|
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 14, 2013, 12:50 PM | #26 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Also bear in mind that the exclusionary rule and a civil rights lawsuit are not mutually exclusive. If a defendant succeeds in winning the motion to exclude evidence, which might (or, admittedly, might not) help provide a basis for the civil rights suit. In unlawful search and seizure suits, the first questions a good civil rights defense lawyer ought to ask his officers is, "Did you charge the plaintiff with anything? What happened to the charges?" If the search was found to be incompliance with the A4, the suit is barred under Heck v. Humphrey.
__________________
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, 01:16 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
Al,
Thank you for the link to Hudson. If I skimmed it right, if the police have a warrant and fail to adhere to the knock and announce rule, the remedy is not to exclude evidence they obtain from the search. The remedy is that the resident can sue them if there is violence in which he is injured, if his property is destroyed (like if they kick down his door) or if he is humiliated by being dragged into the street in his underwear. (I assume that there are circumstances where the knock and announce rule does not apply). Sigcurious, I don't think Hudson would apply to these NY cases because they are warrantless searches and it sounds like they aren't done with any real probably cause to do the search either. I gathered, from reading the explanations in Hudson, that a warrantless search or failure to give the Miranda warnings is much more likely to lead to the exclusion of evidence as a remedy for the accused. In Hudson, there was a warrant. |
January 14, 2013, 01:18 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
Spats,
Yes. I picked up the section 1988 attorneys fees thing while reading Hudson. Do you need at least some sort of nominal damages (even if hard to quantify) to be eligible for attorneys fees at trial? That could certainly tip the scale. |
January 14, 2013, 01:51 PM | #29 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Woody55,
No, you do not. A "prevailing party" is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Just a quick Westlaw search ("civil rights" /p "nominal damages" for any of you who have Westlaw access), and came up with the case of Lefemine v. Wideman, 133 S. Ct. 9 (2012), which contained a couple of juicy tidbits on nominal damages and attorneys' fees: Quote:
and Quote:
In other words, if you prevail in showing that your civil rights were violated, and can get an injunction, that suffices.
__________________
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, 02:45 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
Spats,
Thanks. |
November 1, 2013, 08:35 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2012
Location: Richmond, Va.
Posts: 353
|
The banner on CNN last night said an appeal judge upheld the NYC S&F law.
Looks like to prove they aren't targeting blacks, they now can and probably will S&F anybody and everybody. Interesting developement.
__________________
Frank-- Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member |
November 1, 2013, 10:17 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
I don't get this at all. I don't see how it's not a violation of the Constitution even if there's no racial disparity in how it's carried out. It scares me how many judges out there have so little respect for the plain language of the Constitution.
|
November 1, 2013, 10:43 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
An article i read indicated that the alterations to the program were being halted until further/new review. The reasoning being that the original judge who ruled on the case was too vocal in the media and broke the rules of conduct when speaking to the media.
While the outcome may be slightly different, I suspect any judge who looks at the case will reach a similar conclusion, any program where the vast majority of stops result in no further actions, ie ticket or arrest, it would be hard to explain how officers are so often wrong about there being a possible crime afoot. With the position of NYC mayor changing hands shortly, it will be tough to tell whether the new mayor would push for a challenge if the new ruling halts or alters the program, as Bloomberg had stated he would do originally. |
November 1, 2013, 02:01 PM | #34 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Stop & Frisk works....
I'm not a huge fan of S&F for legal/privacy issues but the NYPD plan has lowered crimes rates in the 5 boroughs.
