Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Mell aide replaces Mell who replaced Mell
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Video *** State Fair report
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
When a federal judge ruled New York City’s “stop-and-frisk” procedures unconstitutional yesterday, its defenders fought back aggressively. One, former New York governor George Pataki, even name-checked Chicago as a city that should implement the controversial crime-fighting strategy. While its supporters have heralded the strategy’s success, the judge, Shira Scheindlin, said it amounted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling.” But Pataki was among those heralding its success while also taking the opportunity to go after President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show:
“If Holder and Obama want to investigate a police department, why don’t they look at Chicago, where the civil rights of young African-Americans are being not only taken away, but they’re being murdered in record rates in the South Side of Chicago? The policing there leaves something to be desired when it comes to protecting the constitutional rights of young African-Americans to walk the streets with life, liberty and in the pursuit of happiness.”
A bit over the top.
A federal judge ruled on Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city, repudiating a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy.
The use of police stops has been widely cited by city officials as a linchpin of New York’s success story in seeing murders and major crimes fall to historic lows. The police say the practice has saved the lives of thousands of young black and Hispanic men by removing thousands of guns from the streets.
But the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department resorted to a “policy of indirect racial profiling” as it increased the number of stops in minority communities. That has led to officers’ routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”
* From ABC News…
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by police 532,911 times. In 55 percent of the cases, the suspect was black and in 10 percent of the cases, the suspect was white. In 89 percent of the cases, “the suspect was innocent,” said the NYCLU.
Similarly in 2011, 53 percent of New Yorkers who were stopped and frisked by police were black, and 9 percent were white. In 2010, 54 percent of New Yorkers who were stopped and frisked were black, and 9 percent were white.
Approximately 90 percent of New Yorkers who were stopped and frisked between 2010 and 2012 were “totally innocent,” according to the NYCLU’s analysis.
A spokesman for the NYPD reviewed the numbers the NYCLU used in its analysis and verified them against raw data the NYPD collected from every police precinct in New York City.
* The Question: Your thoughts on “stop and frisk”?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:07 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Mell aide replaces Mell who replaced Mell
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Video *** State Fair report
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A violation of the American people’s constitutional rights.
Comment by MM Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:21 am
It’s an unreasonable search when done without probable cause.
Stop and frisk also has been given way too much credit for New York’s low homicide rate. The causal connection just isn’t there; the explanation is just too simple.
With all due respect to Pataki, Chicago cops do plenty of stop and frisk of young black men. They pull more illegal guns off the streets than New York cops, too.
I wish there were simple answers to these questions, but there are not.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:23 am
It will not solve the problems in Chicago. May have some value, but not at an acceptable cost of violating individual’s rights. There are more effective uses of the police’s time and efforts.
Comment by chitown3 Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:23 am
Absolutely a violation of the 4th ammendment. While i agree with the judges decision to throw out the tactic it shouldn’t matter if the people searched were 100% white or an equal ethnic spread of the NYC population. This was wrong and has always been wrong no matter who was searched.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:28 am
Perfect way to further alienate a significant segment of the society.
Comment by walkinfool Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:30 am
Stop and frisk, regardless of whether it is racially discriminatory, is a violation of the plain meaning of the 4th amendment.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The legal decisions allowing stop & frisk will one day be viewed in the same vein as Plessy. People will wonder how they could ever have been permitted in the first place.
Comment by Kwark Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:39 am
As long as being nonwhite is synonymous with “suspcious behavior” this tactic is illegal and immoral.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:41 am
When police have complete discretion and need no probable cause, there will be racial disparities. We see it in Illinois in the traffic stop data. A black driver is two-to-three times as likely to be subjected to a consent search than a white driver, even though police find contraband a higher percent of the time than from white than black motorists.
The fact is that white teens use illicit drugs at about the same proportion as black teens. But black youth are far more likely to be caught with joints because they regularly get searched, while white suburban pot smokers don’t have that risk. The most common felony charge in Chicago is possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Comment by reformer Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:47 am
We are becoming a society of guilty until proven innocent. Stop and frisk was/is a gross violation of natural rights. A Court having to declare it as unconstitutional is a reflection of the ignorance of people who make such laws.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:48 am
When I was a ‘ute, I would be stopped from time to time for ‘looking out of place’
Looking out of place can be for more reasons than color…
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:50 am
Some of the craziness with profiling is that in theory this is not happening at the airports. Of anyplace where I would want sone sort of profiling to occur, it would be at airport security. No easy answer; we cant simply sit back and be thankful we aren’t young and minority, At least Holder has it right with his announcement yesterday to ease the prosecution of lesser drug offenses.
Comment by ""Edge" Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:51 am
To put this into action will require a very carefully worded ordinance. To be successful it will require more boots on the ground. How many patrol officers, per capita, does Chicago have compared to New York city? How many police positions have been cut from the Chicago PD budget in recent years? How many budgeted positions are being left unfilled? The police need more patrol officers walking the beat.
