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. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    I think part of the confusion (and, most likely, what's tripping up G19G20) is that the word "stop" for LE is loaded language. People say "stop" all the time...I "stopped" for groceries, I "stopped" a person to ask for directions, etc. It's a pretty informal use of the word.

    But for LE, "stop" has all kinds of connotations and implies - no, requires - a very defined and formal continuum.

    inre G19G20, you may want to actually read Terry and I'd also suggest reading Byron White's joined opinion.

    If I were to quibble with anything here, it would be that the jurisprudence revolving around Terry states that the frisking is for weapons, not any/all contraband. In the article (and admittedly, the article does have loaded language of its own), the fellow (Bilal) was stopped and his bag was searched. According to Bilal, the officer was looking for drugs, and the story says the search was to see if "he was carrying anything illegal." First, remember this is but one side of the story and we don't hear from the officer as to why he decided to stop Bilal.

    That said, there's a fine line here...if an officer frisks a person because he reasonably thinks the guy may be armed and subsequently finds not a gun but a dime bag, the drugs would most likely be admissible. But the exclusionary rule would apply if the search itself was found unreasonable.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2012
  2. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,924
    2,391
    May 4, 2003

  3. CAcop

    CAcop

    19,947
    2,551
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    You are very right about the word "stop" when it comes to LE. I don't even like to say "I stopped to talk to that guy" if it was a consensual encounter. Sure "I stopped" in the common usage of he word but I did not "stop" in the legal meaning of the word.

    Certain words in our business mean very specific things such as "custody" when it comes to Miranda. The average Joe might not think much of the word custody but for us it triggers things, especially if we are asking certain types of questions.
     
  4. series1811

    series1811 Enforcerator. CLM

    We use the phrase "approached and interview" when we are doing a consensual interview where someone is free to leave (good example, in airport interdiction).

    We only say "stop" to refer to a reasonable suspicion detention, and only say "arrest" for probable cause seizures of a person.

    But, that is frequently the problem with these discussions. Citizens interpret words using the Oxford Dictionary definition, but for us, words means what the courts and laws say they mean.

    And, as someone pointed out earler, I don't know how you even have a useful discussion on "stop and frisk" with someone who has not at least read Terry v. Ohio.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2012
  5. Mrs. Tink

    Mrs. Tink Semper Fidelis

    4,270
    1
    Mar 1, 2005
    I truly appreciate your comments. I know we can all get frustrated--I know my last post was born out of frustration--especially in a forum like this where no one is face to face and there are impediments to dialogue.

    I am sure I will take you up on your offer sometime. It means a lot to me. :wavey:
     
  6. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    So it's my job to prove the article is accurate instead of your job as defender of the cop's actions to prove it inaccurate or incomplete? Prove the stop was justified. I have my evidence right in black and white in the article. Where's yours? Or am I just supposed to take your word for it? :rofl:

    Who cares what the success rate is. You must subscribe to Machiavelli's motto of "end justifies the means".

    If you support racial and socio-economic profiling then please just come out and say so instead of skirting around the edges.

    What's sad is that the black guy with a laundry bag gets searched while the real NY criminals on Wall St steal trillions of dollars and there's not an NYPD officer in sight. How "successful" are they at picking the criminals out of the landscape then? I guess success is defined only by how many average folks can be thrown in jail while the real thieves run amok.

    Btw, who cares whether a frisk is legally defined as a "search"? That's not the point here. The conduct described in the article are not Terry Stops and that was my whole point in recent posts.
     
  7. seanmac45

    seanmac45 CLM

    6,588
    3,712
    Apr 13, 2000
    Brooklyn, NY
    The conduct described in the article is indeed a Terry Stop. It just wasn't explained to the detainee or the author of the article as such. We don't have to explain our actions in a Terry Stop to the detainee, the media or YOU.

    Our actions in Terry Stops are reviewed at the judicial level by Judges who are much more knowledgeable about Constitutional Law than you.

    Your article is "proof" of nothing.

    The idea that corporate embezzlement could be revealed through a street level interaction is ludicrous and a desperate argument on your part to seek vindication.