Complaints & racial profiling have been made but minorities make up approx 94% of New York City's homicide victims in the last documented year. The police are doing what they can to reduce violent crime. No one wants to go back to the 1970s/1980s era. I go in/out of NY often. I wasn't harassed or frisked by any uniformed officers. I actually think I've seen fewer NYPD officers on the streets now compared to the late 1990s. |
November 1, 2013, 02:22 PM | #35 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 11, 2013
Posts: 14
|
ClydeFrog: With all due respect, "duh". It's pretty obvious that getting rid of the 4th amendment would help reduce crime. Getting rid of the 5th amendment would also help convict criminals. Getting rid of the 1st amendment would help nab certain criminals too. Heck, in many areas profiling would help reduce crime. That's not the point. The Bill of Rights is so important because these rights fly in the face of crime reduction logic.
|
November 1, 2013, 02:25 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
First, you cannot categorically say it "works" the policy has been in place for an extremely long time, and there's no evidence that stop and frisk is a prime factor in the drop in(or significantly affects) crime rate of NYC, which coincides, albeit more dramatically(one should note the increase in crime was also more pronounced), with the overall drop in the national crime rates. The laws and policies that affect the NYC practices went into effect there in the 70s, if it alone is so effective, one would imagine that instead of a dramatic increase in crime right after the inception, there would have at least been a stabilization.
Second, roughly 90% of the stops result in no crime found, kind of hard to believe that that often, the officers had RAS but were incorrect in their assessment. If this is shown to the case is shows a huge failure in the NYC training of what constitutes RAS. Third, even if it were shown to be a prime factor in the drop in crime rates, not all law enforcement tools are appropriate regardless of effectiveness. A complete police state is also pretty effective in lowering crime, but just because it works, does not make it an acceptable practice. |
November 1, 2013, 03:19 PM | #37 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Respect....
Well with respect, I disagree.
I don't get the "even if something works, don't do it" concept. Like I posted, S&F is not a ideal law enforcement policy but when you consider how densely populated New York City is & the factors involved; counter-terrorism, crime, gang activity, illegal immigration, etc then it could help expedite these criminal investigations or prevent crimes. Like the old saying; "nothing good happens after 1000pm", you can't play Harvard Law Professor or Dr Phil with group of gang members at 200am in a dark alley. Believe me, those situations are not fun. Clyde |
November 1, 2013, 04:23 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Therein lies the problem, what it "might/could" do in relation to its demonstrable effectiveness and cost to the population. Rightness or wrongness in the general sense aside, for the argument that it should be conducted because it's effective to be valid, you have to demonstrate that it is effective. The numbers roughly a half million stops per year and increasing, with a relatively flat roughly 10% rate of evidence of criminal activity found, based on arrest and citation numbers, over the past decade are not indicative of effectiveness. Stop enough people of course you're going to find evidence of crimes, however,the marginal success rate is more indicative of random luck than a targeted and effective plan which does not impede the lives of hundreds of thousands every year.
Just because the crime rate dropped at some point during the period in which the stop and frisk policies were enacted does not mean there is correlation, let alone causation. That is similar to the point of this Picture which coincidentally shows the murder rates of NYC. Just because two things can be matched up, does not mean they're related. Data related to NYC Stop and Frisk |
November 1, 2013, 05:44 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
Posts: 610
|
Well, at the moment DeBlasio, the Dem candidate for mayor is looking to be the likely winner. The Rep Lhota is seriously trailing in the pols. Not to start a Dem vs Rep argument here. Just saying the DeB is pretty vocal of his opposition of S&F so if he gets elected. That program might not be around for long.
Quote:
Random police searches of people's homes would reduce crime drastically (and it's not too different from S&F is it?) So go ahead, open your door. You got nothing to hide after all......riiight? |
|
November 2, 2013, 11:04 PM | #40 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Illegal or unethical....
I think some TFLers are mixing what's illegal & what's unethical.
Is S&F legal? Yes. I highly doubt a sworn LE agency with approx 34,000 members would be knowingly doing something illegal or unsupported by the courts. PC Raymond Kelly has explained what the S&F program is meant to do. If "corner boys" or dopers are being searched or gang members are unhappy then so what. If you don't live or work in a high crime area or a place where drug addicts/dealers wander around w/o concern for the law or public safety then you might be more inclined to disapprove of S&F. Clyde |
November 3, 2013, 12:38 AM | #41 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Should my expectations of privacy and freedom of movement be subject to the neighborhood in which I live? There are some sobering implications to that logic. I also wonder how vague justifications like “furtive movements” and "clothes commonly used in crime" [CRCJ study from post #38, p. 8] can be upheld by the courts.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
November 3, 2013, 12:47 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Yes...because having departmental policies being reviewed and altered by the courts for the second time in 10 years says it's supported by the courts and completely above board...
