NYC's Stop-and-Frisk Policy Found Unconstitutional

[GGT]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/12/justic...html?hpt=us_t2

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruling on a class-action lawsuit, wrote that the policy violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches, finding that police made at least 200,000 stops from 2004 to June 2012 without reasonable suspicion.

She also found evidence of racial profiling, violating plaintiffs' 14th Amendment rights guaranteeing equal protection.
The police department had said that the policy -- in which police stop, question and frisk people they considered suspicious -- is used to deter crime.

"The city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner," Scheindlin wrote. "In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting 'the right people' is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution.".....continued....


*********


What's your opinion? Agree / Disagree?

[GGT]

I'll start I think it was a good decision, based on statistics showing that nearly 90% of the 5 million stopped-and-frisked were innocent of any crime. That kind of dragnet police policy just doesn't jibe with US principles of "reasonable" search, let alone "presumption of innocence".

Seems to me NYC police have been operating on these misguided procedures because Mayor Bloomberg (and Chief Kelly, by default) believe they're saving lives by violating civil rights. Not to trivialize stop-and-frisk, but it's similar to Bloomberg's attempt to ban super-sized sodas for the sake of public health. He's also the mayor that changed mayoral term limits, so he could have a third term

[Dreadnaught]

I think it's important to clarify that the judge did not find the practice unconstitutional, but merely found that it had been applied in a discriminatory way. Which I find to be absolutely nonsense; basically she has deemed that the police must stop people of various races at a rate that matches their statistical proportion in the population. On what planet does that make sense?

While I think police officers need to be more respectful in many of these stops, the idea that they must avoid stopping and questioning someone because of their race is insane reasoning.

This trial brought 19 plaintiffs to trial as exemplars of discrimination. Of the million stops from the past decade, you would think these 19 plaintiffs would have some really juicy stories to tell. Instead the judge found that few of them were improperly stopped and fewer still were improperly frisked. Based on this small handful of people, she turned around and judged the million other police stops that have taken place over the past decade.

It's also worth noting that the NYPD is almost minority-majority, so the left-wing trope of white pig cops just doesn't hold.

Almost as disturbing as the higher crime rates that this judge is inviting is this judges total disregard for even pretending to be impartial. The judge from the outset indicated that she was going to find against the city regardless of the evidence presented, and even consented to a flattering New Yorker profile mid-trial that strongly hinted at her positions before she heard all the evidence.

[Being]

While I think police officers need to be more respectful in many of these stops, the idea that they must avoid stopping and questioning someone because of their race is insane reasoning.

Wow. Does say what I think it does?

[Veldan Rath]

The cops go into higher crime areas, which tend to be poorer and minorities (gasp), and the judged was SHOCKED, that more minorities were stopped.

[Ominous Gamer]

Can someone break down the point of these stops? Its seems...unamerican, to randomly stop and frisk people not suspected in a crime because they live in a poorer neighborhood.

Almost as disturbing as the higher crime rates that this judge is inviting is this judges total disregard for even pretending to be impartial. The judge from the outset indicated that she was going to find against the city regardless of the evidence presented, and even consented to a flattering New Yorker profile mid-trial that strongly hinted at her positions before she heard all the evidence.

This is not uncommon, or a suggestion that the judge isn't impartial. Its a hint to the losing party that the facts the judge is already aware of do not place them in a likely position to win, that they shouldn't waste time/money in trying to fight it, and could save face/time/money if they settle.

The same thing happened in the Apple ebook case.

It's also worth noting that the NYPD is almost minority-majority, so the left-wing trope of white pig cops just doesn't hold.

almost? what the fuck does this mean?
And whats the break down when you get past the grunts? For supervisory and administrative positions?

[Dreadnaught]

Wow. Does say what I think it does?

Acawhat?

[Enoch the Red]

The stop and frisk method of policing is a pretty authoritarian approach to police work, and regardless of its efficacy one I find deeply disturbing. The rationale used to determine what is considered suspicious behavior is little more than a pretext to put a boot heel on the neck of individuals in low income areas, regardless of whether or not they are actually engaging in criminal behavior. It also brought to mind the Schoolcraft tapes, where police officers were all but told to arrest a certain number of individuals to meet not-quotas, for offenses often conjured up out of thin air.

