Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

City Council to rein in the NYPD's use of stop and frisk (neutering police - no profiling)
NY Post ^ | 7/12/2013

Posted on 07/12/2013 9:03:57 PM PDT by Altura Ct.

Defying Mayor Bloomberg and his top cop, Raymond Kelly, the City Council passed two bills Thursday morning to rein in the NYPD’s use of stop and frisk.

The Council voted with veto-proof majorities for the bills to create an inspector general who will oversee the NYPD and to allow people to sue over racial profiling by cops.

The inspector general bill passed 40-11, and the racial-profiling bill by 34-17 -- getting exactly the number of votes needed to withstand Bloomberg’s expected veto. The votes came in a dramatic session that started late Wednesday and spilled into Thursday, and saw supporters and opponents of the bills passionately staking out their positions.

“There have been a lot of bald-faced lies told about this bill,” said Councilman Jumaane Williams (D-Brooklyn), in a speech urging lawmakers who have never experienced being black, Latino, gay, Muslim or in another profiled group to “please listen to us.”

“We can have safety and can have police accountability at the exact same time,” he said. “If you don’t live there, if you haven’t been going through it ... please side with us.” Councilman Donovan Richards (D-Queens) recalled being stopped and frisked as a teen, which he said “dehumanized” him. “I was scared," he said. "Today I’m not scared ... I have a chance to do something about it.” Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens) said the bill “will give every person subject to any police policy an automatic right to sue without any allegation of wrongdoing.”

“It will achieve the ultimate goal of this bill, to put judges in charge of the NYPD,” he said. “When the courts are in charge, we will become Chicago, we will become Detroit. Crime will soar, murder will rise, children will die.”

And Councilman Eric Ulrich (R-Queens) denounced the bills as “an outrage.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 07/12/2013 9:03:57 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

No different from the Border Patrol or the military in Afghanistan or Iraq.


2 posted on 07/12/2013 9:06:41 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Amen!


3 posted on 07/12/2013 9:08:02 PM PDT by doc1019 (Get our troops the hell out of the ME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
I'm all for this.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- Forth amendment to the Constitution

4 posted on 07/12/2013 9:16:51 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

I don’t give a damn if it “neuters” police to get rid of “stop n frisk”

NOBODY has the right to detain and put their hands on me if I did nothing illegal. I don’t care if I look like the biggest thug in the world.

It’s a blatant example of giving up everyone’s freedom for supposed “safety”. If the idiots keep doing this, a day will come when government itself is a danger to our safety. What then?


5 posted on 07/12/2013 9:16:56 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

FK them.

4th amendment...

They don’t have supra rights to search anyone at will.


6 posted on 07/12/2013 9:18:05 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Stop and frisk is tyranny, regardless of any racial component. The idea that anyone, especially those who claim to love freedom, would be ok with the police systematically stopping people on the street and searching them, is sickening.


7 posted on 07/12/2013 9:19:19 PM PDT by TeachableMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

yes but if profiling is based on common sense and crime statistics, it isn’t unreasonable. It is based in common sense reasoning.

zero tolerance policies (ie no profiling) is why tsa doesn’t bother muslim travelers but strip searches 5 year olds away from parents, and pat down nuns’ breasts, and removes grandpa’s artificial leg to check for explosives.


8 posted on 07/12/2013 9:24:08 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

But keep firing at dogs at will.


9 posted on 07/12/2013 9:26:06 PM PDT by deadrock (I am someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
God help us! I used to joke that the inmates were in charge of the asylum.

Reality is much worse. Those who are putatively charged to protect the common citizen are now being mandated to assist the criminal element in its depredations against the law-abiding populace.

In the City of Baltimore, Maryland, it was recently learned that the prison guards were complicit in, if not sponsoring, all manner of outrages by the inmate population. The inmates are not just in charge of the asylum, they are in charge of the Nation!

It's not about "profiling!" It's not about "race" - it's not about "ethnicity!" Those are the canards tossed out by the Left to distract from the actual question.