Comment by Motambe Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:53 am
–When I was a ‘ute, I would be stopped from time to time for ‘looking out of place’
Looking out of place can be for more reasons than color… –
Doesn’t seem to be the case here.
NYC population is 25% black, but they accounted for 55% of stops.
The white population is 45%, but they accounted for nine percent of stops.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 11:57 am
Doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Statistics are a complicated thing.. Where were the arrests made? Are the demographics of the more crime ridden districts the same as the city as a whole? Is that where the stops were being made?
There may be reason for the statistical disparity or not. We don’t have enough information so far to make a determination.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 12:41 pm
A gross violation of people’s rights, Surprisingly, Evanston uses stop n’ frisk but the media has largely ignored it.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 12:49 pm
There’s an NCCLU report link in the link below.
In 2011, the number of stops of young black men exceeded the population of young black men.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/nypd-stop-and-frisks-15-shocking-facts_n_1513362.html
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 12:54 pm
Violent crime is not evenly distributed across the races (and socioeconomic classes). A well tailored program is not going to give equal ratios of stops among the various groups.
Comment by titan Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 1:03 pm
–Violent crime is not evenly distributed across the races (and socioeconomic classes). A well tailored program is not going to give equal ratios of stops among the various groups.–
By definition, you’re talking about racial profiling. An individual’s Constitutional rights are not to be diminished due to race or “socio-economic class.”
A “well-tailored program” that violates the 4th Amendment belongs in the bin, no matter how good it makes the swells on Park Avenue feel.
The police still have enormous power with probable cause.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 1:09 pm
Stop-and-frisk is constitutional as long as the police follow the guidelines set out in Terry v. Ohio, which require that there be reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed.
The problem in NYC was that the police were stopping and frisking with NO suspicion (other than “young, male, and black”).
Comment by Joan P. Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 1:29 pm
Wordslinger,
Probable cause is not neccasary for a frisk. If you have probable cause you make an arrest.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 1:45 pm
Fed Up, you need probable cause for the search, which is what a frisk is.
–probable cause
n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime. –
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 1:52 pm
In spite of what Ruler Bloomberg says, ’suspicion’ with no articulated facts does not constitute probable cause in NYC or anywhere else, for that matter. Numbers seem to show 89% of the time no probable cause existed.
Comment by Rufus D Doofus Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 1:56 pm
Heck, why not just stick a chip in everyone’s head, you know, to monitor “impure thoughts”?
IMO I don’t think Americans are done fighting for freedom…
Comment by Mouthy Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 2:02 pm
@Wordslinger
I wish Fed-up wasn’t correct but he unfortunately is. In Terry v. Ohio the court ruled that a Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has been committed or may be committed can be used to justify a frisk. Of course NYC has expanded it beyond any kind of reasonableness.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 2:11 pm
Many on here are confusing a search with a frisk. A search requires either consent or a warrant that is issued after a demonstration of probable cause by the police.
A frisk may be done with reasonable suspicion, which is a much lower threshold than probable cause. A frisk is nothing more than a pat down for dangerous weapons.
Reasonable suspicion is pretty easy to articulate when you are in high crime areas. High crime areas are often in minority neighborhoods.
Where do you want the police to concentrate patrols, low crime or high crime areas?
Important questions to ask. What % of the frisks resulted in the development of probable cause and/or an arrest? What % of minorities frisked where arrested? Does this % differ from the % of whites frisked who were subsequently arrested?
Comment by Leave a Light on George Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 2:12 pm
Thanks, Mason, I see the point you and Fed Up are making now.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 2:17 pm
George: I agree with your comment however assuming ‘reasonable suspicion’, 90% of the ‘friskees’ were found totally innocent. I take that to mean no arrest was made as no probable cause to make an arrest was present. It looks to me like this Judge is saying to the police,your reasonable suspicion is suspect or absent.
“Approximately 90 percent of New Yorkers who were stopped and frisked between 2010 and 2012 were “totally innocent,” according to the NYCLU’s analysis.
A spokesman for the NYPD reviewed the numbers the NYCLU used in its analysis and verified them against raw data the NYPD collected from every police precinct in New York City.”
Comment by Rufus D Doofus Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 2:31 pm
Good job Joan P! Stop-and-frisk is constitutional as long as the police follow the guidelines set out in Terry v. Ohio. Police concentrate efforts in high crime areas. If the high crime area is predominately black, then more blacks will be stopped and frisked. If the high crime area is predominately Chicagoan, then more Chicagoans will be stopped and frisked. To stop someone and talk to them doesn’t take much suspicion and when a police officer stops someone to talk to them they have the right to protect themselves by frisking the party they are talking to. You should try it some time in a high crime area. Put yourself in the shoes of a police officer.