[GGT]

I think it's important to clarify that the judge did not find the practice unconstitutional, but merely found that it had been applied in a discriminatory way. Which I find to be absolutely nonsense; basically she has deemed that the police must stop people of various races at a rate that matches their statistical proportion in the population. On what planet does that make sense?

Yeah, the way NYC cops applied stop-and-frisk was found unconstitutional....because they weren't using suspicious behavior as the metric, but race....and non-white ethnicities are presumed guilty, aka Walking While Black.

While I think police officers need to be more respectful in many of these stops, the idea that they must avoid stopping and questioning someone because of their race is insane reasoning.

Correct context, incorrect application: police routinely presumed innocence for white people, and avoided stopping/frisking them. The "War on Drugs" data showed that whites have a slightly higher drug-use rate, but drastically lower arrest and incarceration rates than non-whites. Statistics on weapons/gun charges were racially insignificant, even though whites have a slightly higher percentage of gun ownership.

This trial brought 19 plaintiffs to trial as exemplars of discrimination. Of the million stops from the past decade, you would think these 19 plaintiffs would have some really juicy stories to tell. Instead the judge found that few of them were improperly stopped and fewer still were improperly frisked. Based on this small handful of people, she turned around and judged the million other police stops that have taken place over the past decade.

Five Million stops during Bloomberg's tenure is no small number. That didn't lead to anywhere near that number of charges, prosecutions, or convictions, which suggests over 4 1/2 million people were stopped/frisked without "reasonable cause" based on "suspicious criminal behavior".

It's also worth noting that the NYPD is almost minority-majority, so the left-wing trope of white pig cops just doesn't hold.

Your ideology is clouding your view of the Judge's decision -- by ignoring that police often operate on discriminatory biases, even against/within their own ethnic or racial groups. It's got nothing to do with "white pig cops", but policing in general, from Mayoral philosophy to Chief of Police, and department policies.

Almost as disturbing as the higher crime rates that this judge is inviting is this judges total disregard for even pretending to be impartial. The judge from the outset indicated that she was going to find against the city regardless of the evidence presented, and even consented to a flattering New Yorker profile mid-trial that strongly hinted at her positions before she heard all the evidence.

The judge wasn't tasked with deciding efficacy, but constitutionality.

Don't fall for Bloomberg's apoplexy, or his attempt to scare the crap out of NYC residents. Violent crime rates in NYC had a downward trajectory long before Bloomberg was elected, or his Stop-and-Frisk policy was adopted. It's been going down in other cities WITHOUT the same policy, too. Some of that can be attributed to public policy and/or tighter gun control laws.

[GGT]

The stop and frisk method of policing is a pretty authoritarian approach to police work, and regardless of its efficacy one I find deeply disturbing. The rationale used to determine what is considered suspicious behavior is little more than a pretext to put a boot heel on the neck of individuals....<snip>

Agreed. If the Means justified the Ends, we could just have check-points and pat-downs at every pedestrian block or roadway intersection for everyone. That wouldn't just catch illegal weapons or drugs, but undocumented immigrants, human traffickers, and possibly 'terrorists', too! That kind of Papers, please policy could reduce crime even more, but who wants to live in that country?

[Dreadnaught]

The stop and frisk method of policing is a pretty authoritarian approach to police work, and regardless of its efficacy one I find deeply disturbing. The rationale used to determine what is considered suspicious behavior is little more than a pretext to put a boot heel on the neck of individuals in low income areas, regardless of whether or not they are actually engaging in criminal behavior. It also brought to mind the Schoolcraft tapes, where police officers were all but told to arrest a certain number of individuals to meet not-quotas, for offenses often conjured up out of thin air.

Yeah, the way NYC cops applied stop-and-frisk was found unconstitutional....because they weren't using suspicious behavior as the metric, but race....and non-white ethnicities are presumed guilty, aka Walking While Black.

Correct context, incorrect application: police routinely presumed innocence for white people, and avoided stopping/frisking them. The "War on Drugs" data showed that whites have a slightly higher drug-use rate, but drastically lower arrest and incarceration rates than non-whites. Statistics on weapons/gun charges were racially insignificant, even though whites have a slightly higher percentage of gun ownership.

