What does ATOT think about stop and frisk?

[amdhunter]

I was "randomly" chosen a few years ago because we had hamburgers and chicken sandwiches in regular brown paper bags at 9:30 at night. I was pissed, but what can you do. It's either comply or be killed.

Here are the statistics for 2011 by the NYPD. 91% of those stopped were minorities.

In 2011, 684,330 New Yorkers were stopped by the police.
603,268 were totally innocent (88 percent)
402,308 were black (59 percent)
176,165 were Latino (26 percent)
62,033 were white (9 percent)

So ATOT, a cop stops you at random and starts frisking you, what do you do?

 

[BoomerD]

I think it's a great idea. More minorities should be stopped and frisked...especially those with red dots on their foreheads.

Doncha know..."If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about?"

 

[HAL9000]

Be fine with it, wait till he or she finishes then move on, I don't see the big deal with it, but I'm not one of those "The police can't do anything, unless I give them permission first" morons.

 

[KeithTalent]

This is a real thing? Sounds like something out of a police state. :hmm:

KT

 

[HAL9000]

Doncha know..."If you're not guilty, you have nothing to worry about?"

This.

 

[amdhunter]

This is a real thing? Sounds like something out of a police state. :hmm:

KT

http://www.nyclu.org/issues/racial-justice/stop-and-frisk-practices

Yes.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Ask him for a happy ending?

I'm curious, has the practice had any effect on crime?

 

[amdhunter]

Be fine with it, wait till he or she finishes then move on, I don't see the big deal with it, but I'm not one of those "The police can't do anything, unless I give them permission first" morons.

First of all, they tell you to lean against a wall and to drop everything in your hands. That's bullshit.

It's not like they ask you nicely. They'll come out of a van in a group, surround you and FORCE you to comply.

 

[HAL9000]

First of all, they tell you to lean against a wall and to drop everything in your hands. That's bullshit.

It's not like they ask you nicely. They'll come out of a van in a group, surround you and FORCE you to comply.

If the question is do I think the police should be polite about how they conduct these searches, then obviously the answer is yes.

Should you have a choice? No.

 

[amdhunter]

Ask him for a happy ending?

I'm curious, has the practice had any effect on crime?

In 2011, 684,330 New Yorkers were stopped by the police.
603,268 were totally innocent (88 percent)

Most of the guilty were charged with drug possession (mostly weed); a very small amount (less than 1%) were charged with weapons.

The best part is, they aren't supposed to check your pockets or clothing, but they do so anyway.

 

[lxskllr]

Unacceptable, but expected. It's going to get worse.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I was "randomly" chosen a few years ago because we had hamburgers and chicken sandwiches in regular brown paper bags at 9:30 at night. I was pissed, but what can you do.

They cannot choose "randomly." In order to perform a Terry stop, officers must have specific and articulable facts that reasonably warrant the stop. Without specific and articulable facts which reasonably warrant the stop, it is a violation of a person's 4th Amendment rights under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

It's either comply or be killed.

Yeah... Lethal force definitely is NOT authorized here.

So ATOT, a cop stops you at random and starts frisking you, what do you do?

(1) "Officer, am I being detained?"

(2)(a) If the answer is no: "Thank you for you time, Officer, and have a good evening." [I walk away.]

(2)(b) If the answer is yes: "Please articulate the facts which reasonably warrant this stop."

(3)(a) If the officer cannot articulate such facts: "Without articulable facts which reasonably warrant this stop, you are violating the 4th Amendment under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio. Should you continue this search I will file against the city for violation of my 4th Amendment rights."

(3)(b) If the officer can articulate such facts: [I allow the search to run its course satisfied that the applicable requirements are met and that no law is being violated.]

ZV

 

[HAL9000]

They cannot choose "randomly." In order to perform a Terry stop, officers must have specific and articulable facts that reasonably warrant the stop. Without specific and articulable facts which reasonably warrant the stop, it is a violation of a person's 4th Amendment rights under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).



Yeah... Lethal force definitely is NOT authorized here.



(1) "Officer, am I being detained?"

(2)(a) If the answer is no: "Thank you for you time, Officer, and have a good evening." [I walk away.]

(2)(b) If the answer is yes: "Please articulate the facts which reasonably warrant this stop."

(3)(a) If the officer cannot articulate such facts: "Without articulable facts which reasonably warrant this stop, you are violating the 4th Amendment under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio. Should you continue this search I will file against the city for violation of my 4th Amendment rights."

(3)(b) If the officer can articulate such facts: [I allow the search to run its course satisfied that the applicable requirements are met and that no law is being violated.]

ZV

Wow things are different over there. D:

 

[rudeguy]

If I was stopped for no reason, I would definitely use the "I am being detained, am I free to go" line.

I also have a voice recorder widget on my phone for police encounters.

 

[lord_emperor]

Comply, document and lodge a complaint since such a search violates your constitution.

Also I hope the 12% found "guilty" are released because the evidence was obtained illegally and those responsible for organizing and executing these searches lose their jobs.

 

[amdhunter]

They cannot choose "randomly."

