• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYPD Stop and Frisk Ruled Unconstitutional

Crime rates have been dropping in New York (and the rest of the country) for
decades. It's not like crime rates dropped at a faster rate than they dropped pre-stop and frisk.

I also want to point out...I wonder how many individuals walking in certain neighborhoods were put in jail or charged for carrying small amounts of say marijuana while people in other neighborhoods weren't...

Huh ? MARIJUANA IS ILLEGAL IN NY.

If you can't do the time....

And in places like Chicago, Detroit and Kansas City MURDER rates are up.

No stop and frisk there is there, or conceal carry.
 
The evidence that police are frisking people in a "racially discriminatory" manner is that more blacks are stopped, of course. But then more blacks are involved in crime, a fact to which the judge is willfully blind.
Isn't it somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy to conclude that "more blacks are involved in crime" if in the first instance more blacks are stopped than whites?
 
The "procedure" or law was an outrageous breach of individual privacy and was being performed at will without the slightest probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It's blatantly unconstitutional, and frankly I'm shocked New Yorkers didn't rise up en masse when such a draconian procedure was introduced. Absolutely unacceptable.
 
Isn't it somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy to conclude that "more blacks are involved in crime" if in the first instance more blacks are stopped than whites?

Well, it's hard to ignore all the black corpses. They didn't appear just because of racial profiling. Nice try though. Thanks for playing.
 
Well, it's hard to ignore all the black corpses. They didn't appear just because of racial profiling. Nice try though. Thanks for playing.
Murder represents a small portion of overall crime, and stop-and-frisk has shown very little utility for apprehending murderers. Most arrests stemming from stop-and-frisk encounters are for marijuana possession. Five times as many whites as blacks report having used an illegal substance, and yet 85% of those arrested for marijuana possession under stop-and-frisk were black. Are more blacks using illegal drugs, or are they just being arrested more often? I'm not "playing" -- I don't know the answer, because it's impossible to guess how many people are committing crimes and not being arrested. But I do think it is more complicated than you made it sound. You're welcome. :)
 
Of course it has reduced murders. Why do you want to obfuscate the issue by denying the obvious? Is your ideology that important to you, that you will sacrifice lives to it?

But it's much ado about not much, because this judge will have scorn poured on her head by the appeals court.

Obvious how? In reduced crime rates? Crime rates are down across the country.

It's anything but obvious. And your stating that its obvious simply shows your ignorance of the issue.

90% of those stopped are released without so much as a ticket. The vast majority of the remainder are arrested for drug possession. Much of that pot.

There are very few actual gun busts. It's really a tool used to arrest those minorities you profess to be concerned about for drug possession.


Possession of pot is decriminalized in NY. It's essentially a parking ticket except in cases where it's publicly displayed. That's a misdemeanor which can lead to jail time. Cops, to skirt the decriminalization of possession, during stop and frisks often ask kids to empty their pockets and then bust them for public display if the have any pot on them. That happens more than 40,000 times a year in NYC and costs taxpayers about 75 million a year in police overtime, court and incarceration costs.

The police brass ordered the practice stopped. It hasn't. The state legislature is considering decriminalizing public display to end that particular abuse - a bill recently passed the Assembly.

And again its all beside the point since the stop itself is a blatant 4A violation. And I'm betting its upheld on appeal.
 
Huh ? MARIJUANA IS ILLEGAL IN NY.

If you can't do the time....

And in places like Chicago, Detroit and Kansas City MURDER rates are up.

No stop and frisk there is there, or conceal carry.

Possession is the equivalent of a parking ticket. No more evil than forgetting to feed the parking meter.
 
Possession is the equivalent of a parking ticket. No more evil than forgetting to feed the parking meter.

Possession of how much ? I think it's important to post all the relevant data possible when posting a reply.
 
Obvious how? In reduced crime rates? Crime rates are down across the country.

It's anything but obvious. And your stating that its obvious simply shows your ignorance of the issue.

90% of those stopped are released without so much as a ticket. The vast majority of the remainder are arrested for drug possession. Much of that pot.

There are very few actual gun busts. It's really a tool used to arrest those minorities you profess to be concerned about for drug possession.


Possession of pot is decriminalized in NY. It's essentially a parking ticket except in cases where it's publicly displayed. That's a misdemeanor which can lead to jail time. Cops, to skirt the decriminalization of possession, during stop and frisks often ask kids to empty their pockets and then bust them for public display if the have any pot on them. That happens more than 40,000 times a year in NYC and costs taxpayers about 75 million a year in police overtime, court and incarceration costs.