Five Million stops during Bloomberg's tenure is no small number. That didn't lead to anywhere near that number of charges, prosecutions, or convictions, which suggests over 4 1/2 million people were stopped/frisked without "reasonable cause" based on "suspicious criminal behavior".

Your ideology is clouding your view of the Judge's decision -- by ignoring that police often operate on discriminatory biases, even against/within their own ethnic or racial groups. It's got nothing to do with "white pig cops", but policing in general, from Mayoral philosophy to Chief of Police, and department policies.

The judge wasn't tasked with deciding efficacy, but constitutionality.

Don't fall for Bloomberg's apoplexy, or his attempt to scare the crap out of NYC residents. Violent crime rates in NYC had a downward trajectory long before Bloomberg was elected, or his Stop-and-Frisk policy was adopted. It's been going down in other cities WITHOUT the same policy, too. Some of that can be attributed to public policy and/or tighter gun control laws.

This isn't about "means to ends", as much as it's not about the extreme left- and right-wing tendency to think about security issues in terms of extreme hypotheticals. It also reflects how the extreme left and right often have very little real experience either as crime victims or subjects of police stop-question-frisks (I've been in both categories, FYI).

Stop-question-frisk has been vetted by the Supreme Court and allowed to stand for decades. We trust our police officers to make subjective analyses of probable cause to stop and question someone. They can then use their responses to those questions as the basis to frisk. As a check against discriminatory behavior, officers must record the stops and probable causes.

But the blithe conclusion that these stops are racist because more of those stopped aren't white is nonsense. The appointment of a federal monitor (on top of the half-dozen other monitors who watch over the NYPD) is a dangerous suggestion that there is some sort of constitutionally "appropriate" racial makeup of the aggregated police stops. That's a very silly and dangerous idea; the constitution isn't a suicide pact . It leaves us ample room for police to be proactive while respecting people's rights. But the logical conclusion of what you're saying prohibits a largely non-white police force from respectfully using their instincts to be proactive, instead of the reactively-policed hellhole we lived-in during the 1980s and early 1990s.

[Ominous Gamer]

NYPD is almost minority-majority,

largely non-white police force

The word play just gets sillier and sillier.

[Enoch the Red]

This isn't about "means to ends", as much as it's not about the extreme left- and right-wing tendency to think about security issues in terms of extreme hypotheticals. It also reflects how the extreme left and right often have very little real experience either as crime victims or subjects of police stop-question-frisks (I've been in both categories, FYI).

Stop-question-frisk has been vetted by the Supreme Court and allowed to stand for decades. We trust our police officers to make subjective analyses of probable cause to stop and question someone. They can then use their responses to those questions as the basis to frisk. As a check against discriminatory behavior, officers must record the stops and probable causes.

But the blithe conclusion that these stops are racist because more of those stopped aren't white is nonsense. The appointment of a federal monitor (on top of the half-dozen other monitors who watch over the NYPD) is a dangerous suggestion that there is some sort of constitutionally "appropriate" racial makeup of the aggregated police stops. That's a very silly and dangerous idea; the constitution isn't a suicide pact . It leaves us ample room for police to be proactive while respecting people's rights. But the logical conclusion of what you're saying prohibits a largely non-white police force from respectfully using their instincts to be proactive, instead of the reactively-policed hellhole we lived-in during the 1980s and early 1990s.

I'm interested in hearing why you think it's stop and frisk that is preventing NYC from becoming a hellhole. There are plenty of other municipalities that don't and aren't hellholes, right? Why do you think NYC is different?

Also, what recourse does your average citizen have against the abuse of stop and frisk? Are you comfortable with the idea that police officers are stopping people just to get their numbers up? If the overwhelming majority of these frisks don't result in actionable offenses, isn't the conclusion either the officers aren't capable of spotting suspicious behaviors, that this procedure is being abused, or that the purpose is something else entirely?

[GGT]

<snip>

....the constitution isn't a suicide pact . It leaves us ample room for police to be proactive while respecting people's rights.

Exactly! That means ALL people are presumed innocent.....unless, and until, they engage in truly suspicious or illegal activity. Even "public loitering" is a misdemeanor offense. That doesn't necessarily justify a physical search...any more than being pulled over for a broken tail light justifies a car search. Legally, there has to be some other factor to be "reasonable suspicion".