No. It's 100% random, that's why the ACLU is fighting to prevent these searches. Well, not random since it targets mainly minorities.

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop-and-frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino.

Doesn't matter anyway, because they'll find a reason to give you if you ask.

I've been stopped twice, once for walking my dog - the reason they gave me was simply that they needed to check if I had a dog license (they made me tie my dog up 25 feet away too, which pissed me off royally) and the time we had the paper bags for "suspected drug activity." At 9:30 PM.

Don't think for a moment that they need a reason to stop you.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Wow things are different over there. D:

Things are different from what you believe them to be in England as well. English law has reasonableness standards in it as well; even a London Bobby does not have the ability to stop people without reason.

ZV

 

[HAL9000]

Things are different from what you believe them to be in England as well. English law has reasonableness standards in it as well; even a London Bobby does not have the ability to stop people without reason.

ZV

No of course they need a reason, but you can't really just argue your way out of it and walk away.

 

[SViper]

They cannot choose "randomly." In order to perform a Terry stop, officers must have specific and articulable facts that reasonably warrant the stop. Without specific and articulable facts which reasonably warrant the stop, it is a violation of a person's 4th Amendment rights under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).



Yeah... Lethal force definitely is NOT authorized here.



(1) "Officer, am I being detained?"

(2)(a) If the answer is no: "Thank you for you time, Officer, and have a good evening." [I walk away.]

(2)(b) If the answer is yes: "Please articulate the facts which reasonably warrant this stop."

(3)(a) If the officer cannot articulate such facts: "Without articulable facts which reasonably warrant this stop, you are violating the 4th Amendment under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio. Should you continue this search I will file against the city for violation of my 4th Amendment rights."

(3)(b) If the officer can articulate such facts: [I allow the search to run its course satisfied that the applicable requirements are met and that no law is being violated.]

ZV

This. Thank you for posting this ZV.

I would also add that I would perform the same in a manner that is not threatening or disrespectful to the LEO. I don't want my body language and/or tone of voice to alarm or cause the LEO to become uncomfortable.

Exercising your rights as a citizen should never be a bad decision.

 

[Zenmervolt]

No. It's 100% random, that's why the ACLU is fighting to prevent these searches. Well, not random since it targets mainly minorities.

Again, they have to have specific and articulable facts which reasonably warrant the stop. The state CANNOT revoke that requirement.

Doesn't matter anyway, because they'll find a reason to give you if you ask.

I've been stopped twice, once for walking my dog - the reason they gave me was simply that they needed to check if I had a dog license (they made me tie my dog up 25 feet away too, which pissed me off royally) and the time we had the paper bags for "suspected drug activity." At 9:30 PM.

Don't think for a moment that they need a reason to stop you.

Technically, neither of those are "specific and articulable facts." Though in the first case if the officer observed that your dog was not wearing the license tag that would be sufficient to allow a Terry stop (though it would not be enough to allow a frisk).

To be clear, I'm not saying that these requirements will always stop every officer from ever stopping anyone without reasonable suspicion. All I'm saying is that the absence of the factors is sufficient to support a civil rights suit on 4th Amendment grounds.

ZV

 

[rudeguy]

No of course they need a reason, but you can't really just argue your way out of it and walk away.

You can't argue your way out over here either. But knowing your rights and standing for them will usually get a supervisor involved. The supervisor's job is to prevent the department from being sued. Not necessarily the best way to have your rights looked after, but its what we have.

 

[HAL9000]

You can't argue your way out over here either. But knowing your rights and standing for them will usually get a supervisor involved. The supervisor's job is to prevent the department from being sued. Not necessarily the best way to have your rights looked after, but its what we have.

I realise that, but what's the point, the police need to be able to search people, the police are just normal people in a uniform... Just let them get on with their job don't make it more difficult, unless what they are doing is hurting someone.

 

[rudeguy]

I realise that, but what's the point, the police need to be able to search people, the police are just normal people in a uniform... Just let them get on with their job don't make it more difficult, unless what they are doing is hurting someone.

Not all of us enjoy having another man touch our junk

 

[Zenmervolt]

No of course they need a reason, but you can't really just argue your way out of it and walk away.

Nor can you in the US.

If the officer admits that you are not being detained, you are free to leave. That's not "arguing my way out of it," that's the officer telling me outright that I'm not being stopped.

If the officer continues the search, I cannot simply walk away even after informing the officer of the deficient rationale under Terry. (Well, strictly speaking I could but it would be stupid to do so as it would make things many orders of magnitude messier in the 4th Amendment suit later and the downside potential if my reading of the law is not upheld is huge, better just to let it happen and go from there.)

ZV

 

[QueBert]

I was stop and frisked 1 time because of the neighborhood I was in and the people I was walking with. It was fucking humiliating, not so much because they did it. But because of how even when they approached us we were already being treated like guilty pieces of shit. It's weird how differently the police act and treat people in the "ghetto" None of us had did anything wrong, and while I can't speak for the dudes I was with, I was still scared shit less, being innocent and still worried's a shame.