Crime: The Judge or the Police

[PoliticalChic]

Whether of not you endorse Stop And Frisk, which has proven to be a highly effective tool of the NYC Police Department in reducing crime, and getting illegal guns off the streets......there is a subtext actually taking precedent: the judge in the case may be disciplined, and her decision thrown out!



1. "Stopped, Questioned, Nixed An appeals court rightly throws a biased judge off the city’s policing lawsuit.

2. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed what was already apparent to disinterested observers of the policing battles in New York City: the federal judge who ruled against the New York Police Department in August is deeply biased. U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin declared that the NYPD’s stop, question, and frisk practices were deliberately targeted against innocent black and Hispanic New Yorkers.

["The use of police stops has been widely cited by the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as a crucial tool in helping drive the number of murders and major crimes in the city to historic lows. The police say the practice has saved the lives of thousands of young black and Hispanic men by removing guns from the streets and suppressing violence." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/n...p-and-frisk-changes-for-new-york-police.html]



3. That opinion rested on patent lies against the department and a profound ignorance of policing and crime... Scheindlin never should have had the case, Floyd v. New York, in the first place.

["Scheindlin ruled in August that the Police Department not only had violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, but had also violated the 14th Amendment by resorting to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as the number of police stops soared in minority communities over the last decade.... routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white." NYTimes, Op. Cit.]

4. Scheindlin had encouraged the Center for Constitutional Rights to file Floyd and promised to take .... circumventing the usual random assignment for cases.

5. But when Scheindlin took jurisdiction over Floyd, there was no extant stop, question, and frisk case before her to which Floyd was related. Her assumption of jurisdiction was a power grab, pure and simple,...





6. She used that grip to the max, installing a federal monitor over the department, who reports to her, to implement her spurious idea that policing should mirror population demographics rather than the incidence of crime.

[. " The ruling effectively puts off a battery of changes that Judge Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, had ordered for the Police Department." NYTimes, Op. Cit.]




7. The Second Circuit has now removed Scheindlin from the case on the ground that her encouragement to file Floyd, as well as several interviews she gave to the press during the trial, compromised the appearance of judicial impartiality.

8. New York mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, predicted to win City Hall next Tuesday, has yoked himself to Scheindlin’s and the Center for Constitutional Rights’ calumnies against the NYPD; he has promised to drop the city’s appeal of Floyd v. New York..." Stopped, Questioned, Nixed by Heather Mac Donald - City Journal




9. "The 2nd Circuit hasn’t said whether Scheindlin’s ruling against New York City was right or wrong. Instead, the three-judge panel said she “ran afoul” of the code of conduct for federal judges by making her impartiality seem as if it could be questioned and through her “improper application” of the rule by which judges agree to handle “related cases.” The 2nd Circuit dinged her for giving media interviews and for telling the plaintiffs in a previous civil rights suit against New York City that if they had proof of “inappropriate racial profiling” they could file a new lawsuit and “mark it as related,” which would route it to her chambers. Scheindlin added, referring to the filing fee, “I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit.” NYPD and Judge Shira Scheindlin: 2nd Circuit appeals court judges try to silence the stop-and-frisk judge.


10. "Scheindlin ruled in August, after a two-month trial, that the NYPD began acting without the "reasonable suspicion" required by the Constitution and targeting minorities as street stops spiraled sixfold under NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly's "proactive" policing approach.

In the news interviews criticized by the appeals judges, Scheindlin spoke to reporters after the Bloomberg administration leaked statistics on her rulings in an effort to show that she found against police more often than other federal judges."
Judge Shira Scheindlin pulled from case as appeals court blocks stop-and-frisk



Again....this is about Scheindlin....not the rectitude of 'Stop and Frisk' policy.

 

[whitehall]

"An effective tool" is not a a valid Constitutional argument. It is a slick move removing the judge from the case but the Constitution is clear that the police need probable cause to detain and inconvenience a citizen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"An effective tool" is not a a valid Constitutional argument. It is a slick move removing the judge from the case but the Constitution is clear that the police need probable cause to detain and inconvenience a citizen.

You couldn't be more incorrect in your understanding of Stop and Frisk vis-a-vis probable cause.




"Stop and Frisk

The situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.

Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in TERRY V. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. InTerry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.


The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.


The Supreme Court has become increasingly permissive regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. InAlabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990), the Court upheld a Terry stop of an automobile based solely on an anonymous tip that described a certain car that would be at a specific location.

