unconstitutional. You should be clicking your heels!

    Parent
    Cue Fredo Corleone... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!
    ;)

    Parent
    He isn't the only one who has often (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    stated that

    Parent
    But he stated it the most often. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:14:21 PM EST


    Parent
    The White Queen started last night on Starz (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    Based on Phillippa Gregory's books The White Queen, The Red Queen, and the last one on Warwick's daughter Anne that I can't remember the name of right now.

    When I bought the book you recommended on Cleopatra it turned out my daughter was reading that group by Gregory, so I read those right after.

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    It appears the wording of this ruling makes it more likely you could be subjected to stop and frisk in the future.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    LESS LIKELY.

    Reasonable suspicion requirement.

    Hell, the whole thing might get scrapped. Certainly by the next mayor it will.

    Parent

    Haven't most all... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    of the candidates said they will keep the program, but add more checks and balances and reign it in a bit?

    Of course, campaign promises and $ 2.75 will get you a single ride on the subway.

    Parent

    Check out for yourself (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    NYC Mayoral Candidates Respond To Judge's 'Stop & Frisk' Ruling

    Parent
    I thought the opposite (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:13:10 PM EST


    Parent
    According to ABC News... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:22:00 PM EST
    here only John Liu has said he would stop it.  Jives with my recollection of the campaign thus far.  

    The rest are critical of it's implementation but won't go so far as to say they will end the widespread unconstitutional practice.  

    Sad but understandable...unless you're a young male black or hispanic you're not the one getting harassed repeatedly.  It's a popular brand of tyranny.

    Parent

    BTD, do you any opinion on how this (none / 0) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    ruling might affect Kelly?

    Currently, Kelly is being seriously considered by President Obama as the new head of the Department of Homeland Security. The fact that Kelly has implemented a policy that is racially biased and unconstitutional should disqualify him from taking over such an important position.

    Here is kdogs opinion, what is yours?

    But it won't disqualify for either position..in fact it probably pads his resume for DHS head.


    Parent
    I saw somewhere that Chuck Schumer (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:23:35 PM EST
    is still pushing Kelly for head of DHS, but that didn't surprise me, so I know it doesn't surprise you...

    Ah - it was a couple of Marcy Wheeler tweets (my bold only to make tweet easier to read):

    emptywheel @emptywheel
    Shorter SJC Member Chuck Schumer: Sure it'd be cool to put someone who violated 4th and 14th of 100s of 1000s in charge of DHS.
    about 1 hour ago

    emptywheel @emptywheel
    Aarrrrrgggghhhhhh RT @resnikoff: Schumer spokesperson confirms to me that the senator still supports Ray Kelly for DHS head.
    about 1 hour ago



    Parent
    Kdog - If you were a cop ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:14:09 AM EST
    ... in Sweden.

    What happens When You Try To Film The Police In Sweden.

    Yeah, ... off topic, but I couldn't help but think of you ...

    Parent

    Gotta be a sting operation! n/t ;) (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:30:16 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm half Swedish... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    ... and I approve this message!

    Parent
    What about gender? (none / 0) (#21)
    by redwolf on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    "first, that all stops be based on "reasonable suspicion" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and second, that stops be conducted in a racially neutral manner."

    99% of the people they're stopping and frisking are male.  That violates equal protection.  It needs to 50-50 women to men with stop and frisk.

    Parent

    You would only expect stops to be 50/50 (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 08:48:56 PM EST
    by gender if those engaging in genuinely suspicious behavior in public were being ignored.  I "suspect" that what is happening is that most folks whose behavior in the view of a p/o actually gives rise to "a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot" (to quote the Supreme Court) -- male or female, white, black or Latino, gay or straight -- are in fact being stopped and questioned, and if the circumstances warrant "a reasonable suspicion that the person is also armed and presently dangerous" (same source) being frisked as well.  And then, in addition to those few thousand, hundreds of thousands of additional stops and frisks are being carried out against young, black and brown males, in violation of the Constitution, without reasonable suspicion.  No one seeks to extend the unconstitutional and bogus stops to others on an even-handed basis.  The point is to restrict the stops/frisks to the particular circumstances allowed by the Supreme Court in Terry v Ohio.  The Terry decision, by the way, was considered a loss for civil libertarians.  The issue in that case was whether all stops and frisks, since they constitute a kind of seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment, were invalid unless supported by probable cause, a higher standard.  

    Parent
    "a reasonable suspicion" (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:26:44 PM EST
    - i.e., the NSA standard.