It's about our way of life, our Freedoms, and what's left of Western Civilization.

FREEDOM!!!



"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

10 posted on 07/12/2013 9:26:16 PM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Michael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Profiling, ie fitting the description of the perp.


11 posted on 07/12/2013 9:28:19 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

I hope that crime in New York shoots right throught he stratosphere. This is the New York City Democrat’s equivalent to “sequestration”, “furloughs”, and “reparations”.

You can’t fix STUPID but you can elect them to the City Council.

Way to go New York. You’re trying to beat out Chicago, Baltimore, E. St. Louis and Detroit as the crime capitals of America, and you just might succeed.

What a bunch of fucking leftist nuts!

Won’t be back to visit unless packin’. Fortunately my retired NYPD host does.


12 posted on 07/12/2013 9:29:04 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.; NFHale
I love this from a Dem:

Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens) said the bill “will give every person subject to any police policy an automatic right to sue without any allegation of wrongdoing.”
“It will achieve the ultimate goal of this bill, to put judges in charge of the NYPD,” he said. “When the courts are in charge, we will become Chicago, we will become Detroit. Crime will soar, murder will rise, children will die.”

Besides, with the new NY gun laws wtf are they frisking for anyways?
Crime has been repealed in NY.
Hell, didnt you see that guy was arrested in NYC for having an air gun that shot plastic pellets?

FU Bloomberg.

13 posted on 07/12/2013 9:32:48 PM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

So if you’re just walking down the street and a cop decides that it’s your turn, you’re cool with him frisking you just because? Even though you aren’t committing a crime?
Cops have too much power. They certainly don’t need more. Glad the New York city council is doing this.


14 posted on 07/12/2013 9:36:27 PM PDT by christx30 (Freedom above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Stop and frisk is fascist bs.


15 posted on 07/12/2013 9:42:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Stop and frisk is fascist bs.

I wholeheartedly agree. It's a Search. Not without Probable Cause.

16 posted on 07/12/2013 9:43:41 PM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these here Boncentration Bamps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Profiling and searching people boarding a public aircraft in a secured area with tons of cameras is one thing.

Giving cops the authority to detain and search anyone in the street at will is a whole other animal.


17 posted on 07/12/2013 9:43:50 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: christx30

“Stop and frisk” is the most effective way of getting illegal weapons, mainly guns, off the streets of a crime-ridden city.

It does involve an involuntary surrender of 4th Amendment rights but a “crime emergency” situation, as declared by a city government, can allow this to take place (remember the old concept of “the public good”?)

Check how many weapons were removed from NY City’s streets over the past years when “stop and frisk” was policy. Then translate them into how many lives were saved, how many criminals were caught and jailed, how the streets became safer for honest citizens.

What is needed is a publicly explained policy on S&F and reasonable laws on putting that policy into effect without creating a police state.

It is a hard line to walk but it can be done. Otherwise, you can continue to stack up the bodies as they are doing in Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, and Chicago, with a lot of children among them.

Your choice. I’m going with S&F to save lives.


18 posted on 07/12/2013 9:44:31 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Yes but if profiling is based on common sense and crime statistics, it isn’t unreasonable.

It pretty much is Unreasonable, and should be considered so, in general.

Profiling is a distasteful tool which is ripe for abuse and should only be considered rarely, in extreme circumstances, say, maybe, for example, if one specific ideological group professes and/or acts on beliefs which are, say, antithetical to American Freedom, and advocate, say, turning the USA into an Islamic Caliphate via Acts of War.

You know, some Extreme Threat like that. War. Not simply for routine or arbitrary reasons to stop and frisk average Citizens.

19 posted on 07/12/2013 9:53:55 PM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these here Boncentration Bamps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.; All
Thank you for referencing that article Altura Ct.. Just in case any FR readers aren't aware of the following concerning executive orders, people may find the following information about such orders interesting.

