Judge Halts Controversial Stop-And-Frisk Policy Immediately

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by TruthOut10, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. TruthOut10
    Offline

    TruthOut10 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    627
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +88
    NYPD 'Clean Halls' Stop-And-Frisk Policy: Judge Orders 'Immediate Cease' To Stops Without 'Reasonable Suspicion'

    In a blow to the NYPD's controversial use of stop-and-frisks, a federal judge has ordered an "immediate cease" to some police stops conducted under "Operation Clean Halls" outside apartment buildings in the Bronx.

    "Clean Halls" allows police to stop, question and search residents in and around New York City apartment buildings, with permission of the landlord.

    The New York Post reports Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote in a 157-page decision that the ruling did not call for an "abolition or even a reduction" of the policy, but was instead intended to insure that for every stop, cops could demonstrate a "reasonable suspicion for trespass."

    Scheindlin wrote in the decision:

    In order for an officer to have 'reasonable suspicion' that an individual is engaged in criminal trespass, the officer must be able to articulate facts providing 'a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop,' which means 'something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.
    In particular, an individual observed exiting or entering and exiting a (Clean Halls) building does not establish reasonable suspicion of trespass, even if the building is located in a high crime area, and regardless of the time of day,

    NYPD 'Clean Halls' Stop-And-Frisk Policy: Judge Orders 'Immediate Cease' To Stops Without 'Reasonable Suspicion'
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    And that's probably a mistake.
     
  3. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    How so?
     
  4. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    It's called the 4th Amendment Sallow, try reading the Constitution once or twice.
     
  5. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    Let's see what he has to say. I'm sure there is something to be revealed. (There'd BETTER be . . . )
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,927
    Thanks Received:
    15,706
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,070
    Heaven forfend.....I'm about to stick up for Sally....

    The judge is correct....but so is Sally: there will be an increase in crime and drug sale/use.

    But...the idea that the owner of the property cannot give police the right...request....to patrol the halls of his building, that one I question.


    There was another idea tossed around: that when a police officer stops anyone in the areas in question, they be given a voucher with a cast value, i.e., "sorry to have bothered you, please accept this sum from the city as recompense."


    So...the law comes first....but there will be an increase in crime, as that is the fact that was provenance of the program in the first place.
     
  7. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    The stop and frisks were yielding a great many captures of guys that were meaning to do so pretty bad things..before they did them.

    Part and parcel with what Dinkins/Giuliani/Bloomberg have been doing has been instituting more and more aggressive policing. This has resulted is a reduction in crime, even in places where that was initially thought to be impossible.

    It's a mistake to stop the practice.
     
  8. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    I have.

    I am fully aware of the Constitutional issue.
     
  9. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    The fourth was done a dance over by the Bush administration, and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

    I don't think we need to re-litigate how that was done.
     
  10. whitehall
    Offline

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,876
    Thanks Received:
    4,348
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,855
    It was clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment's reasonable cause. I'm all in support of law-enforcement but I don't want Cops to have the authority to feel up a citizen at will without reasonable cause.
     

Share This Page