The police brass ordered the practice stopped. It hasn't. The state legislature is considering decriminalizing public display to end that particular abuse - a bill recently passed the Assembly.

And again its all beside the point since the stop itself is a blatant 4A violation. And I'm betting its upheld on appeal.



It's worth the money. The whole issue of the decriminalization of Marijuana or legalization of marijuana is a absolute joke.

Because the stoners couldn't address their issue honestly they created the false narrative of "medical marijuana". Once it became legal in States like California for " medial issues " pot dispensaries started popping up with extensive descriptions of the high each brand gave you.

Now they just want it legalized, they want to get high and as a populace we're worse off for it because the message is Pot is ok, not destructive and even "beneficial".

Nothing is further from the truth.

The Politicians must be laughing their asses off in little back rooms at the capital building. It's so much easier to manipulate stupid and stoned people.
 
This law is a blatant violation of the 4th amendment. It should have been struck down when it was first created.

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.

That doesn't appear to apply to airports.
 
That doesn't appear to apply to airports.

I hope it doesn't. Nothing like the Feds jacking you off at the airport, and the good thing about it, it's free of charge. LOL.
 
It's worth the money. The whole issue of the decriminalization of Marijuana or legalization of marijuana is a absolute joke.

Because the stoners couldn't address their issue honestly they created the false narrative of "medical marijuana". Once it became legal in States like California for " medial issues " pot dispensaries started popping up with extensive descriptions of the high each brand gave you.

Now they just want it legalized, they want to get high and as a populace we're worse off for it because the message is Pot is ok, not destructive and even "beneficial".

Nothing is further from the truth.

The Politicians must be laughing their asses off in little back rooms at the capital building. It's so much easier to manipulate stupid and stoned people.

In a nutshell.

Possession of up to 25 grams is a violation - a parking ticket.

Over 25grams or public display is a Class B misdemeanor.

Possession of over 2oz is an A misdemeanor.

Possession of over 8oz is an E felony.

The cases I'm referring are all violations until the officer asks the kid to empty his pockets at which point the cop arrests him or public display. The fact that the display is on orders of the police is irrelevant
Since the kid is not legally obligated to obey that order - though I doubt 1 in 100 people actually knows that.

And NY's decriminalization has nothing to do with the recent upswing in medical marijuana use. NY decriminalized possession in 1977.
 
You're so right.

First, there is no stop and frisk "law" per se. Stop and question is a legal procedure, not a law and not even a NYC police. So the whole concept of bringing it before a judge is silly.
If a police officer has reasonable suspicion that someone did, is or will engage in a crime he can stop and question the suspect. If he feels there is a specific threat from a weapon or other concealed hazard, he can pat him down to protect himself. Anything less than that, the police officer is violating the law.
A police officer's right to do this doesn't come from NYC policy, it comes from the Constitution and the NYS Criminal Procedure Law.

So what did the judge's ruling accomplish?
Stated that it's illegal for the police to violate the correct procedure? That was already known.
State that the police can't conduct legal stop-and-question stops? No, the judge can't do that.

So what exactly was the point of all of this?

The point simply stated is that the police justifications for stops in many cases do not meet the reasonable suspicion standard required under Terry v Ohio.

Further the point is that the stops disproportionately single out minorities.

In short the judge found that the NYPD stop and frisk policy (yes I know it is not a law) violates the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution and that the management f the NYPD and government of NYC willfully ignored those violations.
 
Huh ? MARIJUANA IS ILLEGAL IN NY.

If you can't do the time....

And in places like Chicago, Detroit and Kansas City MURDER rates are up.

No stop and frisk there is there, or conceal carry.

Murder rates in this country has been dropping for decades. They were dropping in NY before stop and frisk.

As for Marijuana....this is the issue. The criminalization of drugs (especially marijuana) is taking a normal human behavior and putting people in jail for it.
I'm not going to debate whether or not marijuana should be illegal because this thread isn't about that...but when you criminalize normal behavior and you randomly stop and frisk you're going to be getting a lot of non-criminals (outside of pot smoking) in trouble. If you were to hit up the white neighborhoods or any suburb people would be up in arms because little Johnny whose perfect in everyway has a record just because of pot.
 
The Politicians must be laughing their asses off in little back rooms at the capital building. It's so much easier to manipulate stupid and stoned people.

Any idea who these stupid and stoned people may be voting for?

Ha ha Just kidding!
 
I hope it doesn't. Nothing like the Feds jacking you off at the airport, and the good thing about it, it's free of charge. LOL.

It seems you were one of the lucky ones. All i ever got was foreplay.
 
