|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 8, 2013, 10:32 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
"Stop and Frisk" Program in NYC
Link
A judge recently ruled that parts of a program of increased police presence was a violation of the 4th amendment. The worrisome part of this is that unlike many issues of a similar nature it is not individual bad apples in this case, but an actual policy and training issue offered to all of the officers involved. The really troubling part is: Quote:
ETA: As one of our largest cities, it's scary to think that other police departments might look to them for ideas and inspiration on how to operate and what is and is not ok. |
|
January 8, 2013, 11:20 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
I might take issue with the Commish's use of the word "unnecessarily." Seems to me that reining in this beast was extremely necessary, from a Constitutional perspective.
|
January 9, 2013, 09:29 AM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
The sheer number of potential civil rights plaintiffs that this program generated is staggering.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
January 9, 2013, 09:39 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
Quote:
Next time you hear someone proposing a psychological testing program to own a weapon, suggest that the same thing be applied to the 4th Amendment. Sarcasm font on. After all, there is no telling what someone may be smuggling under their coat or building in their basement. Propose that only those who pass an annual shrink review be covered by the 4th Amendment. After all, it could save a life. And if it just saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it? Sarcasm font off. |
|
January 9, 2013, 09:49 AM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Posts: 91
|
I have a family member that is a NYC cop.
Just short of SS tactics. I told him to keep his butt out of Texas.
__________________
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington US Coast Guard 76-86 Semper Paratus |
January 9, 2013, 11:49 AM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,457
|
Quote:
But it's so much more fun to smash down doors and terrorize people at oh-dark-thirty ... |
|
January 9, 2013, 11:56 AM | #7 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Just a reminder...
This thread is of the ilk that tends to draw out the Magnum cop bashers... Lets not go there, please... brent |
January 9, 2013, 12:21 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,128
|
It continues to amaze me that American citizens put up with this kind of treatment.
Quote:
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs |
|
January 9, 2013, 01:53 PM | #9 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) The police detain me for, say, 15 minutes, causing me to miss the deadline for bidding on a construction contract. Compensatory damages = the $ value of the contract. 2) That same 15-minute detention causes me to be unable to plug the parking meter across town before receiving a ticket. Compensatory damages = $ paid on the parking ticket. 3) During the course of the frisk, I am found to be in possession of a knife with a blade in excess of that allowed by local ordinance. I am arrested, taken to jail, charged with Carrying an Illegal Weapon (for example). Now I have either the cost of paying the fines, lawyer fees, etc. Then there's the emotional and psychological distress of being "treated like a common criminal." Surely I'll be unable to sleep for weeks on end, develop an irrational fear of police officers, have to go see a therapist, get on some expensive meds, . . . Like I said, monetary damages are not hard to come by. Oh, and that's just the compensatories. If the officers happen to be a little, erm, enthusiastic in their frisking, then we're off to the races on excessive force and punitive damages.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
January 9, 2013, 06:54 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
I think in the case of NYC cops, the action would be brought under 42 USC Sec 1983. That's quite a bit more modern than 1919. You'd probably have to look up damages in that context.
|
January 9, 2013, 08:26 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Bloomberg credits this program with the reduction of gun violence in NY because of all of the guns they've taken off the streets. Which is probably true; but you can have security or freedom, but not both.
|
January 9, 2013, 08:40 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
ETA: 42 USC 1983 was part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 9, 2013, 08:48 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
The other nice thing about a 1983 action is that a prevailing plaintiff is normally awarded attorney fees. I handled a few years ago before moving in a different direction.
|
January 9, 2013, 09:47 PM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Yeah, I've had cases where I was way more worried about the plaintiff's attorneys' fees than his actual compensatory damages.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
January 9, 2013, 10:01 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
The Constitution guarantees the right to be secure in your papers and person and whatnot. The government is just helping to make sure you are secure is all. That was in jest.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 9, 2013, 11:20 PM | #16 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Alabama Shooter, I've actually had city officials here ask me if we could look into NYC's Stop and Frisk program . . .
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
January 9, 2013, 11:42 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
I wish it were in jest. Fortunately, I escaped NYC a few years ago!
|
January 10, 2013, 02:31 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Location: ex upstate ny...now free
Posts: 119
|
i am against stop and frisk
but cuomo yesterday was talking about how it hurts the profiled group, minority males aged 18 to 35, by stigmatizing them with arrest and criminal records, mostly for pot....."why ruin their lives????" he said (he didnt say anything about the illegal guns that have been found during these stops....there have been more than a few) BUT he is more than happy to remove the guns, magazines and ammo from law abiding citizens of the state of NY who havent done anything wrong and violate our rights! that is what i dont get (we dont want to take your guns....yeah...we will have to turn them in... or become felons.......not a big difference)
__________________
Now I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand I have heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead. hunter/garcia (new speedway boogie) |
January 10, 2013, 06:12 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
Great! Civil rights lawyers.
So do you need to prove actual damages under section 1983 or not? |
January 10, 2013, 07:49 PM | #20 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Technically yes, but there are some damages attached to the constitutional violation itself. I've never had a case go to trial in which damages were presumed. That said, I've had several cases in which there were no measurable compensatory damages. One that comes to mind was a case of an allegedly wrongful arrest of a guy with no job, no rent, bunking in with a family member. If you really wanted to get down on a gnat's eye about the numbers, that guy actually saved money by being in jail as a result of the arrest. (No lost wages & the jail paid for his meals). My client actually settled that case.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
January 13, 2013, 12:28 PM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
|
If the police are responding to specific requests for "protection" in public housing you have to bring up selective enforcement (or selective prosecution). ONLY if stop & frisk is being equally applied to citizens in the tennaments as well as on wall street, the upper west side, & Scarsdale is the policy equally applied.
Still doesn't mean it comports fully with the 4th Amendment but it opens the door to what protections the 4th Amendment does provide. You also have to ask what responsibility the state has to provide personal security to citizens of public housing. The states have argued, and the SC agreed, that the state has no responsibility to provide security to any individual in any location at any time for any reason. (Sounds like reasonable need for a constitutionally protected right to self defense in public to me.) So this all just sounds like double-speak. |
January 13, 2013, 01:54 PM | #22 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
The equal protection claim is separate, though it could (perhaps, depending on the facts available to the plaintiff(s)) also be raised.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
January 14, 2013, 10:56 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
Spats,
Thank you for your answer. I can see where a defendant might settle and pay something less than the cost of a trial even if the chances of the plaintiff winning and be awarded damages were remote. I the context of this thread, I'd say that the comment that such a policy would generate a flood of lawsuits, I think that the comment is overreaching. In addition, wouldn't the State find it hard to convict anyone of a crime when the evidence came from an illegal search? Isn't that the primary "punishment" when the State violates the rights of the accused? |
January 14, 2013, 11:30 AM | #24 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
The problem is that in a fairly recent case (which I've lost track of), the Supreme Court ruled that if the officer obtained the evidence "in good faith," the evidence gets in. It was not just a further erosion of our 4A rights, it eroded the penalties that LE faced if the search and seizure was unlawful... Found it! HUDSON v. MICHIGAN, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006). |
|
January 14, 2013, 11:55 AM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Hrm, while I don't agree with the SC decision because of it's potential consequences, in the specific instance I can understand why they ruled as they did. However, I'm not sure how broadly it could be applied to dissimilar cases(hopefully not at all). From Scalia's opinion, it seemed that because the violation stemmed from a procedural error unrelated to the evidence that the evidence was permissible, since they were in fact there for narcotics as specified on the warrant. Rather than the primary failure being a direct violation, such as searching without cause in the cases of the NYC stop and frisk.
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|