    Rest assured though, NYPD has a very capable and highly trained FINCEN unit and it does its' task just as thoroughly and with as much dedication as do the bluesuits on the street.
     
  8. eracer

    eracer Where's my EBT?

    6,711
    2
    Apr 5, 2011
    Tampa, FL
    It's nice to know that judges are willing to waive the rules of evidence when a LEO 'knows them.'
     
  9. The people mad at the police should redirect criticism toward judges and laws :)
     
  10. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,924
    2,391
    May 4, 2003
    Don't be juvenile. You make a claim, you provide evidence for it---that's the way grownups do things. Media that talk about ".9mm Glock service revolvers" are not quality sources on technical subjects.


    You should. It's 12%, by the way. So you've got to accept that 1 in 8 people are walking around criminals. That's the only way that "random" stops can produce that arrest rate. If fewer than 1 of 8 of the general population are criminal, the the cops can't be doing random stops after all.


    You're playing the race card? Really? I support (a) putting concentrations of cops in high crime areas regardless of the racial makeup there---I won't deny police protection to people on account of their race or ability to pay for it; and (b), profiling the behavior of people encountered in those high crime areas.

    The Supreme Court cares. And since we're playing in their field, we ought to care.

    They are Terry stops. You haven't bothered to educate yourself on what's going on, nor on the controlling ConLaw on the subject. You're just frothing. Why do you hate the Constitution?
     
  11. seanmac45

    seanmac45 CLM

    6,588
    3,712
    Apr 13, 2000
    Brooklyn, NY

    I call it a Judge who knew a case based upon probable cause when he saw one.

    That was the end of the hearing.

    Sorry if it disappoints you.
     
  12. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    Im arguing the claim by CAcop that the conduct in the article is a Terry stop. Not sure what you're arguing. The contents of the article do not meet the definition of a Terry stop. It's your job to explain how it does.

    The Dont Talk To Police video explains why this thinking is erroneous. There's so many laws on the books (local, state, federal, international, and all the admin regulations) that even the watchdogs have completely lost count. At any given time, practically everyone is a "criminal" either at that moment or some point in the past. Btw, 12% is pathetic. So 7 in 8 people stopped under this program aren't breaking any laws? And you're PROUD of that figure? In a "free" country like the USA... :upeyes:
    And you're still claiming it meets the definition of a Terry stop. Odd. I'd expect a much higher success rate if cops are able to articulate FACTS that led to the stop.

    Still wondering how many of these stops take place on Wall St at lunch hour, instead of predominantly minority areas in Queens and Brooklyn. I dare any of you NYPD on this forum to set up this crap outside 85 Broad St.

    OK so you tell us how a 12% success rate falls under the articulable facts of criminal conduct definition of a Terry stop.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  13. eracer

    eracer Where's my EBT?

    6,711
    2
    Apr 5, 2011
    Tampa, FL
    I know you're not, but thanks for being polite.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  14. Woofie

    Woofie Disirregardless CLM

    9,991
    20
    Apr 10, 2007
    Here
    [ame]http://youtu.be/j2zlPNGuPbw[/ame]
     
  15. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,924
    2,391
    May 4, 2003
    12% is superb. First of all, it's significantly higher than the percentage of criminals in the general population. That all by itself disproves the silly claim that these stops are random. And I'd suggest that it's right in line with the expectation of what a reasonable suspicion is. Individual stops will have to be decided on their individual merits, but the program overall is simply not grabbing poor minorities at random.

    Understand that no percentage likelihood has ever been assigned to either probable cause or reasonable suspicion. We *do* know, however that a preponderance of the evidence is 51%. Probable cause, by definition, is a standard lower than preponderance. I've heard it argued that PC is half of that standard. Reasonable suspicion is even lower than PC. By the logic employed, 12% would be right in the ballpark.

