Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Rules NYC "Stop and Frisk" Violated Rights
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.
Just have a directive that all city officials will be frisked at least once randomly each day. I'm sure once people see their public officials undergoing the same unwarranted searches they will be perfectly fine with it... assuming the public official don't quit first.
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.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
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.
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.
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.