close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

NYC 'Stop & Frisk'

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by barbedwiresmile, May 12, 2012.

  1. CAcop

    CAcop

    19,662
    2,291
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    How about this for a PSA. Google search consensual encounter, reasonable suspicion, probable cause. Throw in case law with each of those search terms for details on where the difinitions come from. I could write pages on each term. It is well worn case law, like Miranda.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2012
  2. wprebeck

    wprebeck Got quacks?

    8,529
    2,151
    Oct 20, 2002
    Mm..looks like heaven
    The very act of NOT talking to the police can help to develop reasonable suspicion - would a "reasonable" person decline to answer why they might be sitting in a car, obviously waiting in said car for a length of time?

    It seems that all the "don't talk to police" fans always forget that the 5th Amendment protects against self-incrimination. If you are NOT committing a crime, and refuse to answer certain reasonable questions, you "may" just find yourself getting more attention than you'd like - and citing the 5th won't get you anywhere, UNLESS you really were committing a crime.
     


  3. greenman19

    greenman19

    244
    1
    Nov 6, 2008
    central NC
    For the "don't talk to police" guys, have you never heard of a situation where it would be advisable? I have seen several stories here where an altercation occured and the victim got arrested. Why? you ask. The victim wouldn't talk to the police while the offender told them a heck of a story. In the absence of any exculpitary information what are the police going to do?
     
  4. Mister_Beefy

    Mister_Beefy Legal & Proper

    2,417
    0
    Apr 19, 2011
    well, at least crime in new york is down.


    Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
     
  5. LoadToadBoss

    LoadToadBoss IYAAYWOT

    3,486
    82
    Apr 24, 2008
    Northwest Louisiana
    As long as those stopped don't get questioned about their immigration status.:whistling:
     
  6. Woofie

    Woofie Disirregardless CLM

    9,991
    20
    Apr 10, 2007
    Here
    It does happen here and is perfectly legal.
     
  7. HexHead

    HexHead

    4,815
    0
    Jul 16, 2009
    THAT, was one great post.
     
  8. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    Indeed!

    It reminds me of the high school dropouts who resented any of their former classmates for attending college.

    Hard to believe sometimes, but then again, ignorance is most often a choice.
     
  9. blk69stang

    blk69stang

    528
    2
    Jan 10, 2011
    Arizona
    My Federal LE training tells me that "random" searches on the general public without any articulable facts is a great way to open yourself up for a tort lawsuit.

    If you can articulate why you "stopped, questioned, and frisked" someone, then more power to them. (If you can't do that for each and every person you meet, then you have no business beign a cop IMHO...). But if you can't articulate why you stopped someone, and instead are simply leaning on the "random inspection" crutch, then IMHO you deserve that tort lawsuit for being a lazy slug who does sloppy policework.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
  10. happyguy

    happyguy Man, I'm Pretty

    So in the words of the president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, stop and frisks are evil, but we must submit to them because they are for our own good.

    Hmmmm...

    All legalities aside, I'm not buying what he's selling.

    Regards,
    Happyguy :)
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
  11. Mister_Beefy

    Mister_Beefy Legal & Proper

    2,417
    0
    Apr 19, 2011

    that's it in a nutshell.

    if you choose not to answer any questions, they use that as an excuse to detain because you're acting "suspicious."

    of course, never having been in the NYPD, I don't know anything.. like a "high school dropouts who resented any of their former classmates for attending college."

    what's the definition of a straw man argument again?

     
    Last edited: May 21, 2012
  12. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    Just tossing this out there...

    What happens when the person refuses consent to a search...?
     
  13. CAcop

    CAcop

    19,662
    2,291
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    If there is reasonable suspicion and Terry applies it is not a consensual contact and you have no right to refuse.
     
  14. seanmac45

    seanmac45 CLM

    6,470
    3,434
    Apr 13, 2000
    Brooklyn, NY
    ABSENT any other factors, refusal of information and consent to search do NOT equal reasonable suspicion.

    If you're asking to search someone without any good reason, it's a fishing expedition and does not constitute a proper stop.

    TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES and the ability of the officer to adequately state his reasoning for the stop are the key to the viability of the encounter.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2012
  15. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    Well, that kind of answers the question, doesn't it?

    If the officer has legal reason to search you, he doesn't need your consent.

    if he doesn't, he pretty much has to ask you. It may not sound like a request (eg "I need to look in your bag."), but part of being a responsible, informed citizen is to know not only what your rights are, but when you can exercise them.

    Seems to me this stop, question, and frisk business is just a riff on consensual searches.
     
  16. seanmac45

    seanmac45 CLM

    6,470
    3,434
    Apr 13, 2000
    Brooklyn, NY
    No, it's a carefully choreographed ballet in which the police need to conduct an investigation and the civilian's rights under the Constitution are governed by a specific set of rules as delineated by the US Supreme Court and Department guidelines.
     
  17. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    I'll put it another way.

    If I'm walking down Normal and a police officer comes up to me to chat, it's unlikely I'll say anything other than hello and/or "why do you ask?" If he says he "needs" to search my bag I say "I don't consent to a search."

    If the situation is such that my consent is unnecessary then the officer will proceed anyway and he should be prepared to justify his actions in court (of course, if this is done as part of a Terry Stop it'll be pretty clear that we've gone past a consensual encounter anyway...).

    If my consent is required but he's not saying so, I'm covered if he decides to go ahead and search my bag.

    Perhaps there's some clarification that's needed. Is a stop, question, and frisk exercise a Terry Stop by another name?
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2012
  18. Snowman92D

    Snowman92D

    3,888
    10
    Oct 6, 2001
    Indianapolis
    Yep, finally. The progressives and libertarians have tried hard for years to make anarchy work in NYC, but it just never panned out.
     
  19. CAcop

    CAcop

    19,662
    2,291
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    Yes. I was going to write this the other day but life was keeping me busy.

    Where I work we do not call it stop and frisk. We call it a field interview or FI for short. We fill out a card called a field interview card and take your picture. That is if we have the time for it. Usually running your name for warrants or probation/parole status is it.

    The most likely time we are going to do it in our city is if you are riding your bicycle with a backpack on in the middle of the night wearing dark clothing and have no reflectors or lights on your bike and you happen to be riding in a residential area where there have been auto burglaries and thefts.

    The lack of reflectors or lights is enough for us to stop people and detain them long enough to write a ticket. Now the Terry Decision is enough for us to search for weapons. It is late at night, we are alone on patrol, contacting someone who may be trying to be as invisible as possible so they can commit crimes without detection. If a quick search turns up a screw driver we can easily articulate that is a burglary tool. Now will we charge them for it right then and there? Probably not but it does allow us to start searching their bag or person for something other than a weapon. In this case burglary tools. Since items as small as spark plug ceramic chips can be considered burglary tools we can pretty much search of anything.

    The courts have been okay with this for years because they understand there is no DA or judge riding along with the officer in the middle of the night to approve an ever more instrusive search. If judges or DAs wanted to work in the middle of the night they would have become cops instead. So the courts give us discretion to search people given reasonable suspicion or probable cause. They figure if there is a problem with the search it will be discovered in court. And remember for it to get to court the person has to be arrested for something. Also remember this particular scenario involves something that started out as a vehicle code infraction that is a fix it ticket, a $20 fine. If you do not have anything on your person that is illegal expect a $20 ticket. If you have a backpack full of car stereos, iPods, and cellphones that you took out of cars expect at least a night in jail.