Even so, you have yet to show that a) it is effective and b) that it's only the "corner boys and dopers" as you would put it being stopped and searched. You keep on making statements in support without actually providing substance to those statements. To put some of this in context, the reported rate of illegal drug use in NYC in 2009 was roughly 16%, if the "corner boys and dopers" are the ones being targeted in your mind, why is it that the total non-firearms contraband discovery rate is roughly 2%?(see link in previous post) Seems to be a pretty large discrepancy there for what you would claim is targeted at those most likely to be carrying drugs. Based on their own reporting "actions indicative of drugs transactions" are less than 10% of the total stops. So again, how is it that the "corner boys and dopers" are being targeted? |
November 3, 2013, 02:46 AM | #43 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
The Wire, urban crime issues....
If you watch the acclaimed HBO crime drama; The Wire, you get a better idea of how street gangs & low level drug dealers operate.
Modern era street criminals do not walk around with loaded guns all the time. They will take apart & hide or cache the handgun/firearm around different locations. They do the same with illegal drugs or contraband. Drug dealers & gang members in area routinely give out cheap cell phones to street people & homeless to "spy" on anyone that may be looking for the drug gangs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people who live in high crime areas are all bad or involved in crime(a point I myself made in a topic several months ago). If S&F helped lower the violent crimes in a area or were a part of clearing criminal cases then it's worth it. If the #s don't support it, then S&F should be ended. My point is that I don't see the NYPD plan as a serious threat to civil rights or to a majority of citizens. It would difficult to manage or maintain on a large scale. |
November 3, 2013, 04:07 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
So...now you're pointing to a tv series... Ok, well let's assume your assertions are factual for a moment. If the criminals, are so good at hiding their activities, How is it again that all of these stops and frisks are a viable tactic? Presumably, if the tv show is accurate, then cops should know what effectively amounts to randomly stopping people would be ineffective.
Why would it be difficult to maintain or manage on a large scale? Policy based dysfunction hardly requires management, just the passivity to allow it to happen or the belief that it's a good thing. Quote:
Sure a department that collaborates internationally and operates outside of their jurisdictional area without prior approval could never be modeled by other departments or affect areas outside their jurisdiction. |
|
November 3, 2013, 04:31 AM | #45 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 2,119
|
This goes to the larger problem of irresponsible politicians and appointed judges with agendas all ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution.
As a criminal defense attorney, I've seen abuses time and again; abuses of search and seizure, abuses of forced (often false) confessions, denial of right to counsel, abusive interview/interrogation techniques, etc. People don't realize it, but innocent people DO give false or fed confessions and innocent people are alarmingly convicted for things they did not do ... The remedy for these abuses is stacked against the accused. It requires deep pockets, zealous attorneys, and lucky breaks in the case. For instance, lets say that a stop and frisk was totally illegal and there was absolutely NO reason other than profiling for him to be searched. BUT.... evidence of illegal drugs and guns were recovered. Subject is arrested and charges filed. Remedy is for a suppression motion. Knowing that the state will lose its case, it takes a judge with very high degree of integrity to side with the defendant. In my experience, judges are human too and most will find a way to side with the police officer to NOT exclude the evidence so that the government can still prosecute. Same goes with abuses of right to counsel, custodial interrogation, and on and on and on... even in cases where there is clear abuse, the remedy is to suppress the evidence. Judges, in my experience, are simply reluctant to do that. I've had a lot of clients where the searches and seizures or even statements obtained were in violation of 4th and 5th Amendment rights, but the evidence obtained was incriminating. The judge knows the entire case goes away if he agrees with the defendant, so the judges find a way to rule in favor of the prosecution. Thus - the ends justify the means and the government slowly grows more powerful and more bold and erodes the Constitution little by little... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|