Federal Judge Rules New York Stop & Frisk Violates Minority Rights

[shrubnose]

In a blistering decision today,Monday, Aug,12,2013, Judge Shira A, Scheindlin found that the New York City Police had developed a policy of indirect racial profiling that targeted young minority men for stops. and had been stopping and frisking innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

This unconstitutional violation of young minority men's rights has been going on for quite a while.

It should never have started.

 

[PirateMk1]

In a blistering decision today,Monday, Aug,12,2013, Judge Shira A, Scheindlin found that the New York City Police had developed a policy of indirect racial profiling that targeted young minority men for stops. and had been stopping and frisking innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

This unconstitutional violation of young minority men's rights has been going on for quite a while.

It should never have started.

I second that.

 

[Fisher]

In a blistering decision today,Monday, Aug,12,2013, Judge Shira A, Scheindlin found that the New York City Police had developed a policy of indirect racial profiling that targeted young minority men for stops. and had been stopping and frisking innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

This unconstitutional violation of young minority men's rights has been going on for quite a while.

It should never have started.

I agree, but if it gets taken to the SCOTUS, the decision will be over-turned.

 

[CanadaJohn]

In a blistering decision today,Monday, Aug,12,2013, Judge Shira A, Scheindlin found that the New York City Police had developed a policy of indirect racial profiling that targeted young minority men for stops. and had been stopping and frisking innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

This unconstitutional violation of young minority men's rights has been going on for quite a while.

It should never have started.

I agree - I'm not a big fan of making police work overly easy at the expense of individual freedoms and presumptions of innocence before the law.

It is true that the police may stop and question anyone in the course of their patrolling an area, but the searching aspect of this law is beyond one that is reasonable in a civil society.

 

[ocean515]

In a blistering decision today,Monday, Aug,12,2013, Judge Shira A, Scheindlin found that the New York City Police had developed a policy of indirect racial profiling that targeted young minority men for stops. and had been stopping and frisking innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

This unconstitutional violation of young minority men's rights has been going on for quite a while.

It should never have started.

It would seem the real problem was the clumsy approach NYC took to address the problem. According to statistics, 75% of the crimes committed in the city are apparently committed by Blacks and Latino's, so stopping a simililar percentage of people fitting that demographic would appear to make sense.

Unfortunately, it's also a forbidden tactic. It's tough to clean the city of filth.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I agree, but if it gets taken to the SCOTUS, the decision will be over-turned.

I'm not so sure of that - I don't believe there would be five voices on the Supreme Court who'd believe in the direction taking by Mrs. Bloomers in all kinds of NYC bylaws and actions.

 

[Fisher]

I agree - I'm not a big fan of making police work overly easy at the expense of individual freedoms and presumptions of innocence before the law.

It is true that the police may stop and question anyone in the course of their patrolling an area, but the searching aspect of this law is beyond one that is reasonable in a civil society.

They are considered safety pat downs which the police are authorized to do--not well-defined but are intended to be limited to making sure you have no weapons on you--not whether you have a dime bag in your underwear. If it doesn't feel like a weapon, then they have gone too far if they want to see what it is IMO.

 

[Fisher]

I'm not so sure of that - I don't believe there would be five voices on the Supreme Court who'd believe in the direction taking by Mrs. Bloomers in all kinds of NYC bylaws and actions.

It would not be just about NYC. These things happen lots of places and they are not going to say that the police cannot pat down people for safety, and there is no way to draw a bright-line rule "sometimes"

 

[CanadaJohn]

It would not be just about NYC. These things happen lots of places and they are not going to say that the police cannot pat down people for safety, and there is no way to draw a bright-line rule "sometimes"

That could be, but I'd almost guarantee that the three women on the Supreme Court and at least two of the conservative men will side with individual liberty in this issue - I'd be shocked if they even took the case. But then, the Obamacare decision shocked me too.

 

[Fisher]

That could be, but I'd almost guarantee that the three women on the Supreme Court and at least two of the conservative men will side with individual liberty in this issue - I'd be shocked if they even took the case. But then, the Obamacare decision shocked me too.

Which two men--the same two who pretty much let the police do whatever the hell they want just as long as drugs were found?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Which two men--the same two who pretty much let the police do whatever the hell they want just as long as drugs were found?

I was thinking Alito and Scalia - Scalia going the opposite way of Roberts, so it depends - and I should have also included Breyer from the left.

 

[PirateMk1]

It would seem the real problem was the clumsy approach NYC took to address the problem. According to statistics, 75% of the crimes committed in the city are apparently committed by Blacks and Latino's, so stopping a simililar percentage of people fitting that demographic would appear to make sense.

Unfortunately, it's also a forbidden tactic. It's tough to clean the city of filth.

Not really just arm up the New Yorkers and when the smoke clears maybe some will still be standing. But either way there will be less crime.