    I'd submit that's because you have no working knowledge of either the court requirements or the practicalities. Let's remember that RS is by definition a pattern of wholly legal behavior to begin with. After all, if the cops were witnessing and articulating illegal acts, it'd be a straight arrest with no need for an investigatory stop. Even Terry himself would have been let go if he hadn't yet picked up the gun for his robbery. When every guy who actually does this stuff and defends it in court is telling you something, including the guy from that jurisdiction, maybe you ought to pay a bit more attention. If one guy of every eight that you contact deserves to go see a judge, you're doing somerging right.


    Just did. If something is unclear, ask. You've shown that you're in no position to lecture.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  16. These quotes are from audio recordings of NYPD, in specific reference to this program:


    Deputy Inspector Mauriello, October 31, 2008 (Halloween night): "And they got any bandanas around their necks, Freddy Krueger masks, I want them stopped, cuffed, alright, brought in here, run for warrants.”

    Sergeant Stukes, November 23, 2008: "If they're on a corner, make 'em move. They don't wanna move, lock 'em up. You can always articulate [a charge] later."

    Sergeant Stukes, December 8, 2008: "You're gonna be 120 Chauncey [St.]. You're gonna be [in a?], uh, vehicle out there. Shake everybody up. Anybody moving, anybody coming out of that building - [UF] 250"; "You're gonna be Howard and Chauncey 1900, post one. Same thing. Two, three [inaudible]. Everybody walking around. Stop em. 250-em"; "Anybody walking around, shake 'em up, stop 'em, 250-em, doesn't matter what it takes."





    And these statistics:

    Guns were seized in 0.15 percent of all stops. This is despite the fact
    that "suspicious bulge" was cited as a reason for 10.4 percent of all stops.84 Thus, for every sixty-nine stops that police officers justified specifically on the basis of a suspicious bulge, they found one gun.


    Over the fourteen months beginning in January 1998, "NYPD officers documented 174,919 street 'stops' on UF-250 forms."57 That is equivalent to just under 12,500 stops per month or 150,000 stops per year. In 2004, officers documented over 313,000 stops, and since then the number has increased every year except 2007, rising to over 684,000 in 2011.


    ...approximately seventeen percent of summonses from 2004 and 2009 were thrown out by the New York courts as being facially (i.e., legally) insufficient and more than fifty percent of all summons were dismissed before trial.


    Source: www.documentcloud.org/documents/356750-5-16-12-floyd-class-cert-opinion-and-order.html
     
  17. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    May 8, 2011
    You lost me right here because your last post said that 1 in 8 people is a criminal. Now it's a lot less than that? And you're talking about superb? I won't even bother with the rest of your post because your premise contradicts yourself and makes everything else you say suspect and I won't run around chasing down your contradictions all day.


    eta
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2012
  18. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,622
    1,939
    Jul 12, 2007
    On the other hand, being firm to speak with lameness on things they don't know about is fun to watch! :supergrin: Winning!

    Randy
     
  19. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,924
    2,391
    May 4, 2003
    No--for the results seen to be generated from pure random stops, *you* have to believe that 1 of every 8 people around you is an active criminal.

    Clearly that isn't so. So for NYPD to be generating 12% arrests with a tactic, they have to be recognizing criminal behavior in those they cut out of the herd. That's the very essence of a constitutional investigatory stop.

    You wanted proof that the stops weren't random, it's right there in the math. Again, the judgement about an individual stop rides on the specific facts around it.
     
  20. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,622
    1,939
    Jul 12, 2007
    First of all, everyone should note the bolded part. If the stops are not justifiable, i.e. strictly random, any evidence found is inadmissible , and the case against the person stopped is shot. There's your protections, there's the motivation for the cops to make sure its done right, or it's all a waste of their time.

    Second, lets walk this back a bit. The person was "peppered with questions, asked for id and the officer rummaged through his bag..."

    Am I missing something? Is there anything in the article that suggests this actually WAS a Terry stop? Because I'm wondering if one of the questions he was peppered with was "Do you mind if I search your bag? You have nothing to hide, right?" and the guy wasn't aware he could simply refuse a consensual search?

    Maybe people should actually pay attention in civics class and have a basic understanding of their rights so they know when they've been actually violated? Just a thought.

    Randy
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2012