"Stop and Frisk" Program in NYC

[Tom Servo]

If you don't live or work in a high crime area or a place where drug addicts/dealers wander around w/o concern for the law or public safety then you might be more inclined to disapprove of S&F.

I have a very real problem with that sentiment. Not everyone has the luxury of choosing where they live, and "high crime" areas are not exclusively populated by criminals.

Should my expectations of privacy and freedom of movement be subject to the neighborhood in which I live? There are some sobering implications to that logic.

I also wonder how vague justifications like “furtive movements” and "clothes commonly used in crime" [CRCJ study from post #38, p. 8] can be upheld by the courts.

 

[sigcurious]

Yes...because having departmental policies being reviewed and altered by the courts for the second time in 10 years says it's supported by the courts and completely above board...

Even so, you have yet to show that a) it is effective and b) that it's only the "corner boys and dopers" as you would put it being stopped and searched. You keep on making statements in support without actually providing substance to those statements.

To put some of this in context, the reported rate of illegal drug use in NYC in 2009 was roughly 16%, if the "corner boys and dopers" are the ones being targeted in your mind, why is it that the total non-firearms contraband discovery rate is roughly 2%?(see link in previous post) Seems to be a pretty large discrepancy there for what you would claim is targeted at those most likely to be carrying drugs. Based on their own reporting "actions indicative of drugs transactions" are less than 10% of the total stops. So again, how is it that the "corner boys and dopers" are being targeted?

 

[ClydeFrog]

The Wire, urban crime issues....

If you watch the acclaimed HBO crime drama; The Wire, you get a better idea of how street gangs & low level drug dealers operate.
Modern era street criminals do not walk around with loaded guns all the time.
They will take apart & hide or cache the handgun/firearm around different locations. They do the same with illegal drugs or contraband.
Drug dealers & gang members in area routinely give out cheap cell phones to street people & homeless to "spy" on anyone that may be looking for the drug gangs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people who live in high crime areas are all bad or involved in crime(a point I myself made in a topic several months ago).
If S&F helped lower the violent crimes in a area or were a part of clearing criminal cases then it's worth it. If the #s don't support it, then S&F should be ended.

My point is that I don't see the NYPD plan as a serious threat to civil rights or to a majority of citizens. It would difficult to manage or maintain on a large scale.

 

[sigcurious]

So...now you're pointing to a tv series... Ok, well let's assume your assertions are factual for a moment. If the criminals, are so good at hiding their activities, How is it again that all of these stops and frisks are a viable tactic? Presumably, if the tv show is accurate, then cops should know what effectively amounts to randomly stopping people would be ineffective.

Why would it be difficult to maintain or manage on a large scale? Policy based dysfunction hardly requires management, just the passivity to allow it to happen or the belief that it's a good thing.

In a harshly critical report, a special mayoral panel asserted yesterday that the New York City Police Department had failed at every level to uproot corruption and had instead tolerated a culture that fostered misconduct and concealed lawlessness by police officers.

The panel, called the Mollen Commission, agreed with police officials who contend that corruption was not systemic, but rather isolated to small groups of rogue officers. But the commission warned that if corruption itself was not systemwide, the department's failure to address it was.

source If not so long ago there was massive failure to deal with a whole different level of patently illegal activity by officers(preceded by the earlier knapp commission in the 70's).It would be relatively easy to fail to address abuse of detainments and searches, which are not just passively allowed, but actively endorsed by the superiors. To believe without evidence that the NYPD is simply too large to do wrong is short sighted and ignorant of the history of the NYPD. It's size does nothing to prevent missteps and failures on a departmental level.

Sure a department that collaborates internationally and operates outside of their jurisdictional area without prior approval could never be modeled by other departments or affect areas outside their jurisdiction.

 

[leadcounsel]

This goes to the larger problem of irresponsible politicians and appointed judges with agendas all ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution.

As a criminal defense attorney, I've seen abuses time and again; abuses of search and seizure, abuses of forced (often false) confessions, denial of right to counsel, abusive interview/interrogation techniques, etc. People don't realize it, but innocent people DO give false or fed confessions and innocent people are alarmingly convicted for things they did not do ...

The remedy for these abuses is stacked against the accused. It requires deep pockets, zealous attorneys, and lucky breaks in the case.

For instance, lets say that a stop and frisk was totally illegal and there was absolutely NO reason other than profiling for him to be searched. BUT.... evidence of illegal drugs and guns were recovered. Subject is arrested and charges filed. Remedy is for a suppression motion. Knowing that the state will lose its case, it takes a judge with very high degree of integrity to side with the defendant. In my experience, judges are human too and most will find a way to side with the police officer to NOT exclude the evidence so that the government can still prosecute.

Same goes with abuses of right to counsel, custodial interrogation, and on and on and on... even in cases where there is clear abuse, the remedy is to suppress the evidence. Judges, in my experience, are simply reluctant to do that.

I've had a lot of clients where the searches and seizures or even statements obtained were in violation of 4th and 5th Amendment rights, but the evidence obtained was incriminating. The judge knows the entire case goes away if he agrees with the defendant, so the judges find a way to rule in favor of the prosecution. Thus - the ends justify the means and the government slowly grows more powerful and more bold and erodes the Constitution little by little...