But the logical conclusion of what you're saying prohibits a largely non-white police force from respectfully using their instincts to be proactive, instead of the reactively-policed hellhole we lived-in during the 1980s and early 1990s.

Hang on. If you're comparing today's NYC crime rates to 80's-90's crime rates, Stop-and-Frisk has no empirical correlation. Big example: turning Times Square from the hideous hellhole of that era to today's tourist destination wasn't based on any proactive police "instincts" or Stop-and-Frisk policy.

[Ominous Gamer]

Times Square is quickly turning back into a hell hole, this time with Elmo leading the charge.

[Hazir]

Stop and frisk was used for a while in the area where I live in Amsterdam on saturday nights, basically everybody wanting to get from one side of the main street through it to the other side had to submit to it. I found it a bit annoying as even something as mundane as going to the supermarket might involve it, but by the time they stopped doing it, the most obvious problems had disappeared.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm interested in hearing why you think it's stop and frisk that is preventing NYC from becoming a hellhole. There are plenty of other municipalities that don't and aren't hellholes, right? Why do you think NYC is different?

Also, what recourse does your average citizen have against the abuse of stop and frisk? Are you comfortable with the idea that police officers are stopping people just to get their numbers up? If the overwhelming majority of these frisks don't result in actionable offenses, isn't the conclusion either the officers aren't capable of spotting suspicious behaviors, that this procedure is being abused, or that the purpose is something else entirely?

Exactly! That means ALL people are presumed innocent.....unless, and until, they engage in truly suspicious or illegal activity. Even "public loitering" is a misdemeanor offense. That doesn't necessarily justify a physical search...any more than being pulled over for a broken tail light justifies a car search. Legally, there has to be some other factor to be "reasonable suspicion".

Hang on. If you're comparing today's NYC crime rates to 80's-90's crime rates, Stop-and-Frisk has no empirical correlation. Big example: turning Times Square from the hideous hellhole of that era to today's tourist destination wasn't based on any proactive police "instincts" or Stop-and-Frisk policy.

I'm sorry, but I can only if people's thinking about policing NYC is based on their sense of what it would be like to patrol a place like Times Square.

We all know it's a very great debate about why crime is so far down from the 80s and 90s rates. Everything from policing to reduced lead in gas has been credited. But I'm inclined to give a substantial amount of credit to the real changes in police tactics from the mid 1990s. The attitude of the force shifted from reactive to proactive, and in a city this size that makes a huge difference.

Starting in the early 1990s under Bill Bratton, the police tackled daily quality of life issues that were not being addressed in any systemic way. EG the guy ferociously masturbating at a bus stop in front of kids every Monday; the groups of teenagers having boombox parties on stoops; graffiti on subways; car window washers. All these elements created a sense of disorder and lawlessness in the streets. You sometimes really felt that the police would be nowhere until you were already shot, stabbed, robbed or raped. Then they would file a report. What changed in the early 1990s was the police stopped just waiting for complaints to come in. They hit the streets to seek out problems before they became worse. The impact was palpable.

A core backbone of that proactive police work is stop-question-frisk, and it's not a new concept at all. It was just not a real component of NY policing for decades until the 1990s. When the police see activity they find suspicious (in a way they can plausibly write down on a police form), they talk to the person in question. This questioning doesn't necessarily lead to a search or arrest. It may be unmerited on some occasions. But it really gives people the sense that you can't walk around with a weapon, with criminal intent, with a gang of teenagers to go wilding...and not run into a cop. That's why, despite how annoying and mildly humiliating it can be when I've been stopped and questioned by police (especially near school when I was growing up)...I don't mind because it's not inherently abusive.

You all know I'm the first guy to resent state power and predict slippery slopes of government abuse. And I do think it's problematic to have quotas and for cops to let the power get to their head. But I think that's a general problem with policing that isn't confined to stop-question-frisk. Furthermore, don't think this is an area where the NYPD has been too problematic.

Of the 4+ million of stops available for this lawsuit, the plaintiffs could only find 19 cases to use to prove a pattern of abuse and they were pretty weak. Of the 19 "test cases", the judge found that five were totally okay stop-question-frisks. She found that five other plaintiffs were properly stopped, but should not have been frisked. So now we're down to nine cases out of 4 million that are supposedly beyond the pale. Once establishing these highly debatable 9/14ths of a pattern, the judge turned to a highly debatable statistical analysis to apply those nine "improper" stops to the other 4 million stops. To do this, she cited some statistical research from Columbia which determined that 6% of stops were "unconstitutional". Then the judge turned around and said that the research was too conservative in its 6%, and that the amount of unconstitutionality "must" be higher.

Then she ended her opinion quoting two left-wing newspaper columns about Trayvon Martin. And, once again, this is after she sat down for a flattering pre-trial New Yorker interview outlining her general anti-police outlook. Does this sound like someone who is able to think beyond the obsessive hypotheticals of her preconceived notions about police work?

[GGT]

Breaking down your main points:

But I'm inclined to give a substantial amount of credit to the real changes in police tactics from the mid 1990s. The attitude of the force shifted from reactive to proactive, and in a city this size that makes a huge difference.

You sometimes really felt that the police would be nowhere until you were already shot, stabbed, robbed or raped. Then they would file a report. What changed in the early 1990s was the police stopped just waiting for complaints to come in. They hit the streets to seek out problems before they became worse. The impact was palpable.

That change to "Community Policing", active police presence 'walking the beat', and hiring tons of cops made a big difference. Even tourists noticed when cops were visibly present on foot, bike, horse, and took that "To Serve and Protect" mission to heart. That was a top-down, departmental attitude shift that didn't include the stop-and-frisk of the last few years.

A core backbone of that proactive police work is stop-question-frisk, and it's not a new concept at all. It was just not a real component of NY policing for decades until the 1990s. When the police see activity they find suspicious (in a way they can plausibly write down on a police form), they talk to the person in question. This questioning doesn't necessarily lead to a search or arrest. It may be unmerited on some occasions.

Of course stop-question-frisk isn't a new police tactic, that's been done since forever, even if NYC cops had a period of reactive complacency pre-90's. Much of the pro-active work is accomplished by the talking part, not necessarily asking for ID or filling out police forms, let alone frisking.

*One man testified he was sitting on his own front stoop, chatting on the phone, but cops refused to believe he lived there -- and didn't even want to see his ID....they just declared he was "suspicious", that they smelled weed, and demanded he assume the stance to be frisked. That's not stop-and-question-and-possibly-frisk, that's just stop-and-frisk.*

That's why, despite how annoying and mildly humiliating it can be when I've been stopped and questioned by police (especially near school when I was growing up)...I don't mind because it's not inherently abusive.

Were you frisked? Probably not, since you weren't growing up during a Bloomberg administration. If you were growing up today, chances are slim you'd be frisked as a white school boy, but it'd be almost a certainty if you had black or brown skin. That's what makes the application of the policy unconstitutional.

Of the 4+ million of stops available for this lawsuit, the plaintiffs could only find 19 cases to use to prove a pattern of abuse and they were pretty weak. Of the 19 "test cases", the judge found that five were totally okay stop-question-frisks. She found that five other plaintiffs were properly stopped, but should not have been frisked. So now we're down to nine cases out of 4 million that are supposedly beyond the pale.

5 million stops and FRISKS at the time of the law suit, using NYC police data. It's not that "only" 19 cases could be found, but that was considered the minimum number to show a pattern, without dragging the trial on for many months. You keep using stop-question-frisk terminology, when that's not how it's been applied in practice.

[Dreadnaught]

More cops on the streets is meaningless if the cops aren't doing anything. Stop-question-frisk is one of the tools of a newly-proactive department.

And yes, asking for ID and running IDs through a database for warrants is a big part of stop-question-frisk. When my friends and I were stopped on various occasions, all of us were stopped and questioned (and IDs were checked). And, candidly we deserved that. Only some of us were frisked. The people who were frisked were logical people to frisk given the circumstances, though candidly I'm a bit surprised they didn't frisk everyone.

You're nonetheless missing the point which is that the tactic itself is constitutional. The judge found that the tactic is discriminatory because she thinks the NYPD should be stopping certain proportions of each race based on their distribution in the population. That's garbage.

[Ominous Gamer]

More cops on the streets is meaningless if the cops aren't doing anything.

if anything cops harassing an innocent public would make it easier to get away with other crimes. The technical term is "distraction"

Its not a stretch to argue that a police force thats populated to the point that the officers are able to mingle with the community and public on a positive footing would be better suited to address problems before, during, and after they occur.

[GGT]

More cops on the streets is meaningless if the cops aren't doing anything. Stop-question-frisk is one of the tools of a newly-proactive department.

A visible presence in every community is valuable (you said as much, feeling police were "nowhere" unless a crime was committed). There are many ways policing can be proactive, and prevent or reduce crime, without being unconstitutional. That includes applying stop-question-frisk in a manner that doesn't violate civil rights.

And yes, asking for ID and running IDs through a database for warrants is a big part of stop-question-frisk. When my friends and I were stopped on various occasions, all of us were stopped and questioned (and IDs were checked). And, candidly we deserved that. Only some of us were frisked. The people who were frisked were logical people to frisk given the circumstances, though candidly I'm a bit surprised they didn't frisk everyone.

You must have been violating some city ordinance or law to "deserve" being stopped and ID checked (like public intoxication or underaged drinking) based on your behavior. You can't say it was "logical" to frisk a certain few, yet be surprised the whole group wasn't frisked -- and continue to say there's no problem in how cops choose whom to frisk....


<Edit: Would you have a different opinion if you were stopped, almost routinely, for NOT doing anything wrong? That was the basis of the law suit.>

You're nonetheless missing the point which is that the tactic itself is constitutional. The judge found that the tactic is discriminatory because she thinks the NYPD should be stopping certain proportions of each race based on their distribution in the population. That's garbage.

Have you actually read anything in this thread, besides your own posts?
(1) Stop-question-frisk is a constitutional police technique. (2) The judge found NYC is violating civil rights in its implementation. (3) Evidence and testimony showed people weren't being stopped using a "suspicious behavior" metric, but racial profiling.

What's garbage is Bloomberg and Kelly insisting "suspicious behavior" includes walking down the street, sitting on a porch stoop, using an ATM at midnight, wearing a hoodie or baggy pants. Simply living in a poor and/or high-crime area shouldn't mean everyone is "suspicious", or presumed guilty of "something illegal". Police can use Hot Spotting or other methods to target criminals....even in predominantly ethnic minority neighborhoods....without stopping every other black or brown man.

[Khendraja'aro]

More cops on the streets is meaningless if the cops aren't doing anything?

What kind of moronic logic is that? The point of "cops on the street" is to
a) give them shorter response times due to a higher probability of them being in the vicinity and
b) showing presence in order to deter crimes.

If the cops are on the streets and not having to do anything, that's a good sign. But obviously it's the other way around in Dread's-La-La-Land: "They don't have to do anything so let's harass citizens in the hopes that we may stop someone from jaywalking!"

[Dreadnaught]

A visible presence in every community is valuable (you said as much, feeling police were "nowhere" unless a crime was committed). There are many ways policing can be proactive, and prevent or reduce crime, without being unconstitutional. That includes applying stop-question-frisk in a manner that doesn't violate civil rights.

You must have been violating some city ordinance or law to "deserve" being stopped and ID checked (like public intoxication or underaged drinking) based on your behavior. You can't say it was "logical" to frisk a certain few, yet be surprised the whole group wasn't frisked -- and continue to say there's no problem in how cops choose whom to frisk....


<Edit: Would you have a different opinion if you were stopped, almost routinely, for NOT doing anything wrong? That was the basis of the law suit.>


Have you actually read anything in this thread, besides your own posts?
(1) Stop-question-frisk is a constitutional police technique. (2) The judge found NYC is violating civil rights in its implementation. (3) Evidence and testimony showed people weren't being stopped using a "suspicious behavior" metric, but racial profiling.

What's garbage is Bloomberg and Kelly insisting "suspicious behavior" includes walking down the street, sitting on a porch stoop, using an ATM at midnight, wearing a hoodie or baggy pants. Simply living in a poor and/or high-crime area shouldn't mean everyone is "suspicious", or presumed guilty of "something illegal". Police can use Hot Spotting or other methods to target criminals....even in predominantly ethnic minority neighborhoods....without stopping every other black or brown man.

You repeating that the judge found a constitutional violation doesn't just make it so. I know you can read a headline. The evidence and testimony found that 9/19 examples were problematic...and these 19 test cases were harvested from a database of 4 million stops over several years. Had the judge found that all 19 were problematic, maybe then we would be even getting closer to a real pattern. But does 9 of 19 of 4 million really sound like a viable pattern has been established? Do cops having de-facto racial quotas for stops seem like a sound policy?

More cops on the streets is meaningless if the cops aren't doing anything?

What kind of moronic logic is that? The point of "cops on the street" is to
a) give them shorter response times due to a higher probability of them being in the vicinity and
b) showing presence in order to deter crimes.

If the cops are on the streets and not having to do anything, that's a good sign. But obviously it's the other way around in Dread's-La-La-Land: "They don't have to do anything so let's harass citizens in the hopes that we may stop someone from jaywalking!"

I know disagreeing with me is your thing, but come on. You are taking me far too literally because you're making making my point and not realizing it. This -- explicitly -- isn't about harassing people for petty jaywalking. If police see someone jaywalking or committing an illegal act, they can and must intervene.

This is about police being given latitude to stop and question people who arouse suspicion in other ways. And (if the questioning arouses further suspicion) to search them. All of these stops (as well as the suspicions) are documented in a database. EG, in one of the cases brought before the judge as discrimination, the police stopped, questioned and searched a person who was in the same neighborhood, of the same race and was wearing the same jacket as a wanter murder suspect. This stop was justified in writing, but turned up nothing because it was the wrong guy. Does that really sound unreasonable?

This kind of proactive policing is how police "show presence in order to deter crimes".

Now, this judge is saying that the stops should aggregate to a racial makeup of NYC's population. In other words, police have to fit the racial makeup of their stops to a curve. It's an unhealthy obsession with statistics over reason. Her argument is that police stops should be done in proportion of the racial makeup of the population. So, because Asians constitute 40% of the NYC population by 6% of all stops, the police are being racist against non-Asians. Or something.

[Ominous Gamer]

anyone else find it somewhat hilarious that Dread doesn't see an issue with the idea that 47% of the stops brought before the judge were considered problematic.

If police see someone jaywalking or committing an illegal act, they can and must intervene.

This is false.

[GGT]

You repeating that the judge found a constitutional violation doesn't just make it so.<snip>

First, you missed where I said it is a constitutional police tactic *so long as "reasonable suspicion" is based on behavior*. Then you ignored why "only" 19 cases (out of 5 million) were presented, and that corroborating evidence and statistics showed Stop/Frisk -- in its implementation -- *was often based on race and not behavior*. Now you're confusing what the court was asked to decide, how it was decided....and basically calling the judge a moron with an agenda, because you (and Bloomberg) disagree with the decision.

You snipped my question about being stopped for your own behavior, but not frisked, while some in your group were "logical" choices for frisking, with no explanation for how that's fair and equal treatment by police. I'd like an answer.


Then you equate jaywalking with any other illegal act, and Stop/Frisk with any other police interventions....but can't see how that's either police harassment and/or racial profiling, and a violation of civil rights? Just because MORE people aren't routinely stopped-and-frisked while doing nothing wrong *or meeting the metric of suspicious behavior* doesn't negate/invalidate the plaintiffs' complaint. (That would actually strengthen their claim of civil rights violations.)

I think you need to stop smoking the Bloomberg bud, and admit that his Administration's "good intentions" can sometimes overreach, and become that authoritarian and intrusive "Big Government" (that you claim to oppose).

[Khendraja'aro]

Right. So wearing a jacket makes you suspicious. Nice.

And "same" jacket? I'd be given very good odds that the description of the guy amounted to "black guy in a black hoodie" or something.

[Dreadnaught]

First, you missed where I said it is a constitutional police tactic *so long as "reasonable suspicion" is based on behavior*. Then you ignored why "only" 19 cases (out of 5 million) were presented, and that corroborating evidence and statistics showed Stop/Frisk -- in its implementation -- *was often based on race and not behavior*. Now you're confusing what the court was asked to decide, how it was decided....and basically calling the judge a moron with an agenda, because you (and Bloomberg) disagree with the decision.

You snipped my question about being stopped for your own behavior, but not frisked, while some in your group were "logical" choices for frisking, with no explanation for how that's fair and equal treatment by police. I'd like an answer.


Then you equate jaywalking with any other illegal act, and Stop/Frisk with any other police interventions....but can't see how that's either police harassment and/or racial profiling, and a violation of civil rights? Just because MORE people aren't routinely stopped-and-frisked while doing nothing wrong *or meeting the metric of suspicious behavior* doesn't negate/invalidate the plaintiffs' complaint. (That would actually strengthen their claim of civil rights violations.)

