"Stop and Frisk" Program in NYC

S

sigcurious

New member
Link

A judge recently ruled that parts of a program of increased police presence was a violation of the 4th amendment. The worrisome part of this is that unlike many issues of a similar nature it is not individual bad apples in this case, but an actual policy and training issue offered to all of the officers involved.

The really troubling part is:
The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, criticized the ruling, contending that the program, also known as Clean Halls, gave residents of the Bronx buildings “a modicum of safety for less prosperous tenants. Their landlords explicitly requested this extra level of protection.”

“Today’s decision unnecessarily interferes with the department’s efforts to use all of the crime-fighting tools necessary to keep Clean Halls buildings safe and secure,” he added.
Click to expand...

The people in charge actually think that regularly violating people's rights for an admittedly small amount of additional safety is OK. It's unfortunate that in cases such as these that there are not serious repercussions for the higher ups that implemented the program as such. NYPD has frequently pushed the boundaries of their authority (such as operating not only outside of NYC, but outside of New York state or the questionable bag searches on the subway for example). Yet programs are constantly implemented that go above and beyond, or should I say, below and around the very laws they're to enforce, without repercussion.

ETA: As one of our largest cities, it's scary to think that other police departments might look to them for ideas and inspiration on how to operate and what is and is not ok.
 
I might take issue with the Commish's use of the word "unnecessarily." Seems to me that reining in this beast was extremely necessary, from a Constitutional perspective.
 
The sheer number of potential civil rights plaintiffs that this program generated is staggering.
Click to expand...

You would need damages to win a civil suit. Not sure what they would be.

Next time you hear someone proposing a psychological testing program to own a weapon, suggest that the same thing be applied to the 4th Amendment.

Sarcasm font on.

After all, there is no telling what someone may be smuggling under their coat or building in their basement. Propose that only those who pass an annual shrink review be covered by the 4th Amendment.

After all, it could save a life. And if it just saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it?

Sarcasm font off.
 
I have a family member that is a NYC cop.
Just short of SS tactics.

I told him to keep his butt out of Texas.
 
Woody55 said:
Next time you hear someone proposing a psychological testing program to own a weapon, suggest that the same thing be applied to the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Don't give them ideas. Too many police departments already don't believe in the 4th Amendment. Stop and frisk is only the tip of the iceberg. Look at all the SWAT team, dynamic entry "warrant services" that get carried out at incorrect addresses, or at addresses where the person they're looking for moved out six months or a year prior. A search warrant "service" is supposed to imply that you hand the warrant to the person at the door and allow them to read it. If that were being done, most of such erroneous raids would be eliminated because the occupant could just say, "This is for 238 North Main street, and we're at 238 SOUTH Main Street." Or, "I'm not John Doe. He was the previous owner, my name is Priscilla Smith and I bought this house four months ago."

But it's so much more fun to smash down doors and terrorize people at oh-dark-thirty ...
 
Just a reminder...

This thread is of the ilk that tends to draw out the Magnum cop bashers...

Lets not go there, please...

brent
 
It continues to amaze me that American citizens put up with this kind of treatment.

The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, criticized the ruling, contending that the program, also known as Clean Halls, gave residents of the Bronx buildings “a modicum of safety for less prosperous tenants. Their landlords explicitly requested this extra level of protection.”
Click to expand...

I especially like that last sentence. What are they? Feudal serfs?
 
Woody55 said:
Spats McGee said:
The sheer number of potential civil rights plaintiffs that this program generated is staggering.
Click to expand...
You would need damages to win a civil suit. Not sure what they would be.
Click to expand...
Technically true, but

In the eyes of the law this right [to vote] is so valuable that damages are presumed from the wrongful deprivation of it without evidence of actual loss of money, property, or any other valuable thing, and the amount of the damages is a question peculiarly appropriate for the determination of the jury, because each member of the jury has personal knowledge of the value of the right. Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 89, 17 Sup.Ct. 265, 41 L.Ed. 632; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58, 65, 21 Sup.Ct. 17, 45 L.Ed. 84.

Wayne v. Venable, 260 F. 64, 66 (8th Cir. 1919)
Click to expand...

This principle can (& I believe has) been extended to the deprivation of many other constitutional rights. The constitutional violation alone suffices as the injury. Compensatory monetary damages are not hard to come by. Here are a few hypothetical examples:
1) The police detain me for, say, 15 minutes, causing me to miss the deadline for bidding on a construction contract. Compensatory damages = the $ value of the contract.
2) That same 15-minute detention causes me to be unable to plug the parking meter across town before receiving a ticket. Compensatory damages = $ paid on the parking ticket.
3) During the course of the frisk, I am found to be in possession of a knife with a blade in excess of that allowed by local ordinance. I am arrested, taken to jail, charged with Carrying an Illegal Weapon (for example). Now I have either the cost of paying the fines, lawyer fees, etc. Then there's the emotional and psychological distress of being "treated like a common criminal." Surely I'll be unable to sleep for weeks on end, develop an irrational fear of police officers, have to go see a therapist, get on some expensive meds, . . .

Like I said, monetary damages are not hard to come by. Oh, and that's just the compensatories. If the officers happen to be a little, erm, enthusiastic in their frisking, then we're off to the races on excessive force and punitive damages.
 
I think in the case of NYC cops, the action would be brought under 42 USC Sec 1983. That's quite a bit more modern than 1919. You'd probably have to look up damages in that context.
 
Bloomberg credits this program with the reduction of gun violence in NY because of all of the guns they've taken off the streets. Which is probably true; but you can have security or freedom, but not both.
 
Woody55 said:
I think in the case of NYC cops, the action would be brought under 42 USC Sec 1983. That's quite a bit more modern than 1919. You'd probably have to look up damages in that context.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly well versed in civil rights litigation, having been a civil rights defense lawyer for about 7 of the last 10 years.

ETA: 42 USC 1983 was part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
 
The other nice thing about a 1983 action is that a prevailing plaintiff is normally awarded attorney fees. I handled a few years ago before moving in a different direction.
 
Yeah, I've had cases where I was way more worried about the plaintiff's attorneys' fees than his actual compensatory damages.
 
ETA: As one of our largest cities, it's scary to think that other police departments might look to them for ideas and inspiration on how to operate and what is and is not ok.
Click to expand...

I hope that was in jest.

The Constitution guarantees the right to be secure in your papers and person and whatnot. The government is just helping to make sure you are secure is all.

That was in jest.
 
i am against stop and frisk

but cuomo yesterday was talking about how it hurts the profiled group,
minority males aged 18 to 35, by stigmatizing them with arrest and criminal
records, mostly for pot....."why ruin their lives????" he said

(he didnt say anything about the illegal guns that have been found during
these stops....there have been more than a few)

BUT

he is more than happy to remove the guns, magazines and ammo
from law abiding citizens of the state of NY who havent done anything wrong
and violate our rights!

that is what i dont get

(we dont want to take your guns....yeah...we will have to turn them in...
or become felons.......not a big difference)
 
Technically yes, but there are some damages attached to the constitutional violation itself. I've never had a case go to trial in which damages were presumed. That said, I've had several cases in which there were no measurable compensatory damages. One that comes to mind was a case of an allegedly wrongful arrest of a guy with no job, no rent, bunking in with a family member. If you really wanted to get down on a gnat's eye about the numbers, that guy actually saved money by being in jail as a result of the arrest. (No lost wages & the jail paid for his meals). My client actually settled that case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top