‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Can Work, Under Careful Supervision

Stop and Frisk-Whistleblowers

Det. Anthony Mannuzza, left, and Police Officer Robert Martin, right, simulate a street stop during a training session at the New York Police Department’s training facility in Rodman’s Neck, in the Queens borough of New York (AP Photo/Colleen Long, File)

By Henry F. Fradella, Arizona State University and Michael D. White, Arizona State University

In mid-November, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg apologized publicly for his backing of a practice intended to reduce violent crime that had for years been criticized as racially biased. “I realize back then I was wrong, and I’m sorry,” he said.

But his apology, made at a predominantly black church in Brooklyn, puzzled many observers. That included scholars of criminal justice like ourselves.

Bloomberg has long been a vocal supporter of a policy the city police department officially called “Stop, Question, and Frisk,” including during his time as New York’s mayor. In an effort to control crime, police aggressively and indiscriminately stopped and questioned people on the streets or in public housing projects. Police also often patted down suspects to check for weapons.

His apology was confusing because that phrase, often shortened to “stop and frisk,” is used to describe two different things.

As we wrote in our book, “Stop and Frisk: The Use and Abuse of a Controversial Policing Tactic,” one is a legitimate, constitutionally sanctioned tactic, grounded in a police officer’s reasonable suspicion that a particular person is engaged in criminal activity.

The other is an illegitimate, broad crime-control strategy that, more often than not, ignores the law’s requirement that a particular person be reasonably suspected of breaking the law.

A legal tactic

For centuries, the English common law tradition, which undergirds U.S. law, has recognized a police officer’s right to stop a member of the public to inquire about potentially criminal behavior. They can do this without needing to meet the legal standard for arresting the person and charging them with a crime – provided the officer had reasonable grounds to be suspicious in the first place.

In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court codified that practice in its decision in Terry v. Ohio. In that case, a police officer saw two black men walking up and down a Cleveland street and repeatedly peering into a particular store’s windows. A white man joined them, after which the police officer approached the group, identified himself and patted down the men’s clothes – effectively, stopping and frisking them. The pat-down revealed that two of them were carrying illegally concealed firearms and burglars’ tools.

The men challenged the constitutionality of the initial stop and the subsequent pat-down.

When the case got to the Supreme Court, the justices established that stop-and-frisk was a practice fundamentally different than a search or seizure as specified by the Fourth Amendment. They concluded that the police officer had what they called a “reasonable suspicion” that the suspects were preparing to burglarize the store.

The court also ruled that police could pat down suspects to ensure they aren’t armed with weapons that could be used against the officers.

Taken together, the ruling gives police broad authority to decide when, whether and why to stop, question and frisk people.

In several rulings since 1968, the Supreme Court has expanded officers’ power to stop members of the public. That expanded power includes stopping someone in the open concourse area of an airport and requesting to see person’s ticket and identification, briefly searching a car for hidden weapons, stopping people for minor infractions while really investigating more serious crimes and even frisking people under the pretext of looking for weapons in hopes of finding drugs.

Left unchecked, all that discretion could lead to discriminatory, racially unjust and unconstitutional behavior in which blacks and Hispanics are targeted more often than their proportion of the population would suggest they should be.

A broad strategy

At its core, the stop-and-frisk approach is supposed to rely on more than a hunch. But the low burden of proof, the large discretion granted to police and the relatively invisible nature of these sorts of encounters combine to create real potential for abuse. Indeed, several U.S. police departments turned stop-and-frisk tactics into a wider, more aggressive strategy to cut down on crime.

Since 2002, New York City police officers, for instance, have stopped, questioned and often frisked hundreds of thousands of people each year. Police conducted more than 685,000 stops in 2011 alone. Over 82% of the people stopped were black or Hispanic, in a city where 52% of the population is black or Hispanic. Just 12% of all stops – of people of any race – resulted in an arrest or a summons.

Based on that data, a federal judge ruled in 2013 that the New York Police Department had unconstitutionally racially profiled its stop-and-frisk targets.

That year, New York police stopped 191,851 people; since 2014, under Bloomberg’s successor Mayor Bill DeBlasio, the number has dropped steadily. In 2018, just 11,008 people were stopped, and 31% of the stops resulted in an arrest or a summons.

As mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg warned that a judge’s 2013 ruling restricting ‘stop-and-frisk’ policing could bring rising crime rates. Since the ruling, crime has stayed historically low.
AP Photo/Seth Wenig

Taking on crime

New York’s aggressive stopping-and-frisking practices happened at the same time as changes within the city’s police department, including a strategy in which police commanders identified what they called “high-crime areas” and flooded those locations with officers on foot patrols.

During that same time frame, the city’s crime rate dropped – especially its murder rate.

But crime rates stayed historically low even after officers dramatically reduced the frequency of stop-and-frisk encounters, signaling that other circumstances – not stop-and-frisk – drove the crime rate lower.

A path forward, with caution

Despite those problems in New York, we believe that it is possible for stop-and-frisk to succeed in contemporary policing – so long as it is not used broadly and indiscriminately.

Officers can be fair to suspects if they stop and question a person only when objective circumstances give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity – and if they frisk that person only when clear facts suggest the person may be armed.

For instance, it could be appropriate for an officer to stop and frisk someone on the street for wearing a trench coat in hot weather. Another example that could warrant a stop-and-frisk would be if an officer sees someone repeatedly entering and leaving a bank or store without doing any business inside.

Those situations don’t depend on the race or ethnicity of the potential suspect. Racial or ethnic characteristics should be part of an officer’s decision to stop someone only if the person in other ways matches a description of a criminal suspect police are seeking.

Given the pervasiveness of racism and implicit bias, we believe that police departments that use stop-and-frisk tactics should be actively on guard against officers’ misuse of police power.