First, not only is "executive order" not a constitutional term, but the Founding States made the very first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from the Oval Office, to clarify that all legislative powers of the federal government are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches of the federal government.

In fact, undoubtedly based on the clauses referenced above, the Supreme Court has already clarified in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that executive orders do not have the force of law unless legislatively supported by Congress. And given that Congress is now diivided, Democrats controlling the Senate and Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, Obama simply doesn't have the legislative support of Congress to make his executive orders do anything.

So what Obama is actually doing with his executive orders is to try to make himself look like a king making edicts to impress low-information voters. Sadly, when Obama writes "JUMP!" on an executive order, Constitution-ignorant voters, which evidently includes medical personnel, unthinkingly ask "how high?"

20 posted on 07/12/2013 9:53:59 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

Involuntary surrender of rights is Orwellian bs. Police state is what you advocate.


21 posted on 07/12/2013 9:54:10 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Sorry all. My previous post was intended for another thread.


22 posted on 07/12/2013 9:58:30 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
To followup to my previous post:

For example, profiling blacks for stop and frisk just because blacks may commit a higher relative percentage of crimes in the area is absolutely not something that should be permitted. Indeed, it's unconstitutional, IMHO.

Used in that form againsy the average Citizen, such shenanigans would be smacked down by the Supreme Court, I would suppose. I imagine they already have.

If instead, however, it was used under the auspices of Wartime Policy, e.g. against a specific group disproportionately more likely to wage War against the United States and its People, i.e. Muslims, then the Supreme Court might look at it a little differently.

Such stunts must be pulled very sparingly. It couldn't be Constitutional to throw such tactics into everyday use against any broad swath of citizens. Any Patriot should oppose something like that instinctively.

23 posted on 07/12/2013 10:04:28 PM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these here Boncentration Bamps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Sorry all. My previous post was intended for another thread.

And yet it seems a very appropriate observation on this thread as well. I know the second thread you're talking about.

All of this discussion relates to Tyrannical Executive fiat at all levels of government.

24 posted on 07/12/2013 10:09:07 PM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these here Boncentration Bamps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sargon; All
And yet it seems a very appropriate observation on this thread as well.

Now that you mention it, thanks for pointing that out.

25 posted on 07/12/2013 10:18:17 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sargon

What if a person matching the description of a known criminal is seen leaving a building known to have “problems”? They haven’t done anything. Should they be stopped and questioned? What if police with the permission of the building owner make a patrol of a building and stop, question, and frisk certain people?

I want a strong check on police. On the other hand, some areas require a strong hand. A lot of this stemmed from claims of “racial profiling”. I don’t know if these claims are truly justified or just whining. Large cities are tough places to live. I don’t like em. I left. I got sick of women being attacked on the sidewalk and the perp gone before I could get down there. Or having my car broke into while in a friend’s apartment for five minutes when picking them up. et cetera.


26 posted on 07/12/2013 10:23:18 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sargon

Yes I am not referring to arbitrary stop and frisk, or even random checkpoints. I am referring to specific profiling for specific crimes.


27 posted on 07/12/2013 10:52:09 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Yes agreed. Arbitrary and random are obnoxious and intolerable. That should be stopped if it is actually occurring.


28 posted on 07/12/2013 11:01:12 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
With all due respect, the "stop and frisk" meme is a lie.

It's not what the NYPD policy, or ever was.

It was basically a policy that said to the beat coppers "guys, you need to do your jobs. If you observe someone breaking the law or someone who meets the legal definition of reasonably suspected of breaking the law, we expect you too stop him and conduct an investigation. And, by the way, prior to that investigation, in accordance to Terry v. Ohio, please conduct a pat-down for weapons".

They had to have a legal reason to detain someone, always have. This new law is just a way of telling the police to let the thugs run amok. No civilized society can survive under that regime.

29 posted on 07/12/2013 11:07:14 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

Not the way I understand it was being applied and “IF” they reasonably believe a crime had been committed they could search?