 

[PirateMk1]

They are considered safety pat downs which the police are authorized to do--not well-defined but are intended to be limited to making sure you have no weapons on you--not whether you have a dime bag in your underwear. If it doesn't feel like a weapon, then they have gone too far if they want to see what it is IMO.

What about my safety? I think even the safety pat down goes too far. They think I am a criminal they can arrest me then search me otherwise they can piss off.

 

[Fisher]

What about my safety? I think even the safety pat down goes too far. They think I am a criminal they can arrest me then search me otherwise they can piss off.

Tell them that and they will.

 

[Fisher]

I was thinking Alito and Scalia - Scalia going the opposite way of Roberts, so it depends - and I should have also included Breyer from the left.

As was I.

 

[PirateMk1]

Tell them that and they will.

Actually I have. Mixed bag reactions if you would believe, mostly on the negative side. Out here they like to put you in chains even when you are NOT under arrest just detained. I insist they either put me under arrest or they keep their hands to themselves. It doesn't endear me to them, that's for sure. Of course that's AFTER the rigmarole of the whole I ask them to state the nature of their business and call to confirm their identities. They have an unmarked vehicle running around that I was pulled over by that I had the temerity to do that to him. He was not very happy about that. I don't know who he is. They have imposters out here pulling people over. I had a marked vehicle come out for good measure. And then they see my pistols in the box in the trunk because they just have to search my vehicle, after I told em if they have questions to speak to my attorney. Loads of fun really. Rights are definitely NOT respected anymore. Its quite entertaining to watch them look at you with bug eyes and say you wont sign a citation. You get a supervisor and the whole nine. I think I tied up a good chunk of their patrol with that stunt. They took me in front of a judge who promptly threw out the case cause I wouldn't sign the ticket and was willing to sit jail. Every single one of those people in the court looked at me like I had a third eye growing in the top of my head. But I didn't get I citation.:mrgreen: Victory.

 

[shrubnose]

If you would like to know why New York City's stop & frisk law is unconstitutional, the judge explains it here: Judge explains why New York

 

[shrubnose]

It would not be just about NYC. These things happen lots of places and they are not going to say that the police cannot pat down people for safety, and there is no way to draw a bright-line rule "sometimes"

The judge did not rule that 'stop&frisk' is unconstitutional, she ruled that the way New York City was doing it was unconstitutional. Do some reading at the links that I have posted.

 

[Dapper Andy]

In a blistering decision today,Monday, Aug,12,2013, Judge Shira A, Scheindlin found that the New York City Police had developed a policy of indirect racial profiling that targeted young minority men for stops. and had been stopping and frisking innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

This unconstitutional violation of young minority men's rights has been going on for quite a while.

It should never have started.

It's sad that it had to come to this but how long should we tolerate a demographic committing such a disproportionate amount of crime?

 

[jamesrage]

In a blistering decision today,Monday, Aug,12,2013, Judge Shira A, Scheindlin found that the New York City Police had developed a policy of indirect racial profiling that targeted young minority men for stops. and had been stopping and frisking innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

This unconstitutional violation of young minority men's rights has been going on for quite a while.

It should never have started.

This should have been ruled unconstitutional due to the fact it blatantly violates the 4th amendment.The 4th amendment says you need a warrant to search.I seriously doubt these cops are walking around with judges in their pocket and merely walking around where you have a legal right to be is not grounds to be searched.

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.

 

[jamesrage]

They are considered safety pat downs which the police are authorized to do--not well-defined but are intended to be limited to making sure you have no weapons on you--not whether you have a dime bag in your underwear. If it doesn't feel like a weapon, then they have gone too far if they want to see what it is IMO.

The have gone to far the second they started patting someone down. It doesn't matter what they are searching for. A search is still a search and it requires a warrant. I seriously doubt these cops have judges in their pockets

 

[jamesrage]

It's sad that it had to come to this but how long should we tolerate a demographic committing such a disproportionate amount of crime?

It doesn't matter how many people in a demographic are committing a crime, nor should it matter. Crime is crime, a scumbag is a scumbag regardless of demographic. We shouldn't hold a whole group responsible for a tiny fraction of people do.

 

[Fisher]

The have gone to far the second they started patting someone down. It doesn't matter what they are searching for. A search is still a search and it requires a warrant. I seriously doubt these cops have judges in their pockets

Safety searches are well established and extended in case law. They are not going to abolish them whether you want them to or not.

 

[Thrilla]

If you would like to know why New York City's stop & frisk law is unconstitutional, the judge explains it here: Judge explains why New York

well all they have to do to stay on the judges good side is ...only frisk white people.


problem solved.


get used to the state finding more and more ways to search you without warrant or probable cause .... and don't expect SCOTUS to help us out on this.

 

[jamesrage]

Safety searches are well established and extended in case law. They are not going to abolish them whether you want them to or not.

Regardless of what they are called they are still a blatant violation of the 4th amendment.No warrant no search.

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.