That includes careful recruitment and selection of new officers, excellent training and clearly written policies. Moreover, officers must be supervised in ways that increase accountability and transparency, potentially involving external oversight.

Body-worn cameras offer an opportunity for police departments to monitor and control officer decision-making during stop-and-frisk activities. Supervisors, training officers and even community members could systematically review body-worn camera footage as part of efforts to hold officers accountable for staying within the bounds of department policies and constitutional limitations.

If used properly, we believe, stop-and-frisk can be successfully and legitimately used while treating people with dignity and respect and giving suspects fair opportunities to tell their sides of the story. By making decisions fairly and acting with trustworthy motives, officers can ensure public safety while honoring citizens’ constitutional rights.

[ Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day. ]The Conversation

Henry F. Fradella, Professor and Associate Director, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University and Michael D. White, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

This article was originally published at The Conversation and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Yeah, no.

    As someone who may or may not have carried concealed outside the restrictions of a government permission slip, I carried in mild fear of being stopped for any reason and “Terry” frisked. Someone who was carrying without the restrictions would most likely lose their permission slip at the very least. Jail was a real possibility.

    So, a person could be minding their own business while “illegally” (but not immorally) carrying, get stopped, get frisked “for officer safety”, and be punished.

    Not acceptable.

    Just my 2¢

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      “…carrying without the…”

      “outside”, not “without”.

      “Edit, come back!”

    2. avatar Ark says:

      Yup, 4th Amendment all day long. Unless you directly observe me committing a crime or a person of my description was reported committing a crime immediately prior, fuck off and keep your hands off me. The police don’t need the power to shake people down on a whim. We’ve seen how they use it.

      1. avatar JohnQ says:

        And, no you are wrong.

        Terry v Ohio and Graham v Connor.

        If the police have reasonable suspicion to stop you, they can. If you fight about it, you will be committing another crime and be charged with it.
        If they use force against you because you fought about the Terry stop, it is your fault. Period.
        If they observe you committing a crime, they skip those to cases and go straight to Miranda and take you to jail.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          JohnQ,

          Commenter Ark above was not describing current jurisprudence. Rather, Ark was describing what is righteous.

          It should come as no surprise that modern jurisprudence often fails to be righteous.

        2. avatar SKP5885 says:

          “Another crime”???? What was the first crime? Suspicion is not proof of a crime. Right there shows the fallacy of your thought process.

        3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          Terry was wrongly decided and should be overturned. A government employee should have no privilege to touch a citizen without a warrant.

        4. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          No you’re wrong. Just because “government”, whether fed, state, or local, makes a law, it doesn’t make it legal. All of these gun laws and “stop&frisk” laws are 100% unconstitutional. The government has no authority to create a law that infringes on our basic human rights and definitely not for “suspicious activity”! Suspicion is totally subjective based on nothing but the cop’s opinion. The Supreme Court got this one 100% WRONG! Explain to me how stop-and-frisk is fundamentally different than a search or seizure as specified by the Fourth Amendment. Make a note that the SCOTUS in 1968 had 6 leftists and 3 “conservatives”, does that tell you why they got it wrong?

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Ok, one more time….

          The Fourth says “unreasonable” search. What specifically does unreasonable mean? The next sentence in the fourth regards “warrants”, yet does not preclude issuing warrants for unreasonable searches. The implication is that the unreasonable search must be made lawful through the issuance of a specific warrant. Neither sentence prohibits “reasonable” searches, nor is there a requirement that all searches must be reasonable. Or that even “reasonable” searches must be accompanied by a detailed warrant.

          The constitution does not define “unreasonable”. Commonly, we like to say that “unreasonable” implies “warrantless”, yet that is not clear in the constitution, nor the BOR.

          The SC declared suspicion of illegal activity is a “reasonable” grounds for search. To wit: Civilian Asset Forfeiture. Such searches do not require warrants, as that type search is, by implication, not unreasonable.

          Not here to justify, or oppose a particular type of search, only to point out that proclaiming something about the Constitution (as in absolute words) does not make it so.

        6. WRONG, traitor-troll:

          “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

          That is ONE SENTENCE, or in other words, intended to be taken in its ENTIRETY. All of the terms are DEPENDENT upon the other terms employed. How about you pull your head out sycophant, and start supporting freedom and liberty as it was INTENDED. Instead of perversely attempting to justify tyranny and usurpation?

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Sorry, I don’t engage children.

        8. And it shows, because you don’t even engage that imbecilic child in your treasonous skull.

  2. avatar Leighton says:

    Have dogs trained for guns/ammo/residue …can that be done?
    If so… an alert would be probable cause for search.

    1. avatar arc says:

      No money in it, dogs will be trained to sit on command like party drug dogs are.

    2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      US vs Ubiles IIRC, In a place where a gun may be legally owned and carried the mere presence of a gun is not reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

      1. avatar Leighton says:

        So it could be used in NewYork or Chicago with no problem…or any place where handguns are restricted… like gun free zones?

        1. avatar JohnQ says:

          Tread carefully there. While the mere presence of a gun is not a crime nor does it trigger reasonable suspicion in most places, there are some exceptions.

          Chiraq and Kalifornia are 2 major ones as there are some municipal laws on the books that make SEEING a gun on someone a crime. In those cases, US vs Ubiles (you got it right) does not apply there.

          Anywhere where carrying a firearm openly is not against a law, you would be okay.

    3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I vote no. What if I had been at the gun range within the past 24 hours, or cleaning my guns, or reloading, or….or….or…and was stopped by a K9 team even though I had no guns or ammo on me at that time and exhibited none of the “reasonably suspicious” behaviors a human being would normally see as probably cause? Just a dog’s nose going off?