1. The point simply stated is that the police justifications for stops in many cases do not meet the reasonable suspicion standard required under Terry v Ohio.
2. Further the point is that the stops disproportionately single out minorities.
3. In short the judge found that the NYPD stop and frisk policy (yes I know it is not a law) violates the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution and that the management f the NYPD and government of NYC willfully ignored those violations.
1. True. But those types of encounters have always been unjustified. It wasn't necessary for a judge to reinforce what the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law have already codified.

2. Actually, the percentage of minorities "stopped" is lower than the percentage of the crime that is committed by minorities. Mayor Bloomberg clumsily addressed this point when he said that too many white people were being stopped. Mathematically he was correct, but this is why leaders have spokespeople.

3. I still don't understand how the word policy is used in this case - it's not just you, the media and even the mayor's office characterizes it this way.
It's like saying that the city has a "policy" that drivers who run red lights will be ticketed. It's already allowed and even expected under the proper circumstances.
This is why I say that the whole notion of a "hearing" to look into this was just silly.
 
It seems you were one of the lucky ones. All i ever got was foreplay.

Yea, I go to the airport every day....... And I don't fly either. LOL.
 
1. True. But those types of encounters have always been unjustified. It wasn't necessary for a judge to reinforce what the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law have already codified.

2. Actually, the percentage of minorities "stopped" is lower than the percentage of the crime that is committed by minorities. Mayor Bloomberg clumsily addressed this point when he said that too many white people were being stopped. Mathematically he was correct, but this is why leaders have spokespeople.

3. I still don't understand how the word policy is used in this case - it's not just you, the media and even the mayor's office characterizes it this way.
It's like saying that the city has a "policy" that drivers who run red lights will be ticketed. It's already allowed and even expected under the proper circumstances.
This is why I say that the whole notion of a "hearing" to look into this was just silly.

I think the issue here is that the NYPD brass has apparently ordered officers to find any reason to stop someone (within certain neighborhoods and with certain groups of people) with each stop being tracked in database and , according to some cops, the number of stops they make being used as a measure of their performance.

So while under Terry police certainly have a right to stop suspicious people and perform protective pat downs this really seems to smell like the NYPD institutionally ignoring the limits - few as they are - that Terry places on them.
 
From the NY Times a couple of days ago

I haven't read the opinion yet but according to the article the judge came down pretty hard on the Bloomberg administration and the Police department.
All I can say is it's about time.

In Illinois they frisk you then put you in handcuffs then tell you you're "being detained" for their (LEO's) "own safety."

Cops are no different than the SS.....

If they had microscopes they'd shove em up your yahoos and claim: "for our own safety."

Cops are Nazi's and the first line of action when it comes to our tyrannical government(s)...
 
Has there been one shred of evidence presented anywhere pointing to stop and frisk as having played any part in the reduction in crime because I sure as hell haven't seen it.
But that's the nature of any societal study. There is no, what scientists call, control group, therefore there is no discernible way to prove anything.
We also can't present "one shred of evidence" that even having a police department plays a part in reducing crime. They patrol and make arrests but we can't prove that they have "played any part in the reduction of crime."

The proof you are requesting in your question will never exist so the lack of this evidence is meaningless.
 
Isn't it somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy to conclude that "more blacks are involved in crime" if in the first instance more blacks are stopped than whites?
Not really, no.
The VAST VAST majority of arrests are not as a result of stop and question, they are via investigations and summary arrests.
The number of arrests made through stops barely affects the statistics.
 
The "procedure" or law was an outrageous breach of individual privacy and was being performed at will without the slightest probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It's blatantly unconstitutional, and frankly I'm shocked New Yorkers didn't rise up en masse when such a draconian procedure was introduced. Absolutely unacceptable.

D, there isn't even a possible response to this. Please, please Google mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, NYS Criminal Procedure Law and the Fourth Amendment.
You are so far afield in your comments I don't know where to begin.
 
Murder represents a small portion of overall crime, and stop-and-frisk has shown very little utility for apprehending murderers.
K, you have to extrapolate the bigger picture and the non-statistical affects on the criminal.
If the decades old constitutionally accepted practice we (mistakenly) call stop and frisk is well known to NYC residents, fewer criminals will carry guns for fear of being caught with one.
Plus, it's hard to argue that 80K guns off the street didn't reduce murders and other violent crime to some extent.
 
The cases I'm referring are all violations until the officer asks the kid to empty his pockets at which point the cop arrests him or public display. The fact that the display is on orders of the police is irrelevant
In that case the police officer is breaking the law. That's an issue of criminality and poor supervision.
It's not a reflection of the stop and frisk procedure if the procedure is used improperly.
 
Back
Top Bottom