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 ...
Why did the judge say only “certain Bronx buildings”? Don’t all Bronx buildings deserve equal treatment?
You need to get up to speed. The TSA is operating at many public places now not just airports. The ‘safety’ philosophy IS spreading. Also the police don’t arrest ‘criminals’, they arrest suspects. Again, according to your logic, if the authorities were to ‘stop and frisk’ twice, three, four times as many people would they not be taking more potential ‘criminals’ out of circulation? The theoretical logical conclusion being if everyone was suspected and frisked, crime could become almost nonexistent. Maybe NYC needs to add some additional taxes and hire more law enforcement in order to really bring the crime rate way down. That little thing about unreasonable search and seizure is just so passe.....
That 20% number represents criminals:
According to NYPD statistics, almost one in five stopped were guilty of a crime.[3] The vast majority of these people were African-American or Latino.[1][3][4]
The Obama DOJ is stepping all over NYC probably because too many black and Hispanic criminals are being picked up.
They can appeal it, and they’re going to lose.
The SCOTUS doesn’t turn back on stare decisis.
It all depends on whether they hold that other precedent to be relevant. A lot of this is rhetorical gymnastics to fit a ruling into preconceived ideological stances. I understand there's a view that judges are gods on earth whose every ruling is inerrant and springs purely from the circumstances at hand. Back here on earth, it's pretty clear that every judge comes to a case with his particular ideological axe to grind.
What about Terry v. Ohio?
I believe under "stop and frisk" laws the police may not use any drugs they find as evidence, only weapons, otherwise the arrest rate would probably be much higher.
In order to combat drug dealing in the public areas of buildings, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office developed the Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP).In buildings where drugs are sold, tenants complain about the constant foot traffic by unknown individuals. These unwelcome visitors often loiter in the public areas to sell or use narcotics. Sometimes dealers act as doormen, directing buyers and intimidating residents. Changing locks and posting signs forbidding trespassing is frequently ineffective, and law abiding tenants and landlords can feel powerless to rid their buildings of drug trafficking and the accompanying disorder.
The Trespass Affidavit Program, staffed by our Community Affairs Unit, gives communities an opportunity to change these conditions. When the Community Affairs Unit receives confidential complaints about drug trafficking activity in a particular building, it contacts landlords and registers them in TAP. Landlords must then post signs throughout their building reading “Tenants and Their Guests ONLY,” provide the police with a complete list of tenants and keys to their building, and permit police officers to conduct “vertical patrols” in the building. When necessary, officers may make arrests for criminal trespassing.
Currently, more than 3,200 buildings are enrolled in TAP. The program is a valuable tool for law enforcement, allowing it to address prostitution complaints, burglary and assault locations, vacant building problems, and privately-owned empty lots where trespassing is a common occurrence.
This is an excellent program - cops essentially doing private security work in crime-ridden buildings for landlords at no extra charge. If it's dismantled, law-abiding tenants will pay the price in body counts and permanent disabilities, given the kinds of things that go on there. I would be not be surprised if the plaintiffs were being paid by drug dealers to file the complaints.
After reading your entire post, I am still trying to see where the po-po have any right to DETAIN AND SEARCH EVERYONE THEY SEE simply because they are in a certain area.
It’s like a DUI roadblock for pedestrians, but FAR more insidious.
Has EVERYONE lost their senses?
I wonder if they were planning anything like this in Chicago with it’s 500 murders a year problem.
I remember a NY study in which police stopped every 10th car in the evening going to Long Island for alcohol testing. They found and amazingly large number of violations, far greater than drunk driving accident figures had suggested. The conclusion was that middle aged office workers who had a few too many after work were driving extra careful and not causing accidents. Accidents are mostly caused by reckless wild acting, inexperienced young drivers, predominantly male.
Where are you getting that?
You’re as full of excrement as a Xmas Goose. Are you sure you aren’t a Chicom plant? In Communist China the way the NYPD has been operating is SOP! It is incredible to me that anyone would give up their Constitutional Rights in this manner. Go home!
The citation ([3]) in the Wikipedia article does not support the assertion that "one in five stopped were guilty of a crime," and that assertion is contradicted by numerous sources that state that the arrest/summons rate is not 20%, but rather 12%.
Which said cops have absolute NO BUSINESS doing. If the building/tenants want to be guarded, they need to hire security to do so. The idea that cops should do INTERNAL PATROLS in a PRIVATE BUILDING is completely wrong from every perspective I can think of.
And when they start coming door to door, yours and your neighbors, you are ok with that. Gotta be sure you do not have contraband in your house...and when they do your neighbors too, that are doing it to protect you.
And that mouthful is what you have been saying about the stop and search crap, so how is it different when they knock on your door at 3 am?
Your blind submission to government authority and blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights is troubling for someone who probably fancies themselves a "conservative".
You know what else we could do to prevent crime? Have law enforcement check every house and remove all guns, no exceptions. Using your logic, why not?
Felonious thugs have the right to carry, not law abiding citizens.
Stop and frisk laws are based on a Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio.
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.