      Nope. No thanks.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        Just like Clever Hans, the horse who allegedly could do math, animals will respond to their handlers expectations and dogs and humans will especially do so. I would trust a [insert object of interest here]-sniffing dog no more than I would trust its handler. If the handler wants to find [insert object of interest here], the dog no matter how well trained as a [insert object of interest here]-sniffing dog would really hate to disappoint the handler. I’ve seen this happen at airports with the final result being, sorry about the inconvenience but the dog…, we had to investigate.
        Now, my Elephants, they would never do that. They could care less about disappointing me.

    4. Really? Even though We The People’s Constitution, Amendment II, Restrictive clause explicitly states:

      “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      Please explain how that justifies violation of two Amendments?

    5. avatar Merle 0 says:

      They could train dogs to do so but it would be a waste of money and a dog, as there are more important jobs for dogs to do.

    6. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Have dogs trained for guns/ammo/residue …can that be done?”

      Yes, has been done, by the Canadians at border control entry points. A few weeks ago I watched a YouTube video on Canadian customs enforcement. And the reason they do it is because of US concealed carry permits. On entry to Canada, they will run your name, and if you are concealed carry permit holder you will get extra attention. They will ask you if you are SURE you haven’t even inadvertently brought in ammo or firearms you haven’t declared.

      And at least on this particular episode, the weren’t Nazis about it, especially if you declared everything on your customs form. The one fellow who declared his carry piece was explained to that he could not enter with it, and was offered the opportunity to go back to the American side and leave it there. What they call “Assault rifles” are not allowed, or magazines over 10 rounds capacity. Getting caught with an undeclared handgun will get you a criminal charge.

      If they see on entry you are carry person, you will get extra attention, like a search, and their dog may sniff you and your vehicle as well. The dog has been trained to sniff out guns, along with drugs or cash…

    7. avatar Greg says:

      Yes, Disney employs them at their parks. They are scary effective.

  3. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    THAT is the Supreme Law of the Land regardless of what the court opines. The court was never given the power to set aside or diminish our rights. And there was never any such authority ever even hinted at in our founding documents. In fact the exact opposite is the case, the courts were designed to be the guardians of our rights:

    “If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.”–James Madison, [U.S.] House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789.

    So much for that security, eh?

  4. avatar Red in CO says:

    Nope! Any excercise of government power to prevent people from carrying weapons is fundamentally illegitimate. Constitutional Carry should be the law in all 50 states and the further we get from that goal the worse we all are. Stop and frisk is constitutionally regressive

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      FIFY
      Constitutional Carry is the law in all 50 states,under the Constitution,unless some states opted out of the 14 th amendment as they seem to when it comes to the 2 nd.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeah let’s be “careful” behaving as Gestapo. This author is full of guano…

  6. avatar Swarf says:

    Fuck that racist bullshit, and fuck your weak-livered defense of it.

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Wut?

      1. avatar Swarf says:

        Which part didn’t you understand?

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          You wrote your comment like a 12-yr-old who just learned a bunch of cuss words from his big brother. If you overuse them, they lose their punch and turn into white noise.

          Like what you did above.

          Try using your big boy words and elaborating your thoughts into a coherent debate.

      2. avatar guest says:

        Pretty clear to me. He says he disagrees with the authors defence of a program that targets people who aren’t white and violates their 4th amendment rights because they look a certain way.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      So it’s racist to observe basic crime statistics? The reason more minorities were stoped in New York City was because minorities in New York City commit most of the violent crime. Claiming that law enforcement should not use racial profiling is basically telling them that a Wall Street investment banker is just as likely to stick up a bodega as the guy in a dew rag with his pants around his ankles.

      1. avatar guest says:

        88% weren’t charged or summoned. The color of crime might lean a certain way, but the 4th amendment doesn’t. Full stop.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        The reason that profiling is considered wrong is this: It takes a generalization, and applies it to an individual.
        That more blacks commit crimes than whites does not mean that any individual black person is a criminal, nor that any individual white person is not.
        Therefore, the protections against unreasonable searches must apply to every individual, regardless of what class the police think he belongs to.

      3. avatar klaus Von Schmitto says:

        To be fair Wall Street investment bankers are more likely to stick up a country than a doo rag wearing guy with his pants around his ankles.

  7. avatar GS650G says:

    They are upset people of color were stopped more often. I wonder why cops think that’s who commits crimes?

    1. avatar Cory C. says:

      That misses the point. We have individual liberties in this country, not collective liberties. The only question that matters is whether the individual in question has engaged in conduct that warrants his being searched, detained, etc.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street. If the cops can provide articulable cause, that’s enough for them to stop you. If they stop you, they have every right to pat you down for whatever crap you’re hauling. If you’re not a criminal, it’s not a big deal. It takes all of 30 seconds and it takes criminal lowlives off of the street. If our court refuse to publicly execute gangbangers, then this is a good backup plan.

        1. avatar grendal says:

          It wouldn’t be a big deal if there wasn’t unconstitutional laws passed that make it illegal.

          But, I have a question. If I’m openly carrying a deadly weapon as my right what then is the point of patting me down? Taking my weapon if there isn’t a legal reason for an arrest? Or even if i declare I’m armed if it is supposed consentual?

          Because of officer safety? I can’t just assume everyone I randomly meet will shoot me why do they get to?

        2. avatar guest says:

          If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Might as well let the govt install microphones and monitor your texts and emails.

        3. avatar Swarf says:

          And yet you say you hate Communism.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public street.”

          “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,…” [emphasis added]
          The fourth amendment would like a word with you.

        5. avatar Matt Williams says:

          False.

          There is a right to privacy on public streets. And just because you’ve done something illegal or are suspected of doing something illegal, does not, in fact, entirely obviate the due process or the need for a warrant. Nor can police search you to discover “whatever crap you’re hauling.”

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There is a right to privacy on public streets. ”

          Citation, please.

        7. Article the fourth… The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          Take a hike, you treasonous p.o.s.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Terry v Ohio would disagree.

        9. avatar Matt Williams says:

          “Terry v Ohio would disagree”

          No it wouldn’t. Read it.