Comment by G.I. Joe Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 2:56 pm
Hmmm! Look at the decline in murders and crime in NYC versus the murder rate and crime rate in Chicago. Bleeding hearts, if you aren’t a criminal, you have nothing to fear. There is no evidence the NYC police have unilaterally abused the stop and frisk law.
Comment by Downstater Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 3:05 pm
Terry v Ohio = Plessy v. Ferguson. The SC once said segregation was OK, and some day folks will come to the senses that Terry eviscerates the plain meaning of the 4th Amendment. When the 4th Amendment says you have a right to be secure in your person against unreasonable searches, that means stop and frisk is unconstitutional.
Comment by Kwark Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 3:27 pm
Stop and frisk aka a Terry stop is perfectly legal when applied correctly
Comment by Pacman Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 3:37 pm
wordslinger - you have perfectly mis-understood me.
A well tailored program would not be racial profiling (unless it could be shown that race was inherently relevant to criminality, which I do not think is true). Well tailored would mean that several factors that directly relate to probability/likelihood of violent crime are met by the person ot be stopped/questioned/frisked. And becuase violent crime commission is not evenly distributed across the population, a well tailored program will not give evenly distributed results (the results should be pretty close to the results of the distribution of those who actually commit violent crimes - and that would skew to some degree to each of: male, young, poor and minority).
If New York was randomly targeting minorities - and not paying attention to other factors that directly related to likelihood of violent crime commission, then New York was in the wrong. But you can’t show that simply because the people subjected to it were generally male, and younger, poorer and more minority that the general population. A program that gave results right on the averages for sex, age, income and race/ethnicity would be a poorly designed one, because it would differ from the averages for actual violent criminals in the city.
Comment by titan Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 3:59 pm
@Downstater
–Bleeding hearts, if you aren’t a criminal, you have nothing to fear.–
Wow i have never been called a bleeding heart before. So where do you draw the line sir? If the police decide to place officers along main street in your downstate town and say hi to everyone and frisk them is that alright? What if you are on your private property and you say hi do they get to search you so they can say hi back? How about a traffic stop should they get to search your console to ensure they are safe? What about the local McDonalds can they frisk all customers to ensure their Big Mac is consumed peacefully? What are the guidelines for Reasonable Suspicion is it walking down the street in a bad neighborhood? Can you be seized because you walked home at an hour the police found to be suspicious? Would you say the same if the police declared that they can do weapon searches through every home in the State to find illegal weapons? According to you only the Criminals who possessed illegal weapons should be concerned. Just where do you think the 4th amendment starts?
There s a constant battle between Authoritarian powers whether at a federal, State, or Local level and Civil Liberties. In Terry the police were given latitude to perform Violations of a citizens 4th Amendment rights if they had a reasonable suspicion. The court in Terry also layed out that this was not some minor inconvenience but a serious infringement on civil rights. NYC has taken that little bit of latitude and turned it into a gaping hole.
I personally disagree with the Terry decision not because i am a “bleeding” heart but because it flies against the clear language of the 4th Amendment. (Yes i disagree with the court and i know their opinion is the law of the land. Hopefully this case will go to the Supremes and correct this.)
“Show me the man and i will find you the Crime” Lavrenti Beria head of Stalin’s KGB.
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 4:11 pm
An interesting fact New York like Chicago has higher amounts of crime in certain areas, these same areas happen to be overwhelmingly minority. Like in Chicago these areas have a higher concentration of police,( in Chicago minority Ald. Are demanding even more police in these areas). The higher concentration of police in minority areas results in more police stops in minority areas. Maybe the way to even out the numbers is to reduce the amount of police in minority areas and see how that works. Many parts of Chicago would appreciate the same police patrols that high crime areas get.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 4:22 pm
Overall the comments posted on the NYC case have been extremely intelligent and well thought out. All I can add is that establishing a probable cause or reasonable suspicion basis for stop and search could have been done in NYC, but it would require each officer to do an individual assessment of the suspected individual. That requires work and thinking beyond how they look, act, walk, and talk.
In Chicago police often fail to establish probable cause or even the lower standard of reasonable suspicion in particular by tactical units looking for suspected drive by shooters. Effectively they profile multiple minority youths in cars for stops in certain neighborhoods, sometimes they get the gun they are looking for often the youth are just let go. But often the CPD keeps the gun and adds it to its statistics, but the case against the person get tossed out. That is why the CPD always talks about guns take off the street not individuals convicted for illegal gun possession or discharge within the city limits.
