NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" Policy Ruled Unconstitutional | Hacker News Reader

NYPD's "Stop and Frisk" Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

reason.com

39 pointsmtgx22 comments

I wasn't surpised about the misleading headline on reddit, but I am annoyed by it here.

"Stop and frisk" was not ruled unconstitutional. A federal district judge has ruled that the practice of doing stop and frisks in front of private buildings on the premise that the suspect had just or was about to commit a trespass on the private property is unconstitutional. It doesn't affect "stop and frisk" generally in the city, but the specific trespass stops conducted only in the Brox.

Has S&F been heard in any upper court? They're distinct from Terry Stops, right, because they don't require an articulable concern for officer safety.

NYC's stop and frisk hasn't been heard in any higher court that I know of.

I don't really think they're distinct from Terry stops. Terry has two prongs: the seizure must be justified by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; a frisk must be justified by a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous.

Now, they might not be valid Terry stops. If they frisk as a matter of course, that's not valid. It seems in the Bronx they're playing fast and loose with the "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity" prong. In a city, anyone walking down the sidewalk may be "about to commit a trespass" by walking into a private building. My argument would be that this by itself isn't a basis for a reasonable suspicion.

It's the title of the article though...

We shouldn't fall prey to linkbait. It's OK to rewrite a headline in order to make it more accurate.

It being from reason should be a heads up to watch for bias anyway. Glad it was posted, taken with grain of salt and all that.

So it's more like NY lawmakers take two steps backward, one step fore.

Maybe that's why the article starts with "A key part of ...".

This American Life had a very disturbing story about how the NYPD turned on the cop that outed them for this and other stuff.

See Act 2: Is That a Tape Recorder in Your Pocket, or Are You Just Unhappy to See Me?

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/414/r...

The Blue Code of Silence.

But in spite of this, presumably most cops are good cops.

It is a very, very hard job, most of all psychologically. We tend to blame cops for the pathologies they develop (insularity, authoritarianism, prejudice), but it's easy to see that we as a society more or less inflict those pathologies on the police.

Doesn't make stop & frisk, or arrests for recording cops, or drug dog searches OK. But the context is valuable.

> But in spite of this, presumably most cops are good cops.

It feels that is a strenuous assumption we make to still feel good about our police force. "Surely most cops are good...? They, must be, right, ... right?"

Now think of it this way. Would you consider a doctor a "good doctor" if he sees his colleagues during surgery do something dangerous, such us leaving instruments in people abdomens, or re-using scalpels without sterilizing them? I wouldn't. Would you consider a real estate agent, a good real estate agent if he doesn't say anything when he sees his co-worker in cahoots with a house inspector and a loan officer at a bank making shady deals? I wouldn't.

Why are the cops who don't say anything when their co-workers abuse citizens and inflict material damage different? Everyone one of them who doesn't say anything is not a "good cop".

What exactly is this story doing on Hacker News? What possible connection does it have to the site? It just occurred to me that I've stopped asking this question lately, the site has been so swamped with political effluvia.

Flagged. We need to get better at flagging this crap off the site.

It's a nice break from the usual "How I funded my startup by ignoring my family" type posts.

I'm certainly interested in Stop and Frisk updates.

Full article on NY Daily News:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-controversial-stop-...

To me, the "Stop & Frisk" practice taking place in NY represents a compromise between enforcing Fourth Amendment rights and reduce gang violence. I have no doubts that “Stop & Frisk” violates the Fourth Amendment and unfairly targets minorities for the potential embarrassment, harassment, intimidation, etc. of an unwarranted search, but I also believe that it reduces gang-related homicides, which are heavily skewed towards minority victims.

It's worth noting that in briefly detaining someone without probable cause, the NYPD is relying on a supreme court ruling from 1968 [0], but only recently have they fully utilized these rights.

NYC requires a permit for carrying a handgun, and part of the permit process is to pass a background check. I can’t think of any good reasons why someone would be carrying an unlicensed handgun in NYC, unless they’re a gang-member.

I support the "Stop & Frisk" practice for finding concealed weapons on individuals that shouldn't have them, for all other cases (drugs, etc.) it is not in society's best interest.

[0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392...

Let me guess, there's zero chance that the Stop & Frisk policy will result in you or anyone you know getting arbitrarily harassed by cops? You want it to happen to them but not to you.

(a) I am baffled by what you thought this comment could have accomplished, and (b) you clearly didn't read it all the way through, because he doesn't want it to happen to anyone, nor does he support the way it's actually being executed on the ground in NYC.

He said he supports some version of Stop & Frisk. I don't want to get into another semantics argument with you.

There doesn't have to be a "compromise." The 4th amendment isn't a hard-and-fast rule. That's the whole reason for the "unreasonable" wiggle-word in the text. It should be possible to create rules that allow policing to stop gang violence and also comply with the requirements of the 4th amendment.

> I support the "Stop & Frisk" practice for finding concealed weapons on individuals that shouldn't have them, for all other cases (drugs, etc.) it is not in society's best interest.

So, the practice is OK if in hindsight it turns out that the person being frisked had a gun, but is BAD if it turns out they didn't?

It was my understanding that the cops were not limiting themselves to residential buildings, but stopped anyone on the street that they thought looked "suspicious". I've seen it happen in Bushwick a number of times outside of store fronts. I wonder whether this will change the way the police are currently operating on the ground...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com