    Parent
    Link? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:50:54 PM EST


    Parent
    93% male (3.50 / 2) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:03:32 PM EST
    TOTAL STOPS

    Male 57,293
    Female 3,739
    Not Listed 695
    Total 61,727

    57,293/61,727 = 93%

    But who really cares what the exact % is? The point is valid, as I think we all knew without needing to research.

    Parent

    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    It doesn't matter.  Since no one involved in the case made it an issue.  A stop is a stop.  Women may have other issues with being stopped and groped, but since this was a case about race-based stops, gender has nothing to do with anything.

    Parent
    Looks like the Human Rights Campaign (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:18:30 PM EST
    also sees a bias against the LGBT's:
    Schiendlin's ruling is an important win for racial justice advocates who have long criticized New York City's discriminatory policy. It is also a win for those disproportionately singled out by the practice, including LGBT communities, immigrants, homeless people, some religious minorities, low-income people, residents of certain neighborhoods or public housing, youth, and people with disabilities.

    In fact, a 2012 report by the Center for Constitutional Rights found that "it [was] a common occurrence for people to be subjected to stop-and-frisk because of their sexuality or gender expression."



    Parent
    Data from page 12. (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:04:51 PM EST


    Parent
    The ruling said that a certain segment (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:21:30 PM EST
    of NYC's were unfairly profiled.

    That point just validates that the stop and frisks were confined only to those who meet the city's profile of who were and who were not automatically considered criminals.

    Parent

    Even the ACLU (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:01:42 PM EST
    Doesn't get in to gender

    Why do you think that is?

    Parent

    From NYCLU (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    Young black and Latino men were the targets of a hugely disproportionate number of stops. Though they account for only 4.7 percent of the city's population, black and Latino males between the ages of 14 and 24 accounted for 40.6 percent of stops in 2012. The number of stops of young black men neared the entire city population of young black men (133,119 as compared to 158,406). More than 90 percent of young black and Latino men stopped were innocent.

    NYCLU

    Parent

    Not too surprising (none / 0) (#35)
    by FuzzyFace on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:35:38 PM EST
    That it is mostly Black and Latino men being stopped. At least, what I had read indicated that since there has been significantly more crime in Black and Latino neighborhoods, that's where the police have been focusing their work. And by an amazing cooincidence, it turns out that most of the inhabits in those neighborhoods are Black and Latino.

    Parent
    Not too surprising (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:07:01 AM EST
    that the court found that the NYC's overzealousness in stopping black and Latino men was unconstitutional.


    Parent
    What do you think would happen if (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:50:56 AM EST
    only white males were stopped?  If you only stopped white men over 6 feet tall with at least one tattoo, at some point, the statistics are going to reflect that men who fit this description commit more crimes - and with that statistic in hand, cops have all the justification they need to keep stopping white men over 6 feet tall with at least one tattoo.

    These kinds of policies, carried out the way they are, result in a self-fulfilling prophecy: the crime statistics are used to justify the focus on blacks and latinos, but the emphasis on stopping them skews the statistics to reflect higher crime rates in these groups.  And around and around we go.

    I truly don't know why this isn't obvious to people, unless it is obvious, and it get ignored because it suits a larger agenda.

    Parent

    Your comment is not in tune (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:41:02 PM EST
    W/the mission of this blog.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:22:33 AM EST
    More crime because there is non stop racism dictating who gets stopped and frisked. The NYC police are targeting predominately black and latino neighborhoods. If you stop and frisk everyone in a black and latino neighborhood and never stop and frisk anyone in a white neighborhood the crime statistics will be skewed to suggest that black and latinos have more crime in their neighborhoods.

    If the NYC police would stop and frisk wall street, upper east side manhattan, and other tony neighborhoods with the same frequency that they have done in black and latino neighborhoods, the crime statistics would show that white neighborhoods have a higher incidence of crime than black neighborhoods. And the crime would be more serious than that in the respective poor neighborhoods, as more white people carry unregistered weapons. and harder drugs for example .

    Parent

    "frisking wall street" (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    lol; what makes wall street dangerous isn't guns, it's paper.


    Parent
    that comment reminds me of this (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by DFLer on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:28:51 PM EST
    Matt Boris cartoon published in the current issue of In These Times

    Parent
    Awesome cartoon... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:40:34 AM EST
    Thanks DFLer.

    Parent
    And yet Bloomberg wants us to believe (none / 0) (#43)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    that the NYPD "stops white too much and minorities too little." All evidence to the contrary.

    Parent
    gender profiling (none / 0) (#56)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    %%norm_font_en