However, the Court retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the tip, stating that a young black male was standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, and carrying a gun, lacked sufficient reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. After announcing its decision in Florida v. J. L., the Court vacated two other state court decisions with similar fact patterns, one from Ohio (Morrison v. Ohio, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 [U.S. 2000]) and one from Wisconsin (Williams v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 U.S. [2000])."
Stop and Frisk legal definition of Stop and Frisk. Stop and Frisk synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


While Stop and Frisk does not require probable cause....the NYC situation may require a re-visit by the Court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reasonable suspicion in relation to stop and frisk needs to be clarified.

 

[Moonglow]

Just another attempt to use intrusive means to detect crime, when the criminals are the police.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just another attempt to use intrusive means to detect crime, when the criminals are the police.

Be more careful in your posts.

I'm certain you meant to write "...the criminals are the Democrats."


Isn't that so?

 

[Spoonman]

stop and frisk will be more efective than background checks or any gun laws. botom line, criminals do not follow laws. the only way to take guns away from them is to do just that. take them when they have them. you won't stop them from getting them, that for sure

 

[PoliticalChic]

stop and frisk will be more efective than background checks or any gun laws. botom line, criminals do not follow laws. the only way to take guns away from them is to do just that. take them when they have them. you won't stop them from getting them, that for sure

Everything you say is 100% true....


Here's my prob with that, Spoony....
Efficiency is the basis for Liberal/Progressive endeavors.....no matter the law.
That applies to FDR's creation of Fannie and Freddie.....to ObamaCare as a possible solution for covering all with insurance.....


I need to see that we live by the law of the land...the Constitution.

Efficient crime prevention falls short to honoring the law....and it hurts to consider that allowing some thug to kill an innocent because he wasn't stopped might be the result.


But....it seems that the Supreme Court has/will allow stops on suspicion, e.g., Terry stops.
One can only hope.

 

[whitehall]

"An effective tool" is not a a valid Constitutional argument. It is a slick move removing the judge from the case but the Constitution is clear that the police need probable cause to detain and inconvenience a citizen.

You couldn't be more incorrect in your understanding of Stop and Frisk vis-a-vis probable cause.




"Stop and Frisk

The situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.

Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in TERRY V. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. InTerry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.


The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.


The Supreme Court has become increasingly permissive regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. InAlabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990), the Court upheld a Terry stop of an automobile based solely on an anonymous tip that described a certain car that would be at a specific location.

However, the Court retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the tip, stating that a young black male was standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, and carrying a gun, lacked sufficient reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. After announcing its decision in Florida v. J. L., the Court vacated two other state court decisions with similar fact patterns, one from Ohio (Morrison v. Ohio, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 [U.S. 2000]) and one from Wisconsin (Williams v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 U.S. [2000])."
Stop and Frisk legal definition of Stop and Frisk. Stop and Frisk synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


While Stop and Frisk does not require probable cause....the NYC situation may require a re-visit by the Court.

The word "suspicious" is the operative term. "Suspicious" has been used synonymously with "reasonable cause" but it is not the same thing in a legal sense. Stopping and detaining a citizen and forcing him to submit to a pat down for no reason other than an officer's hunch or the way he is dressed or his accent or some other reason that is lumped in the term "suspicious" is unreasonable in a free society.

 

[whitehall]

It makes it so much easier for the federal government to blow up American citizens with a missile than the inconvenience of dragging them out of a foreign country and and administering their Constitutionally guaranteed due process. It's so much nicer for Police when they can pick and choose persons on a hunch and detain them against their will and force them to submit to a search. The problem is that convenience does not justify an end run around the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"An effective tool" is not a a valid Constitutional argument. It is a slick move removing the judge from the case but the Constitution is clear that the police need probable cause to detain and inconvenience a citizen.

You couldn't be more incorrect in your understanding of Stop and Frisk vis-a-vis probable cause.




"Stop and Frisk

The situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.

Though police had long followed the practice of stop and frisk, it was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment case law, a constitutional Search and Seizure must be based on Probable Cause. A stop and frisk was usually conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion, a somewhat lower standard than probable cause.

In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in TERRY V. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. InTerry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were "casing" the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.


The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.


The Supreme Court has become increasingly permissive regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion. InAlabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 2412, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990), the Court upheld a Terry stop of an automobile based solely on an anonymous tip that described a certain car that would be at a specific location.

However, the Court retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the tip, stating that a young black male was standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, and carrying a gun, lacked sufficient reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. After announcing its decision in Florida v. J. L., the Court vacated two other state court decisions with similar fact patterns, one from Ohio (Morrison v. Ohio, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 [U.S. 2000]) and one from Wisconsin (Williams v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 U.S. [2000])."
Stop and Frisk legal definition of Stop and Frisk. Stop and Frisk synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


While Stop and Frisk does not require probable cause....the NYC situation may require a re-visit by the Court.