        10. avatar Matt Williams says:

          “There is a right to privacy on public streets. ”

          Citation, please.

          If there weren’t, the police could search you for anything they wanted, without a reason. They can’t.

        11. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          FYI
          Security cameras, public and private have eliminated privacy in public as well as private areas.

          And don’t forget the badge cam. The one the Libertarians Liberals and the Left all demanded the police have now.

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    It may or not work,however it’s un Constitutional,so Eff No.

  9. avatar Ton E says:

    Tell that to majority of those stopped and frisked who weren’t committing any wrongdoing. The NYPDs stop, question and frisk was poorly applied and shouldn’t have happened in the first place you shake down the innocent people in the neighborhoods that were targeted of course crime will go down because everyone is being stopped it’s just most of those who were stopped were committing a crime.

    1. avatar Ton E says:

      The majority weren’t committing a crime*

  10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu to pick and choose which ones you support and which ones can be essentially nullified because ignoring them ‘might’ work to achieve a public benefit. An assault on the 4th Amendment is an assault on the 2nd. Pretty much that simple.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      It’s also an assault on the 1A and arguably the 9A as well.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        The real lawbreakers here are the NYC authorities.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      I fail to see how the 4th amendment applies. I would consider a basic patdown based on articulable cause entirely reasonable.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

        So the item that is being searched for is an item that is supposedly a guaranteed right to possess under the 2nd Amendment, but since you’ve been denied your 2nd Amendment rights on the whims of state or local tyrants, you think that it isn’t ‘unreasonable’ to randomly search anybody that the local gestapo thinks looks suspicious? What do you suppose the LEOs would do if they found a weapon on your person if they weren’t denying you 2nd Amendment rights? ‘Aha! I knew you had a weapon! Now good day sir, and sorry for the inconvenience.’ By your logic, if they made pens illegal then it wouldn’t be ‘unreasonable’ for them to do a full cavity search to make sure you weren’t keister stashing a writing implement. Of course, that wouldn’t be a violation of your 1st Amendment rights either, now would it? On top of all that, ‘probable cause’ is not in itself justification of a search according to the 4th Amendment, but justification for a search ‘warrant’ to be issued by a judge.

        Seriously Serge, you usually make a lot more sense than this.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Reason is in the eye of the beholder. I’m much more concerned drugs than guns. It says unreasonable search, not warrantless search. In a free state, stop and frisk would be meaningless as a 2nd amendment issue. It becomes a drug enforcement issue. I have no problem with the cops shaking down a dude hanging around on a street corner peddling poison to the locals.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          On a side note… Probable cause is ENTIRELY enough justification for a search. That’s the standard for every warrant application under the sun. Exigency can wave the warrant requirement altogether. After all, if you go out and wake up a judge the drug dealer has plenty of time to flush his stash, etc… What we’re talking about is articulable cause. aka the Cop can put into words a reasonable explanation for why he stopped that particular subject.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I don’t disagree with you on probable cause, but that’s not what stop and frisk is. Stop and frisk is stopping people without probable cause and searching them. That’s a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That’s a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.”

          “unreasonable search…” is vague. It allows for “reasonable” search. Where, in the Constitution do we find those two terms strictly defined? Indeed, where is “probable cause” defined in the Fourth?

          Life is quite simple when we proceed as if we are correct in all out assumptions and understanding, but life becomes complex when we decide to question our correctness and assumptions.

        5. There is no such thing as a “reasonable” search in a FREE country, you ignoramus.

          Unreasonable

          UNRE’ASONABLE, adjective s as z.

          1. Not agreeable to reason.

          2. Exceeding the bounds of reason; claiming or insisting on more than is fit; as an unreasonable demand.

          3. Immoderate; exorbitant; as an unreasonable love of life or of money.

          4. Irrational. [In this sense, see Irrational.]

          And it is qualified on the conditions of; “shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

          So take your pet theories and ram them where the sun don’t shine, traitor. You are a total disgrace to American citizenry.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          I can argue that stop and frisk is less intrusive than a search warrant and arguably no more intrusive than a Terry stop. A lower level of intrusion leads to a lower threshold for reasonableness.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        “I would consider a basic patdown based on articulable cause entirely reasonable.”

        The term “articulable cause” is undefined, and therefore can’t be used to defend something that is otherwise unconstitutional.
        I’ve been reading more and more articles lately where courts are saying that such a stop, while possibly legal, isn’t to be used as a reason for a fishing expedition.
        Three black men walking back and forth in front of a closed store, looking into the window several times, may mean they are casing the joint. It also may mean they are simply admiring an item in the window and trying to decide if one of them should buy it tomorrow. Without knowing (or even having a reasonable suspicion) that the former is the case, stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional on its face. Stop-and-ask is probably OK, but being presented with the latter reason for them being there should end the interaction. The color of the men is immaterial.

      3. avatar Matt Williams says:

        That’s how the Fourth Amendment applies. What you probably mean is that you agree that type of search does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

      4. In a communist country perhaps. Do you even have the faintest conception of what our intended freedom and liberty is all about? Why would any of We The People; “the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY” in our Constitutional Republic. Agree to be groped by our hired servants if we have done nothing wrong? Why in the hell would you agree to the reckless disregard of our rights which our forefathers spilled their blood, sweat and tears to secure for us? What in the hell kind of “citizen” are you anyways?

  11. avatar Hannibal says:

    Stop and frisk is both a very useful policing tool (when used correctly) and a fairly obtrusive intervention into the lives of people. Imagine walking down the street and being able to be manhandled with little recourse when you’ve done nothing wrong. Then imagine it happening more than once. The innocent are always subject to some intrusion in an imperfect justice system but stop and frisk is particularly pernicious. Unfortunately, because of the relatively low standard of evidence needed, it’s almost impossible to regulate away the bad usage from the good. I rarely put hands on someone unless I had consent or had enough evidence to arrest (probable cause). But then, I’ve never worked in Baltimore, Chicago or NYC.

