Stop and Frisk ruled unconstitutional

Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,141
Likes
228
Pretty much a no-sh!t ruling.

"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"
 

warwickben

bubba Kalashnikov
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
20,009
Likes
2,789
Location
Kyben pass (tewksbury ma)
Stop and frisk was a trap for pot users.
Ny decriminalized it but yet has the highest arrest rates then any state.

They'd tell you to empty your pockets so you get busted on "brandishing a controlled substance in public" vs a simple fine. Or of you wouldn't pull it out your get busted on other stuff .
 

sieveboy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
2,662
Likes
2,487
sad that it seems to be racial profiling that doomed this procedure, rather than simple outright 4th amendment violation.
 

ToddDubya

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
16,134
Likes
17,411
Location
Berkshires
"But now people will run around with rocket launchers and flame throwers!!!11!!!1!"

Soda Ban: Reversed
Stop-and-Frisk: Unconstitutional
SAFE Act: _______________
 

kalash

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
10,500
Likes
11,857
sad that it seems to be racial profiling that doomed this procedure, rather than simple outright 4th amendment violation.
This. WTF does profiling have to do with this? Its a pretty obvious issue of RIGHTS. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that NYC suddenly decided to abide by the constitution; this is just another "discrimination case".
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
2,374
Likes
266
Location
Summerville, SC
This. WTF does profiling have to do with this? Its a pretty obvious issue of RIGHTS. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that NYC suddenly decided to abide by the constitution; this is just another "discrimination case".

There's a fairly simple explanation for the mention of "racial profiling." The majority of people who felt they were being stopped and frisked more often than not belonged to one "racial" group or another. This ruling is about the Constitution and the Judge made that clear in her ruling.
The loser is Bloomberg and his "I can buy anything I want" mind set.

Best regards.
 

kalash

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
10,500
Likes
11,857
There's a fairly simple explanation for the mention of "racial profiling." The majority of people who felt they were being stopped and frisked more often than not belonged to one "racial" group or another. This ruling is about the Constitution and the Judge made that clear in her ruling.
The loser is Bloomberg and his "I can buy anything I want" mind set.

Best regards.
Why spend all that time trying to prove profiling when instead all they had to do was show that this stop and frisk policy is unconstitutional? And what if the groups that were profiled never came forth? Would stop and frisk continue?
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,839
Likes
20,671
A logical response for this would be for the NYPD to continue profiling, but randomly stop people who don't fit the profile - white tourists, finance district workers, etc. I wonder how that will go over.
 

center442

NES Member
Rating - 100%
40   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
8,948
Likes
2,151
Location
Southcoast of PRM
sad that it seems to be racial profiling that doomed this procedure, rather than simple outright 4th amendment violation.

My thought also, although the judge seemed to have the correct attitude:

"No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," Scheindlin wrote in her opinion.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
2,374
Likes
266
Location
Summerville, SC
Why spend all that time trying to prove profiling when instead all they had to do was show that this stop and frisk policy is unconstitutional? And what if the groups that were profiled never came forth? Would stop and frisk continue?

I will guess that the same mind set that Prosecutors use when they throw anything that may or may not apply at a person accused of wrong doing in the hopes that something will stick was used by the Attorneys in fighting this unconstitutional policy.
According to reports 5 million people have been stopped since this policy went into effect. I imagine stop & frisk would continue until somebody challenged it through the courts.
Best regards.
 

FrugalFannie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
14,625
Likes
9,468
Location
Texas
As a result, officers often frisked young minority men for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband before letting them go, in a violation of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, the judge said in a 195-page decision.

195 pages?! It would have taken me about 3 sentences!
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
25,967
Likes
16,350
Location
North Shore
my shocked face.

really. i'm actually surprised at this. figured they'd be OK with it. there's SOME hope...

Yes and no. I am a little shocked too but I still don't see NY ever being a land of freedom.

You're past the point of no return when bullshit like this ends up being decided by the courts. Unconstitutional? Wow no ****ing shit. I'm pretty sure if you're attempting to illegally frisk me you'll get pistol whipped. Or at least a big "**** off". This is good news but holy shit, what a can of worms this could have opened.

This. WTF does profiling have to do with this? Its a pretty obvious issue of RIGHTS. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that NYC suddenly decided to abide by the constitution; this is just another "discrimination case".

This
 

HorizontalHunter

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
7,156
Likes
6,761
Location
Western Massachusetts
A logical response for this would be for the NYPD to continue profiling, but randomly stop people who don't fit the profile - white tourists, finance district workers, etc. I wonder how that will go over.

This is what is likely going to happen.

From the article:

"To fix the constitutional violations, the judge designated an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution."

If the law was truly deemed unconstitutional and was vacated there would be no reason to appoint a lawyer to fix the unconstitutional part.

Bob
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
4,532
Likes
773
Location
MA
sad that it seems to be racial profiling that doomed this procedure, rather than simple outright 4th amendment violation.

I would have to read the actual decision to see if the racial profiling angle actually played a central role in the decision, but it is no surprise that the media is highlighting that aspect. I shouldn't complain too much though, because after all, it is bascially Bloomberg who is being labeled a racist here! [laugh]

Very bottom of one of the articles:
She noted that about 88 percent of the stops result in the police letting the person go without an arrest or ticket, a percentage so high, she said, that it suggests there was not a credible suspicion to suspect the person of criminality in the first place.
 
Rating - 100%
100   0   0
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
3,014
Likes
554
Location
Middle earth and there's a battle brewing
Like it matters

The NYPD will continue to do it, you guys put to much faith in the system

Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions [rolleyes], the judge stressed that she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk[thinking]. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.”

~Protecting the S*** out of all NY'ers not just the Black and Hispanic ones.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,654
Likes
1,803
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
As I said in the off topic section thread about this, stop and frisk wasn't found unconstitutional. The judge essentially said that not enough whites were stopped and frisked.

Also, since they let 88% of the friskees go, they had no reason to stop and frisk to begin with. So now they'll stop some bankers and not let weed possession go.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
8,611
Likes
1,657
it's actually a bad ruling in the long run because of reasons stated above. the program won't have to stop, it will just have to come up with more conviction and make more white's break the law
 
Top Bottom