The word "suspicious" is the operative term. "Suspicious" has been used synonymously with "reasonable cause" but it is not the same thing in a legal sense. Stopping and detaining a citizen and forcing him to submit to a pat down for no reason other than an officer's hunch or the way he is dressed or his accent or some other reason that is lumped in the term "suspicious" is unreasonable in a free society.

I'm on the fence here.....

....but if policing is experience based.....a modicum of respect has to be given to that sense a police officer develops.


I found this....

"What exactly is Reasonable Suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person.

A Justified Stop
A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:
1. Appears not to fit the time or place.
2. Matches the description on a "Wanted" flyer.
3. Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
4. Loitering, or looking for something.
5. Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
6. Present in a crime scene area.
7. Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).

A frisk is justified under the following circumstances:

1. Concern for the safety of the officer or of others.
2. Suspicion the suspect is armed and dangerous.
3. Suspicion the suspect is about to commit a crime where a weapon is commonly used.
4. Officer is alone and backup has not arrived.
5. Number of suspects and their physical size.
6. Behavior, emotional state, and/or look of suspects.
7. Suspect gave evasive answers during the initial stop.
8. Time of day and/or geographical surroundings (not sufficient by themselves to justify frisk).
https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privacy/when-can-police-stop



Beginning with the belief that there are evil folks in the world....albeit far from all folks.....some of us need protection against others.

 

[whitehall]

I submit that a person who appears "not to fit the time or place" or "acts strangely" or appears to be "looking for someone" or engaging in "furtive movements" or present in a "high crime area" would cover most of Washington D.C. and freaking congress. Those scenarios do not justify detaining a citizen against his will and forcing him to submit to a body search except in Russia or Nazi Germany.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I submit that a person who appears "not to fit the time or place" or "acts strangely" or appears to be "looking for someone" or engaging in "furtive movements" or present in a "high crime area" would cover most of Washington D.C. and freaking congress. Those scenarios do not justify detaining a citizen against his will and forcing him to submit to a body search except in Russia or Nazi Germany.

Bullshit.

If some obviously homeless guy is walking around the perimeter of your nice house in a more or less affluent neighborhood, there is a reasonably good chance that the poorly dressed individual is up to no good. Maybe he's casing the joint. OR, of course, maybe he's just trying to see if there are any rich people home so he can beg for money. There is always a decent chance of a reasonable explanation.

But if Officer Observant sees the guy under YOUR window eaves and doesn't approach the guy to ask some questions, YOU might reasonable feel that the cop was more interested in a donut break than in doing his job.

It sometimes happens that when you do engage in a stop, the person could pose a threat. HE might resent being questioned, he might be a bit on the psychotic side. HE might be armed. So a pat down frisk for the safety of the cop doing his job is -- say it -- perfectly REASONABLE.

SOMEHOW, somewhere along the way, folks started conflating "stop and frisks" with "racial profiling."

Well, that too is just bullshit. SOME cops might have no good legitimate basis for focusing such police action on a person (other than race). If so, shame on them and get on with the difficult task of reigning such cops in. But let's try not to make the absurd arguments that all stop and frisks are necessarily acts of a racist gubmint.

And let us also not lose sight of the fact that stop and frisks have helped bring crime rates down. There's good reason for that, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I submit that a person who appears "not to fit the time or place" or "acts strangely" or appears to be "looking for someone" or engaging in "furtive movements" or present in a "high crime area" would cover most of Washington D.C. and freaking congress. Those scenarios do not justify detaining a citizen against his will and forcing him to submit to a body search except in Russia or Nazi Germany.

You seem to be championing an extreme position here.

Just wondering if you'd support this California bill:

"1. " .... Project Veritas, journalists posing as homeless people rest out in front of home of Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, one of the California legislators who backed the so-called “Homeless Person’s Bill of Rights and Fairness Act.”

2. The controversial bill would overturn dozens of local ordinances against vagrancy and give the homeless the right “to move freely, rest, eat, share, accept, or give food or water, and solicit donations in public spaces.” “The effect of this proposed legislation,” says video journalist James O’Keefe in his narration, “is that homeless people would be entitled to sleep or solicit donations on any public sidewalk.”

3. A previous version of the bill gave vagabonds the right to “engage in life-sustaining activities” including urinating and defecating in public. The bill’s supporters, including sponsor Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, have even compared the treatment of the homeless in cities like San Francisco to Jim Crow and “de facto” segregation.

4. “Essentially, the bill gives homeless people a ‘right’ to sleep out in front of your house,” O’Keefe explained to The Daily Caller by phone.
Pro-homeless pols give street people the bum's rush | The Daily Caller



".... in front of your house,..."???