    “But his apology, made at a predominantly black church in Brooklyn, puzzled many observers…”

    I doubt that it is puzzling to anyone.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “But his apology, made at a predominantly black church in Brooklyn, puzzled many observers…”

      I doubt that it is puzzling to anyone.

      Of course it wasn’t. Instead, everyone with any intelligence at all understood it is to his personal benefit to say whatever he thinks will get him elected.
      Which is what leads me to question the intelligence of the writers here.

  12. avatar Pissed off in Nevada says:

    Fuck the piece of shit who wrote this. Commie fuckhead thinks its ok to search peoples stuff with no hard evidence? How is this any different than red flag laws. Editors shouldn’t let this asshole post anything else on this website.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Are you so fragile that you can’t bear to see an opinion to the contrary? Are you so lacking in arguments that you must seek to prevent those who hold opposing views from even being heard? Sad.

      1. There is and was never intended to be any argument against a CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHT. For that was the whole intended purpose of SECURING THE RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION TO BEGIN WITH. In order to REMOVE IT FROM ALL DEBATE.

  13. avatar jwm says:

    Simply having a gun on you is not a crime and should not be treated as such.

    1. avatar Leighton says:

      Unless you are a prohibited person…but how would you know? Maybe a records check by ID? How intrusive is that?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Unless the person in question is committing a crime other than walking down the street why would you question his legal status to own a firearm?

        Unless there is a very real and easy to define violation of the law why would a cop have the right to question your right to carry a gun?

      2. avatar Jordan says:

        “Papers comrade.”

      3. avatar Big Bill says:

        “Maybe a records check by ID? How intrusive is that?”

        “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,…”
        It is unconstitutionally intrusive.
        It’s easy to think that dong a search into someone else’s background for walking down the street is perfectly fine.
        But what if it were you being checked? Would you think that’s fine, too?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…against unreasonable searches and seizures…”

          “unreasonable” is a fungible term. however, it clearly doesn’t mean “any”.

          The “no warrants” is not a prohibition of “reasonable” searches, but the prohibition of “general” warrants (fishing expeditions) that were so popular with the British rulers of the time. The text of the Fourth has holes big enough to drive a dump truck through.

          Bottom line? A “reasonable” search and seizure does not require issuing a judicial warrant. If we want “unreasonable” to mean “any”, an amendment to the Constitution is needed.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “If we want “unreasonable” to mean “any”, an amendment to the Constitution is needed.”

          Nice change of the goalpost there.
          I didn’t say “any,” I said a stop to check your ID is unconstitutional if the stop was unconstitutional in the first place. You’re better than this, I’ve seen it.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I said a stop to check your ID is unconstitutional if the stop was unconstitutional in the first place.”

          Agreed. The departure is the definition of “unreasonable”. The wording of the 4th leaves a lot unsettled. Some believe that any search requires a warrant. That would open the door to warrants being the kryptonite to “unreasonable”. The implication being that what the person considers “unreasonable” is suddenly “reasonable” because a warrant was issued.

          Taking the events of the day into account, FISA warrants (secret, not to be shown to the target, based on unreliable grounds) are magically legal/constitutional. Such warrants turn “unreasonable” into “reasonable”.

          If, however, a search is “reasonable” on its face (frisking an armed robber), does it require a warrant? Apparently not, as such searches are considered “reasonable” because “probable cause” exists. Yet, there is no specific constitutional permission granted government to make police searches of armed suspects without first a warrant. If that is so, the entire jurisprudence surrounding “exigent circumstance” and “hot pursuit” are grossly unconstitutional.

          The implication of “unreasonable” is there must be a “reasonable”. My remark about “any” deals with the idea that a search warrant must be issued under any circumstance. If that was the intent of the founders, how did they overlook the simple term “any”?

          All in all, just pointing out that what many think is simple, is more complex.

      4. avatar Robert Messmer says:

        Leighton says:
        December 7, 2019 at 16:53
        Unless you are a prohibited person…but how would you know? Maybe a records check by ID? How intrusive is that?

        Define “prohibited person” using only the Second Amendment as written, not as it has been mis-interpreted (deliberately) by the government.

  14. avatar Merle 0 says:

    I’m down with some stop and frisk only if they pass a law requiring all cops to be female… and I just can’t drive 55 baby…

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Does that qualify as “getting frisky”?

      (see what I did there?…)

  15. avatar strych9 says:

    Imagining for a second that there was a perfect way to conduct this…

    I’m still not particularly comfortable with the idea. It’s too easy to abuse. There are some powers that, even if they could be used “perfectly”, no one should have specifically because they’re too easy and too tempting to misuse. This is one of them.

  16. avatar Eric O says:

    And people wonder why they believe the feds have the power to infringe on the 2A. It’s sad to see “defenders” of liberty so easily giving up other people’s rights.

    Red coats dressed in blue are still red coats.

  17. avatar DrDKW says:

    So Bloomie now says ‘Stop and Frisk’ was wrong, but Search & Seizure’, without due process is OK?!

  18. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Well, hell….

    What’s the point of having power if you can’t abuse it?

    Just foolishness and twaddle from pointy-head academics.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Power corrupts. Absolute power…..is kinda nice.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

  19. avatar JimmyatNight says:

    The larger issue is that probable cause is a vague concept and our courts accept all manner of justifications that cannot be verified. What is suspicious behavior? If a trench coat in the summer is something to be suspicious of, what about baggy pants and hoodies? There have been cases where people have been arrested as the result of illegal wiretaps, but police attribute the PC to an anonymous informant. If the police can’t walk their probable cause into court, they shouldn’t use it.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Probable cause is not the issue here. Stop and frisk is based around ‘reasonable articulatable suspicion.’

