Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

Stop And Frisk Violated Rights Of New Yorkers, Judge Rules

www.huffingtonpost.com

A judge has ruled that the NYPD's controversial use of the stop-and-frisk tactic violated the rights of thousands of New Yorkers, The New York Times reports. Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision Monday called for a federal monitor to watch over the police department to ensure cops are in compliance with the constitution.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com

You rarely hear of good news for personal liberty nowadays, but here it is. The Stop and Frisk procedure/ violation of the 4th amendment that has been taking place in New York has been stuck down in court by judge, Shira A. Scheindlin.
If you are unaware of what Stop and Frisk is, it gives Police Officers the right to go up to anyone they want, breifly detain them, and search their persons. This practice was and still is widely abused by the NYPD.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I live in NYS. I have a similar gripe. I was stopped one night walking through town around nine pm.
I was frisked from had to toe and asked a bunch of questions before being released.

I never knew why he stopped me, or what he was after. Probably just profiling me, thinking im trouble maker or that i had something on me.

More and more every day we are being told about the violations of our civil rights.
This is one giant police state, wherein we are all criminals until we are proven innocent.

It is not exactly a good ruling. My understanding is they ruled that 'stop and frisk' is okay so long as they do not disproportionally target someone based on race.

'Stop and frisk' is going to continue and the 4th Amendment is dead.

The past few years only made me wiser, now i dont consent to searches of any kind unless im being arrested.

Every time i have police contact, i repeatedly ask if im being detained/arrested......if the answer is no then i continue to decline the search.

reply to post by jrod


Agreed. Although it is a small step, It is a step in the right direction.

A federal monitor? lol.... Oh the sweet justice. While people in New York and similar places look down their loooong pointy noses at the South and lower Midwest while cheering federal meddling in voting to schooling ....They get to at last get a small taste of how it feels to have Washington say ' There there little citizen...we understand you're just not up to the task...let us run that complicated stuff for ya '

That part alone seems a bit of irony worth chuckling over for awhile.

reply to post by theconspirator


Ok so the loophole will be, its ok to profile just not on race or religion.

reply to post by theconspirator

the judge stressed that she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers,

"You can't just stop and frisk minorities, you have to also stop and frisk affluent whites and all New Yorkers, too!"

So, basically, one can't stop and frisk simply because of race or neighborhood, but stop and frisk must apply to all New Yorkers equally, not just minorities. Greeeeat. And, it must include a degree of true reasonable suspicion not based on race or location (which is good).

This is good in itself, and it appears that the ruling is more in alignment with constitutional limits (requiring true suspicion), but the fact that "stop and frisk" as a policy and method is still acceptable is troubling.

We'll see how well the NYPD complies.

reply to post by Liquesence


Stop is a presumed guilt on the person stopped for that reason. Will a socialite all attired in white evening gown and jewels stepping from a limo be stopped and frisked? Hardly.

So regardless of how you want to not select or de-select people to be stopped and frisked, it is going to be people that are some steps below the bigwig businessman in his terrific suit and expensive briefcase and the socialite whom will be subjected.

I see this as the typical general and liberal view: I do nothing wrong (and unlikely to be stopped) so it is OK if others get caught in the net. (Evidently, SOMETHING about them cause undue suspicion, right?)

Thus, the brown shirts of Germany started....or any number of obsessive regimes. What happened to freedom?

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
The past few years only made me wiser, now i dont consent to searches of any kind unless im being arrested.

Every time i have police contact, i repeatedly ask if im being detained/arrested......if the answer is no then i continue to decline the search.

Yes, that is the correct legal way to interact with any police officer. Always ask if you are being detained! Then refuse a search if the answer is no!

So many people just willy nilly give away their rights allowing LEOs to abuse the system.

remember people, the SCOTUS has rulled the 4th is only based on the public expectation of privacy.


all a ruling like this does while saying one thing about profiling allows the practice to continue, it furthers the publics expectation to be searched in public. hence it weakens the 4th even more.

Originally posted by theconspirator
reply to post by jrod

 

Agreed. Although it is a small step, It is a step in the right direction.

I do not see how this is a step in the right direction. The court ruled it is okay to stop and frisk someone, to my that is atrocious even though it has been going on for years with little public out cry. Now the just have to make sure they 'stop and frisk' white people wearing business suits too.

If anything this ruling just shows how things have changed in America. If you are stopped by NYPD you cannot refuse the search. Lets say you are a law abiding citizen who never does illegal drugs but you have prescription drugs that you consolidate into one bottle, you can get arrested for having a controlled substance. Say someone with the same name as you has a warrant, you will be arrested.

They try to make it sound like a victory for civil liberties when the reality is the opposite. Those of us with a free mind see right through this trick. The fact a high level court ruled that the police can stop and frisk anyone for any reason should cause a reason for protest, but the way the ruling is presented by the MSM has people cheering that we have a victory for civil liberties.

Like I said before the 4th Amendment is dead.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
The past few years only made me wiser, now i dont consent to searches of any kind unless im being arrested.

Every time i have police contact, i repeatedly ask if im being detained/arrested......if the answer is no then i continue to decline the search.

I'm confused, if they are allowed to briefly detain you doesn't that mean they are allowed to search you? Can you turn down the frisk, if so why wouldn't everyone say no?

reply to post by theconspirator


We all want safe streets and to feel safe walking down the street, but S&F is wrong in so many ways. "Reasonable suspicion" is still a violation of the constitution. Probable cause needs a warrant and an arrest where Miranda Rights are issued. I can't see how a judge would allow evidence that may even be obtained during a S&F could be admissible into a trial as it was gathered illegally, without consent or due process.

Here in Sunny Glasgow the Police can stop and search anyone they please!

Funny thing through, they never seem to stop or bother the refugees since their first cry is racism!

One has to wonder why the Strathclyde Police Force is so scared of the race card! LoL

reply to post by theconspirator


scratch that i thought they completely got rid of it.

For all the New Yorkers here, what happens if you just tell the cops to go F themselves when they start the interrogation process? Or if they ask where are you going and you tell the Pigs that you're going home after a few hours giving the Pigs' wives the sexual satisfaction of their lives?

Beyond the obvious beat down, where does it say that we need to "show our papers" anywhere in America?

Isn't it unique that no matter which fringe they are on, the fringes of the parties all HATE liberty?

Derek