Posted on 01/09/2013 9:07:25 PM PST by Zhang Fei
In March of 2012, several New York City residents sued the New York Police Department over alleged overreaches of its controversial stop-and-frisk policy.* The plaintiffs argued that the NYPD “has a widespread practice of making unlawful stops on suspicion of trespass” outside certain buildings in the Bronx, and asked the court for relief from the department’s Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP). On Tuesday, they got their wish. Finding that NYPD officials showed “deliberate indifference” to the unconstitutionality of the relevant incidents, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin issued an injunction prohibiting unjustifiable stop-and-frisk actions outside of certain Bronx buildings.
This is obviously a blow to the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy, and it possibly carries long-term implications for similar policies elsewhere. The TAP case is the first of three stop-and-frisk cases pending in Scheindlin’s court, and this injunction might indicate how she will eventually rule in the other two. Predictive value aside, the injunction is a powerful rebuke to systematic law enforcement excesses, and should be read and studied by anyone with even a passing interest in civil liberties.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
>> resulted in arrests of criminals 20% of the time
And the 4 out of 5 that weren’t criminals: what about them and their rights?
A 20% success rate does not justify molesting the rest of us law abiding 80%.
It’s an infringement of our right to go peaceably about our business.
Good! It violates 1st, 4th and 5th amendments and even right of association.
If a person is not suspected of a specific crime that would call for search and seizure then LEO should know it’s unlawful for them to do so and Under Color Law could be illegal.
Jackboots not required to do that effectively.
/johnny
Nor does the police have the power, nor should they be accosting and harassing the individual, if there is no actual breaking of the law.
The next step is stopping everyone, just to see if they have a weapon on them.
Only criminals are arrested. Non-criminals are sent on their way.
>> Non-criminals are sent on their way.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in this country, don’t law-abiding citizens have the right to go about their business without interference from the police?
In other words, why should a law-abiding citizen have to put up with this crap? So that one in FIVE can be taken downtown?
How is this any different from stopping EVERY car on the interstate to find a small percentage of drunks? Or keeping EVERY law abiding citizen from owning an assault rifle because some tiny percentage MIGHT commit a crime with one?
“Guilty until proven innocent” is NOT the basis upon which our civil rights rest, FRiend.
The gun laws in NYC being what they are, stop-and-frisk is an excellent way to prevent crime. It's one of the reasons crime in NYC is much lower than in the South, despite a demographic profile similar to many big southern cities. This isn't a body cavity search - it's a quick pat down similar to the kind people get at airports.
Stopping cars on the interstate interferes with the flow of traffic. Stopping people on sidewalks doesn't. And the semi-automatic rifles used in unlawful killings for the past 100 years are .02% of the present stock of semi-automatic rifles, whereas 20% of the people frisked are criminals of one kind or another. If 20% of semi-automatic rifles were used in mass killings, there might be a case for strictly regulating them, but we're not there yet.
Your posts on this thread ring like that of an illiterate leftist anti-Bill of Rights freak.
Your reasoning and responses are comical.
Sorry, the actions of the NYPD run afoul of a SCOTUS decision from the 80’s concerning similar actions by CA LEO’s:
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
Might want to check that out.
Leftists hate stop-and-frisk. Scheindlin is a rabid leftist. Slate is about as close to the Nation as you can get without being the Nation. The Obama DOJ is stepping on NYC to prevent this practice from continuing. How leftist can it be?
They might be comical to you, but they're a matter of life-and-death in NYC, which brought its aggravated assault and murder rates down mainly on the strength of this type of enforcement. I'd prefer laxer enforcement and an automatic death penalty for murder and multi-decade prison terms for aggravated assault. But this is NYC, and stop-and-frisk is a consolation prize for people who want safe streets.
Sorry, but I’m having difficulty understanding your logic on this. It is well established that I have a right to walk down the street without being randomly harassed by the police unless that have solid reason to believe I committed some crime. How can you justify such a blatant disregard for several constitutional rights for every innocent person who is stopped? Do you also support TSA searches? What if they start setting up on the roadsides and stopping people? I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, I really would like to know the logic behind this manner of thinking because it goes against everything we know as freedom.
So EVERYONE is a potential ‘criminal’ therefore all need to be frisked just to be sure they aren’t? That would be the logical conclusion of your reasoning. Spreading the TSA philosophy to all the public no matter where they are....
The black-robed dictators-for-life also rubber-stamped Obamacare and came up with Roe v Wade. I suspect NYC will appeal the injunction. We'll see what happens.
The police have limited resources. There's paperwork involved. We vote for these people. They're not going to frisk people for the heck of it. If there are any problems, you can bet that minority populations will be on top of this way before you are. Remember - these things aren't cast in stone. If there are issues, we will put pressure on the relevant politicians. This judicial diktat rams Judge Scheindlin's leftist viewpoints down New Yorker throats.
I don't see where you get the "everyone". The TSA doesn't frisk "everyone" - just people who are about to get on board the 400 ton missiles we call commercial airplanes, next to which a 1 ton JDAM is a pinprick.
Public safety departments - even one as large as the NYPD - don't have unlimited resources. If they abuse their power, we can force them out of office and even put them in prison. That's why we have elections - so we can put our collective foot down. 20% is a huge success rate. It represents over 100,000 arrests of actual criminals.
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.