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        “Stop and frisk is based around ‘reasonable articulatable suspicion.’”

        Not in NYC, it wasn’t.
        The figures speak for themselves. With such a low rate of actually finding illegal activity (that borders on what it would be by simply randomly stopping and frisking people without any suspicion at all), it was clearly unconstitutional.
        It comes extremely close to just picking a house at random (or worse, based on the race of the people who lived or visited there), and searching it to see what could be found.

  20. avatar Leighton says:

    What happens when they develop portable technology that lets a cop or scanner “see” guns through clothing without a huge power supply?
    Maybe cities/companies will set up metal detectors to enforce gun free zones? What then?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Maybe cities/companies will set up metal detectors to enforce gun free zones? What then?”

      Enforced how? Many of the same cities/companies don’t want police armed, and besides, they don’t want public places to look like prisons.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Sam I Am,

        I believe Leighton is referring to Terahertz systems which use really, REALLY high frequencies to see metallic objects underneath clothes. It is similar to radar where you have an emitter and a receiver at the same location: the emitter “shines” outward and the receiver sees whatever reflects back. In this case THz radio waves penetrate clothing and reflect back from metallic objects. And because THz radio waves have such tiny wavelengths, it is possible to discern very small details, such as the distinct outline of a handgun on a person’s body from 100+ feet away.

        Police could use such a system at a public location to see metallic objects under people’s clothing. And all people would see (if they noticed at all) was someone running what looked like a late 1980s video camera.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Understand about the technology. Once worked with a guy who had a patent for what you describe, and submitted to DHS for airport screening (didn’t get a contract). However….

          Once a prohibited device is detected, it must be dealt with. Given the controversy over guns on school grounds (and public places), in oh so politically woke places, who or what will do the actual enforcement? A single enforcer in high traffic areas will be insufficient.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Sam I Am says, “Once a prohibited device is detected, it must be dealt with.”

          An arguably good point.
          The problem I have with it is this: any device can be declared prohibited.
          At present, in London, a pocket knife is a prohibited device. Is this making violence any less? No.
          By focusing on the tool instead of the person, we make the same argument the anti-gunners do: it’s the gun (or any other prohibited item).
          1984 is a good book.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The problem I have with it is this: any device can be declared prohibited.”

          The whole, “prove you are innocent” thing is problematic. As is the safety issue. Do we declare that the public must accept the risk of a terrorist attack (or angry “message” from someone who should be locked up)? Do we work on making it too difficult to actually do harm? (GFZ and airport “security” don’t get the job done)

    2. avatar UpInArms says:

      Already here. If there was an RFID chip glued to every gun, a small hand-held scanner would find it. No touching needed.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        1. If there were an RFID chip glued to each gun, it could be removed. And that’s a huge “if.”
        2. The range of a passive RFID chip is 20 feet, at best with the right chip and reader. At worst, under 3 feet.
        “Wide Receiver” under Bush tried using chips on guns let into Mexico, but the cartels discovered them, and simply took them off.

  21. avatar Chris Morton says:

    We all know that police aren’t GOING to be “under careful supervision”. In practice, they’re usually as well supervised as the cops who shot Emma Hernandez and Margie Carranza and rammed David Perdue’s vehicle.

    They’re going to do what they’ve always done and take shortcuts, ignore “policy” (nevermind the law), make up law out of whole cloth and direct their attention primarily to those perceived as lacking in resources to protect their rights.

    The fly in the ointment is of course the proliferation of portable audio and video recording equipment. It’s why cops so often unlawfully try to prevent their activities from being recorded. Dubious policies like “stop and frisk”, especially as REALLY implemented on the street, are veritable lawsuit (and sometimes criminal prosecution) generating machines. The James Frascatores of the world will end up making a lot of lawyers (and a few plaintiffs) very well off. Of course they’ll cripple or kill a few innocent people as well.

    Some of this will arise out of racial and ethnic bias, but the vast majority of it will arise out of simple contempt for non-police of ANY color. Carolina Obrycka and Justine Damond were, in the words of Weird Al, “Whiter than sour cream”.

    “Stop and frisk” will create more crimes BY POLICE than it will prevent crimes by citizens.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “We all know that police aren’t GOING to be “under careful supervision”. ”

      The leftists, liberals, statists, authoritarians are always telling everyone that intrusions into private lives by police are not to be feared….if you have nothing to hide.

      Why shouldn’t that mantra be shoved up their noses about all police encounters?

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        Why have I never seen a case where the police obviously f-uped and they were forced to accept it by a prosecutor refusing to prosecute, a judge refusing to hear the case on lack of merits or a jury deciding against them, and the police issue an apology and offer to refund the legal costs of defending against false charges invented by the police? Because the police are never wrong, that is why they are given such wide latitude with our rights, and prosecutors, judges and juries are wimps incapable of enforcing the law as the police see fit. After all, the process is the punishment. All the police need to do is falsely charge you and automatically you are out of 10s of thousands to millions of dollars in attorney fees (depending on charges) even though you committed no crime.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          If you haven’t seen those cases it must be because you haven’t tried looking. There are many cases that have been dismissed due to police misconduct, plenty of which can be found easily with a google search. In some cases dozens of defendants had charges dropped or convictions overturned because the arresting officers were later found to be liars. There are also cases where the police did apologize, often as part of a settlement deal. Other cases have occurred where a homeowner shot at or even killed police because they were improperly breaking down his door (wrong house, etc) and he was not convicted or, in some cases, charged.

        2. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          “as part of a settlement deal”
          You obviously were too quick to post and did not read what I posted nor did you search for an example of a case I described. I am still waiting for the spontaneous “Sorry we effed up and here is some cash to cover your what but for our blunder otherwise unwarranted legal fees.”
          I am not anti-LEO.
          Why shouldn’t they acknowledge their f-up, admit that defense against even baseless charges is not free and compensate those wronged without need for further legal fees and court time in a lawsuit? Because they know defense is not free and that is the punishment they want to inflict. They know they don’t have a case that will hold water in court, so they arrest you anyway. Too bad. I never found a case where the innocent victim was compensated for the costs without resorting to legal action.