They could relieve a person of their personal property without due process.???

What? The 4th amendment is anachronistic and out of date?

Well, how wonderful.

I argue that reasonable cause is unjust. Further over a period of 6 years they stopped more than 4 million people and had only a 12% arrest rate.

It’s wrong and unconstitutional. Don’t like gangs but, they need to work within the bounds of the law and stop constructing New rules giving them the imprimature to violate our rights.


30 posted on 07/12/2013 11:26:54 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: christx30
"So if you’re just walking down the street and a cop decides that it’s your turn, you’re cool with him frisking you just because? Even though you aren’t committing a crime?"

Such behavior is already unconstitutional and thus illegal under USSC precedent. Stop and frisk requires the officer to be able to articulate specific facts which create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This is a lower standard than probable cause but much higher than "just because".

31 posted on 07/13/2013 4:29:41 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Who loses in this? the very people who are complaining, the residence of the drug infested housing projects! Enjoy a@@clowns you just cut off your nose inspite of your face. They complain because the cops are interupting thier business ventures, you know they are entreprenuers!


32 posted on 07/13/2013 4:45:49 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (Yesterdays conspiracies are todays truths)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Ultimately this is about ‘disparate impact’ of ‘equal outcomes’. In other words this is about race.


33 posted on 07/13/2013 5:51:15 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper

Got it. If Obama decides that there is a ‘gun emergency’ in the country and bans firearms, you’d be totally ok with that. I guess you’d have to, considering you believe the Bill of Rights is actually the Bill of Suggestions.
They can do whatever they want to, violate anyone’s rights, as long as they can demonstrate need. “Lots of crime here. I need to be able to stop and frisk people just whenever.”
If you don’t give a crap when someone’s 4th amendment rights are violated, you can’t expect anyone to listen to you when you decry background checks as restrictions on your 2nd amendment rights.
The bill of rights either means something, or it doesn’t.


34 posted on 07/13/2013 12:35:19 PM PDT by christx30 (Freedom above all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

While I have a lot of respect for the Libertarian point of view in many areas, there’s a part of me that can’t shake my old-fashioned “law and order” brand of conservatism.

That aside, if the NYPD, or any PD for that matter, we actually stopping people for no reason at all, I’d agree with you. But that’s not the case.

In order to even have an intelligent conversation, some rudimentary familiarity with the legal standards really is essential though.

The standard for a detention, which has been tried, argued, and adjudicated nearly to death is “reasonable suspicion”, not “reasonable cause” or “probable cause”.

The question of the constitionality of the “frisk” or “pat-down” search for weapons was settled in 1968 in Terry v. Ohio. Now, it’s fine to disagree with SCOTUS (I, myself, do all the time), but it would help to at least acknowledge that this wasn’t something that the NYPD just dreamed up six years ago and was out running amok.

The wikipedia entries for the above are actually pretty good, if you have any interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

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


35 posted on 07/13/2013 3:50:53 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

I’m familiar with your points. I still maintain it’s an abrigement.


36 posted on 07/13/2013 3:53:59 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

OK, fine. And not to flog a dead horse here, I’ve long tried to understand the point of view that you are advocating, so in all seriousness, what is the alternative to the “stair-step” level of proof we’ve evolved here in the US over the past couple of centuries?

Do we start demanding that the police have “probable cause” prior to a detention? What then do we require for an arrest? “Beyond a reasonable doubt”?

And once we dispense with that, in the brave new Libertarian world, when may the police pat a suspect down for weapons? Only after an arrest has been affected? Or perhaps a conviction obtained?

We So-Cons don’t all imagine that we have all of the answers, and there are instances of police over-reach even from the conservative side of the aisle. BUT, I don’t think that you’ll get a lot of social conservatives complaining about the actual way that NYPD was conducting business, once they become familiar with the actual facts, and not the lefty hysterics on the NY city counsel and the “community” activists.


37 posted on 07/13/2013 4:13:43 PM PDT by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson