Federal Judge Rules NYC "Stop and Frisk" Violated Rights 308
In a mixed ruling for Fourth Amendment rights, a federal judge today ruled that NYC's Stop-and-Frisk program violated constitutional rights due to disproportionately targeting minorities. However, despite the program being unconstitutional in its current form, it will not stop. From the New York Times: " Judge Scheindlin also ordered a number of other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear body-worn cameras in an effort to record street encounters. She also ordered a 'joint remedial process' — in essence, a series of community meetings — to solicit public input on how to reform stop-and-frisk. ... The Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, and Judge Scheindlin stressed that she was 'not ordering an end to the practice.' But she said that changes were needed to ensure that the street stops were carried out in a manner that “protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.' ... The judge found that the New York police were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop. "
The ruling itself (PDF). Bloomberg is furious about the decision, and the city, naturally, intends to appeal.
Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of race? (Score:1, Interesting)
So if they frisk white people with the same frequency it become constitutional?
Ridiculous.
Either it's constitutional or it's not. And the way I read the fourth amendment there isn't much question it's not.
Re:Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (Score:3, Interesting)
You made a good joke and all but in all seriousness. No man is above the law?
I'm a New Yorker and live in Manhattan for many many years. I'm white some what preppy, and a pot head.
I've accidentally blown pot in a cops face before walking around a corner on the way home! They've seen me buy it on the streets when I was a kid and you name the kind of trouble it would look like you were in I've been seen standing next to! (I've changed ;) ).
All I've ever been given is a stern stare.
I know many black people and even some gay people who've been actually searched for doing nothing and bad things happen to them for having harmless things on them that should not be illegal.
It is not fair or just on many levels.
Re:I don't understand (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it isn't. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. Racism isn't the belief that a large number of members of a particular racial group in one country in the world has an over-proportionate chance of being a criminal.
Hint, even black girls get nervous when black men follow them at night. That isn't racism.
I'm not saying it is fair, or right, or reasonable. But I am saying it isn't racism.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Interesting)
The majority of murders solved and prevented by Stop and Frisk have been of black victims.
Is there any evidence that Stop and Frisk actually prevented or solved any crimes? I understand that 92% of searches were total misses, which means 8% have hit "something". But somehow I doubt a lot of them were fleeing murderers and not people with unregistered guns or with pot.
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
We have so many laws I wouldn't be surprised if most crime was actually *accidental*.
"I'm sorry, your honor, I had no idea that was illegal." should be a valid defense against some laws these days.
Re:I don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason is there is not a whole lot of evidence out there to suggest that race is a driving factor, as appose to other factors like education levels, environmental health, and economic opportunities that for historical reasons may also correlate with certain racial groups.
Consider: You have 1000 identical little plastic boxes. You open 200 of them and insert a little slip of paper with the word "crook" written on it. You open the others and insert a little slip of paper that says "good citizen" on it. Close up all your boxes. Put them in a larger box and shake to fully randomize. What percentage of the time will you pull out a box with a "crook" card in it?
Now replace the box you removed, and randomize again. Draw out 200 boxes, and dip them in vinyl dye turning them bright green. Replace the boxes. Would you expect to find crook cards more frequently inspecting only green boxes that simply inspecting any box?
Now suppose that you do decide to only look at green boxes or say that for every beige box you open you will be opening 10 green ones. Might it seem like most of the crook cards you discover are in green boxes? Would this be a good justification for continuing to more closely scrutinize green boxes?
Because it doesn't work and is malicious (Score:4, Interesting)
Very few crimes are being caught or prevented. Gun seizures are low. Weed busts have nothing to do with public safety.
NYC police chief Ray Kelly admitted to state senator Eric Adams in 2010 "[Kelly] stated that he targeted and focused on that group because he wanted to instil fear in them that every time that they left their homes they could be targeted by police". It is, in other words, deliberately intended as racist.
Re:The remedy is wholly inadequate. (Score:4, Interesting)
they didn't limit it those conditions that the fourth amendment permits
They did in the original Terry v. Ohio case. The cop spent a fair amount of time watching 3 guys casing a store for a robbery, and when he stopped them he had reason to fear for his safety. He also limited the search to checking their coats for weapons (which he found). If you believe such situations happen over 1/2 million times a year in NYC though, I've got a bridge to sell you. "Reasonable suspicion" has been watered down to the cop felt like it, or he had to meet his quota (you know, the kind that doesn't exist). If Terry stops (the other name for stop-and-frisk) were limited to situations anything like the original case I, and I think most other people, wouldn't have a problem with it.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Interesting)
He provides citations for his claims. Granted, they were not precise citations, but his numbers can easily be confirmed. I suggest you go look up the data to confirm one way or another. (Note: I've researched this before and he is correct, but I am asking you to do the same research to see for yourself).
Regarding:
Fact: "White individuals were arrested more often for violent crimes than individuals of any other race, accounting for 59.4 percent of those arrests."
You are making a common statistical fallacy. Whites are about ~70% of the population and blacks are ~13%. You need to use per-capita statistics to make a meaningful comparison.