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          Hannibal and the Elephants said:
          “I am still waiting for the spontaneous “Sorry we effed up and here is some cash to cover your what but for our blunder otherwise unwarranted legal fees.””

          And you will continue to wait, because the vast majority (if not all) governments (local, state and federal) forbid such spontaneous cash payouts.
          Failure to find any illegal action is proof of nothing.

  22. avatar John W Weber says:

    The bottom line is this, stop and frisk worked. But as usual it’s not what’s right or wrong it’s always “political correctness” it is what it is. To many minorities get caught breaking the law and political correctness kicks in.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      A lot of things will work to curb crime. Cameras in every home with direct links to the police station will curb crime.

      We either have rights and freedoms or we do not. Is that to PC for you?

      1. avatar Merle 0 says:

        If they put a camera in my home that would be their loss 😛

        1. avatar jwm says:

          For real. I’m a fat, pasty white old dude. Install a camera in my house and I’ll walk around buck ass nekkid. The cops at the station will cover that screen with construction paper and I’ll have privacy again.

    2. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Internal passports, preventive detention and torture “worked” in the Soviet Union too.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Internal passports, preventive detention and torture “worked” in the Soviet Union too.”

        Just got my notice of renewal for my driver’s license. They want all kinds of data they never asked before. Data like an original, not a xerox of my birth certificate and SSN# card.

        This new ‘enhanced’ driver license will soon be needed to board a commercial airliner in the US.

        If that isn’t an ‘internal passport’, what is?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I opted out. I can use my passport. But unless its life or death I will never fly again. Fuck them.

        2. avatar Chris Morton says:

          I haven’t flown since the Clinton administration.

    3. avatar disgruntled says:

      12% of stops resulted in summons or arrests, I wonder how many resulted in convictions? How many convictions for serious crimes that weren’t a bag of weed? That’s not worth the erasure of the 4th amendment.

    4. avatar BigNick says:

      The bottom line is this Stop an Frisk did not work. The drop in crime continued after stop and frisk ended. Obviously other factors were involved. As for your “political correctness” claim- for the year 2011, 685,00 people were stopped. 82% were African American or latino, that’s 561,700 people. 12% resulted in arrests or summons, that’s 82,200. If EVERY SINGLE arrest was a minority, that means 479,500 Americans, whose only crime was the color of their skin, were harassed by the police. That’s not P.C., that’s B.S.

  23. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Terry was wrongly decided and should be overturned. A government employee should not be allowed to touch any citizen without a warrant. The rights of a citizen are more important than the life of a government employee.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Terry was wrongly decided and should be overturned.”

      Well, Leftists believe that Heller, McDonald etc. was also wrongly decided and if elected, promise to appoint SCOTUS justices to reverse it.

      Two can play at that game…

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Those decisions protect the rights of a citizen. Terry protects the privileges of the parasite class. Nothing in the 4th Amendment gives government employees any privilege to search Americans without a warrant.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      “A government employee should not be allowed to touch any citizen without a warrant.”

      Blanket statements suck, pure and simple.
      What if you’re involved in a traffic crash, and require life-saving treatment by a fire department EMT?
      Only one example of a myriad of possibilities.
      I understand what you’re trying to say, though.
      But then, any number (and that number is quite high) of injustices are done by government employees every day without touching anyone.

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The EMTs where I live are private employees. Do you prefer “lay hands upon in an aggressive manner”?

        If it is a crime for a citizen to touch a cop, then it should be a crime for a cop to touch a citizen. PERIOD.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          What I actually prefer is more thought before posting. Blanket statements like yours are just no right.
          Whether the EMTs in your area are private (not government employees) is a moot point; it does not mean ALL EMTs are private. It also doesn’t address the need of many governmental employees to lay hands on private citizens “in an aggressive manner,” such as to pull them out of a burning car, or tackle them while they are committing a violent felony.
          Blanket statements suck.

  24. avatar Dude says:

    “But crime rates stayed historically low even after officers dramatically reduced the frequency of stop-and-frisk encounters, signaling that other circumstances – not stop-and-frisk – drove the crime rate lower.”

    Therefore stop-and-frisk isn’t needed.

  25. avatar Dan W says:

    It’s not acceptable to point it out but non whites are responsible for 95%+ of the shootings in NYC.
    Banning non-whites from firearm ownership is what would be called common sense gun control if there was any honesty left.

    1. avatar Mitch says:

      Yeah, go ahead and say that to a black man’s face, bro. I bet you live in your Mom’s basement, you turd stain.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Is that an argument? Just because you don’t like the facts, doesn’t mean you can discard them. The reality is that the US has a serious criminal underclass problem. That underclass also happens to be overwhelmingly “minority”. Until we deal more harshly with career criminals, these sorts of things are unavoidable. Simple fact is, so long as leftists judges and DAs keep letting gangbangers back out onto the street, we’ll all suffer.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “Simple fact is, so long as leftists judges and DAs keep letting gangbangers back out onto the street, we’ll all suffer.”

          Yep, and it looks like it’s only going to get worse. We have the model on how to fix places like Chicago, Memphis, etc. The model is New York City. At it’s peak in the 90’s, it was worse than current day Chicago. It’s amazing how they turned it around. The model includes a heavy police presence in crime ridden areas and prosecution of not just violent crime, but small crimes as well. As the data above points out, stop and frisk isn’t required. With a model existing for so long, why aren’t the “problem solvers” implementing it?

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Yep, and it looks like it’s only going to get worse.”