In Illinois v. Wardlow (528 U.S. 119 (2000))a case involving the CPD it was established police officers must articulate a reasonable suspicion particular to a suspect in order to justify a stop and frisk search. Flight from police may be considered evidence of criminal conduct, but is alone insufficient to justify reasonable suspicion allowing for a subsequent search.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 4:26 pm
That being said police need to be able to articulate the reasonableness of any stop/frisk or pat down. Proper training and supervision are needed to protect citizens.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 4:29 pm
Good post Mason!
Comment by Rufus D Doofus Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 4:30 pm
According to the NYPost there were the 4 men who sued. this is what they were doing.
A Teachers assistant returning to school from lunch was stopped because “he walked near a known drug house”
A Maintenance man assisting a tenant to enter a basement apartment.
A man who went out for a smoke outside his GF’s apartment was stopped for public drinking. (not charged in the end though he did have a seperate outstanding warrant.)
A student who was stopped asked for an i’d on campus and frisked. (arrested for asking for the name and badge number of the officer)
For me the only one who would rise to the standard of Terry would be the Maintenance man since he could have been confused with a burglar.
Ironically the Judge didn’t say the NYPD cannot do it. She just required more oversight and training for the officers. Isn’t it telling that the NYPD is fighting the idea of more oversight on a reasonable exception to the 4th amendment protections of citizens.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_welcome_to_chicago_cops_q3jeWY0siPedh7PvLkZdjJ
Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 4:37 pm
Oops, meant to put in this Ta-Nehisi Coates link, not the one I actually put in my first comment.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/the-dubious-math-behind-stop-and-frisk/278065/
Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 4:58 pm
There is this guy who stands on a corner close to my home once in a while. He just stands there for the longest time swaying with his hands in his pockets and looking at his phone, it’s strange. He totally looks like a drug dealer and when I complain to the Alderman’s office they say they can’t do anything because standing on a street corner isn’t illegal.
Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 5:12 pm
Mason
Thanks for pointing out that the authorities don’t want any oversight. Complete discretion is what any police state wants.
Comment by reformer Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 5:42 pm
CPD is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. High crime areas are more in minority neighborhoods for reasons totally unrelated to anything the police can do. They can’t provide jobs, education or supportive families. The police get complaints when they don’t solve crimes, but witnesses are either rightly afraid to talk or, as in the case of gang-on-gang crimes, dealing with “no snitching” attitudes. While white folks may use more weed they are less likely to be smoking it walking down the street or driving without a license. Some people are just walking probable cause. If half or even less the energy devoted to decrying the shooting of Trayvon Martin by the usual media suspects was directed to the murders in Chicago something could realistically be done to cut down the crime rate.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 7:36 pm
“Put yourself in the shoes of a police officer”?!?
How about, “Put yourself in the shoes of an innocent man being patted down two or three times in a year because you live in ‘the wrong neighborhood’ or are, by someone else’s definition, ‘in the wrong place’?”
The Constitution demands that the burden of proof be placed on the State: “stop & frisk” flips that burden.
Comment by Abu Iskander Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 8:31 pm
–If half or even less the energy devoted to decrying the shooting of Trayvon Martin by the usual media suspects was directed to the murders in Chicago something could realistically be done to cut down the crime rate.–
What does that even mean? It’s a nonsensical statement?
The media would do better not to sensationalize crime and report facts, such as that Chicago’s violent crime rate is in about the middle for American cities, as is its murder rate.
Violent crime, overall, has been on the decline for 30 years across the nation. The 70s and 80s were much more violent.
Regardless, you don’t lose your Constitutional rights as an individual because you live in a lousy neighborhood, or because you’re poor, or because you’re black.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 8:32 pm
America’s violent crime rate - even if Chicago is in the middle - is nothing to brag about. The point of the Trayvon Martin comment was that that was really the exception to the the risk of violence to young black males. It comes mostly from other young black males rather then neighborhood watch over achievers. But the media and media commentators rarely have the patience for anything that they cannot sensationalize. That does nothing other than diverting people’s attention from the fact that the some of the major causes of crime, such as bad educational systems and lack of decent - or any - employment, are just not being addressed. This is, of course, off the topic of stop and frisk, but if risk of being shot is lowered there is less of a need for every gangbanger - and probably less gangbangers - to be carrying a gun “for protection” (The usual reason for carrying in Chicago.) If that happens then the politicians won’t have to suggest NYC procedures to endanger everyone’s Constitutional rights.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Tuesday, Aug 13, 13 @ 10:30 pm
— with all due respect to Pataki —
Translation: Pataki is dumber than a box of rocks, respected about as much as the speed limit.
Stop and frisk could be done without profiling, with the right training. it would still be unconstitutional.
Try this test: imagine it wasnt NYC, but some small tourist town in Wisconsin, Michigan or Missouri, and you are pulled over with your family in the car or stopped on the street because they have some data which shows that Illinoisans are much more likely to do drugs. Feelin violated? You betchya.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Aug 14, 13 @ 8:50 am