I think you need to stop smoking the Bloomberg bud, and admit that his Administration's "good intentions" can sometimes overreach, and become that authoritarian and intrusive "Big Government" (that you claim to oppose).

I didn't snip your question, but just didn't answer it. I'm not going to go into detail about the incidents, I merely brought them up to make a general (albeit personal) statement that I understand it's frustrating to be stopped by the police but also often justified and not the worst thing in the world.

This is an area where statistics are being used in a clearly wrongheaded way, and where we start to talk about the core issue of "disparate impact". To use statistics in this manner is foolish. Each stop is the product of particular circumstances. It's nonsense to aggregate all those 4 million stops and say that, collectively, they are a tool of invidious racism. It's just as stupid as telling banks that they must loan to top-creditworthy people to satisfy Fannie/Freddie mortgage buying requirements, then penalize the banks for not lending to lower-creditworthy people because certain racial groups are being "denied access to credit".

Statistics serve a purpose to inform policymaking, but it's beyond stupid to aggregate millions of independent actions across a city of 8 million people and expect those interactions to neatly conform to the racial makeup of that city.

If you have an account, go read the New Yorker profile the judge foolishly sat for a New Yorker profile during the trial and ranted to a reporter about how police lie, obfuscate and (before the trial began) were engaged in widespread "violations" of "rights". Tellingly, for a case that involved so much judgement of events outside the courtroom, she never did so much as go for a ridealong with the police.

Right. So wearing a jacket makes you suspicious. Nice.

And "same" jacket? I'd be given very good odds that the description of the guy amounted to "black guy in a black hoodie" or something.

Matching a description of a murder suspect is valid grounds for police to stop and question someone, is it not? If not, what are police supposed to do besides stand around?

[Aimless]

I'm trying to figure out if Readnaught read the same article and ruling as everyone else

[Lewkowski]

More cops on the streets is meaningless if the cops aren't doing anything?

What kind of moronic logic is that? The point of "cops on the street" is to
a) give them shorter response times due to a higher probability of them being in the vicinity and
b) showing presence in order to deter crimes.

If the cops are on the streets and not having to do anything, that's a good sign. But obviously it's the other way around in Dread's-La-La-Land: "They don't have to do anything so let's harass citizens in the hopes that we may stop someone from jaywalking!"

Wait.. is Khen saying deterrence works?

[GGT]

I didn't snip your question, but just didn't answer it. I'm not going to go into detail about the incidents, I merely brought them up to make a general (albeit personal) statement that I understand it's frustrating to be stopped by the police but also often justified and not the worst thing in the world.

Personal details aren't needed to explain why only a "select few" were frisked, but "suspicious" behavior was enough to justify stopping the whole group. Your experience may have been "justified"....but the law suit complaint was about unjustified stops.

Statistics serve a purpose to inform policymaking, but it's beyond stupid to aggregate millions of independent actions across a city of 8 million people and expect those interactions to neatly conform to the racial makeup of that city.

Again, the law suit wasn't claiming Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional, but its implementation often is, which is a violation of 4th Amendment protections. NYPD own stats showed more non-whites were stopped and frisked than whites, but were found to be completely innocent of any crime. Arrest/prosecution rates are about the same by racial groups --- which means an unreasonable number of blacks are being presumed guilty of something by police. What kind of "behavior" justifies that differential treatment? Black people just act more "suspicious" than whites when walking down the street, or talking on a cell phone, or sitting on their stoop? The small number of criminals in high-crime neighborhoods justifies treating all residents as criminals? No, that's why it was deemed racial profiling.

I don't think the judge said the policy-in-practice would be "constitutional" if cops were frisking at rates that conform (or correlate) to racial demographics of the city. That'd be you manipulating stats to fit your agenda, like Bloomberg. It would still be unconstitutional if cops were frisking every other white male, regardless of behavior, because white males are the bulk of serial killers. That kind of dragnet is unreasonable searching, and police harassment, even if it's done in the name of public safety, or reducing crime.

(And banks and mortgages is a crazy comparison to people expecting to engage in public, daily life without 'molestation' by police. )