Judge Halts Controversial Stop-And-Frisk Policy Immediately

[TruthOut10]

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'

 

[Sallow]

And that's probably a mistake.

 

[George Costanza]

And that's probably a mistake.

How so?

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's called the 4th Amendment Sallow, try reading the Constitution once or twice.

 

[George Costanza]

It's called the 4th Amendment Sallow, try reading the Constitution once or twice.

Let's see what he has to say. I'm sure there is something to be revealed. (There'd BETTER be . . . )

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's called the 4th Amendment Sallow, try reading the Constitution once or twice.

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.

 

[Sallow]

And that's probably a mistake.

How so?

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.

 

[Sallow]

It's called the 4th Amendment Sallow, try reading the Constitution once or twice.

I have.

I am fully aware of the Constitutional issue.

 

[Sallow]

It's called the 4th Amendment Sallow, try reading the Constitution once or twice.

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.

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.

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[George Costanza]

And that's probably a mistake.

How so?

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.

Want to put a stop to shoplifting? Strip search and body cavity search every customer leaving every store. Want to wipe out crime entirely? Put the entire population of the country in jail. Sure - "aggressive police tactics" get the job done. Of course crime is prevented when a would-be criminal is arrested before he can commit the crime.

You do see the down side to this, don't you?

 

[George Costanza]

The fourth was done a dance over by the Bush administration

Yes . . . and the Fifth, and the Sixth, and the Eighth . . .

and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

It was a HUGE problem. Still is for many who are still feeling the effects of it.

 

[TruthOut10]

It's called the 4th Amendment Sallow, try reading the Constitution once or twice.

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.

There hasn't been an increase in crime and for those who advocate a program that has been to proven a failure by NYPD's own report, let it take place in YOUR neighborhood and see if your still feel strongly for having it.

 

[whitehall]

It's bad enough to stand in line at an airport to be X-rayed and felt up by some jerk. I don't want me or my neighbors frisked for walking up the street or walking down the hallway of an apartment. A violation of the Constitution ain't right just because you think gestapo tactics reduce crime.

 

[Missourian]

It would seem that I heard something once about sacrificing liberty for security...