          Respectfully disagree. If we get national concealed carry declared expressly constitutional from the ‘NY Pistol’ decision, thugs may be less inclined to prey on people, since their potential victims will have a good shot at being armed…

        3. avatar Big Bill says:

          pwrserge says:
          “The reality is that the US has a serious criminal underclass problem. That underclass also happens to be overwhelmingly “minority”. Until we deal more harshly with career criminals, these sorts of things are unavoidable.”

          The fact that the underclass you describe happens to be “minority” simply does not mean every “minority” is included in that underclass.
          To even suggest, therefore, that any or all members of that “minority” be treated as being under suspicion of being part of that underclass without evidence is just wrong.

        4. avatar Chris Morton says:

          It’s far safer and easier for cops to harass non-criminals and petty criminals than to go after serious felons.

          The Black guy going into his apartment after work isn’t going to stab or shoot the cop, even if the cop beats him for no reason.

          This isn’t about making anybody but the cop safer.

        5. avatar Dude says:

          Geoff, I’m referring to the trend of leftist judges and DAs going soft on crime. It’s a serious issue that is trending in the wrong direction.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        You guys sound like you’re ready to throw your support to kapo bloomberg. I’ve been saying how racist the socialists are. You guys need to swing on over to vlad’s and miner49er’s camp.

        1. avatar Dan W says:

          Over here in the real world if we had a whole lot more racism we could have a whole lot less gun control. Because it’s racist to actually solve the problem gun control is the solution and guess what, whites are the majority of gun owners and the only pro gun demographic.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          You are pants on headed retarded, dan w. You think your socialists buddies will stop at disarming minorities? And you gleefully announce that rights and freedoms are not absolute and you expect them to respect yours because you’re white?

          vlad and miner49er have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

      3. avatar In for a penny, In for a pound says:

        If the black guy couldn’t control himself and resorted to violence over words, then they have become an imminet threat of bodily harm and deserve to be injected with hot lead. The problem is the black culture, not the guns. It sucks as a White person to have our rights lowered because low income minorities act like the third world they place before the hyphen.

  26. avatar Mitch says:

    Absolutely NOT! The police state in this country is beyond Orwellian, it’s often terrifying. To who ever wrote this- know that these policies will NEVER be tolerated again.

  27. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Someday, God willing, Terry v. Ohio will be ranked up there with Dred Scott in the annals of Bad Supreme Court Decisions.

  28. avatar Sian says:

    “‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Can Work, Under Careful Supervision”

    Translation: Stop and Frisk will never be anything but racist police state bulshittery because ‘Careful Supervision’ is far too expensive and unreliable.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh please… minorities are stopped more often because minorities commit the majority of the violent crime. It’s not rocket science. If these communities would quit whining about “muh’ racism” and help put away the gangbanging lowlives that make everybody’s lives miserable it would be a non-issue.

      1. avatar guest says:

        Help the state do their job and they’ll stop the big brother act. Sure.

        1. avatar Dan W says:

          If the government was racist we could have a lot smaller government. Only focus on the problem groups and enforcement can be much more effective and much smaller. But because they have to focus on everyone enforcement must be much larger than it could be.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… because when a gangbanger guns down a little kid on a public street, I’m sure the entire community is standing in line to testify against him in court. It’s not “big brother” tactics. If you glorify thugs, dress like a thug, and act like a thug, expect to be treated as a thug until proven otherwise. You won’t see my ass in an Adidas track suit squatting on the corner.

      2. avatar Chris Morton says:

        What “crimes” were James Blake and Charles Kinsey “committing”?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I have no idea who the second guy is, but the first was an honest case of mistaken identity.

      3. avatar jwm says:

        Serge. You are a minority and folks like chris mallory would gladly see you deported because you weren’t born here. Think before you speak. What you call for is absurdly easy to turn against you.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          It is pretty simple, all immigration has been bad for America and Americans. Hell yes, deport everyone not born here. Deport everyone born here of a father who was not born here. The Constitution was written for the posterity of the Founders, not the wretched scum of teeming shores.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes, because there’s clearly no problem of these communities deliberately being hostile to law enforcement and sheltering criminals… Oh… wait…

      4. And exactly who in Chicago would people report gangbanging lowlifes to?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Maybe they should stop electing corrupt pro-crime racebaiting Demokkkommies?

        2. So do something over than what they have been doing these past ten decades?

      5. avatar B.D. says:

        Dude, I hope you come in contact with a stop and frisker. See how far being white and in a decent area gets you.

        Fucken tool

  29. avatar Anymouse says:

    The solution to charges of racial profiling is to stop a bunch of Bubbees (Jewish grandmothers). This would balance the statistics on race, gender, age, and religion.

  30. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Achtung! Shov uns zour paperz, pleaze!

  31. avatar "keep yur paws off my roadkill",possum says:

    ..The New World Order is God, Bow before your Master

  32. avatar Red says:

    How many other “rights” are we required to surrender to the Police State?

    Seriously, any more articles of this kind and I will become a former reader.

    It is bad enough that police dress and act like military (body armor, SWAT Teams, Armored Vehicles) and kill with impunity even when those people are no threat.

    Look at what just happened in Florida. The police used CIVILIAN vehicles for cover during the recent UPS heist. One person in their vehicle was killed by the police in the gunfire. They could have negotiated or waited until the vehicle was in a less populated area. The driver is dead too. Thanks, Police!

  33. avatar Chuck Finley says:

    ”Ich habe nur Befehle befolgt“

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      You heard from Michael Weston lately? Really miss seeing that guy.

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      nah, it’s worse than that. This is justifying interrogation tactics on random people at their discretion. They wouldn’t even need orders.

      Apologize after the mistake, right?

  34. avatar Action45 says:

    Bullshit. Stop & frisk is nothing more than an unconstitutional fishing expedition. I’m shocked that you all would publish this post, it’s an embarrassment.

  35. avatar Jim locke says:

    What are you smoking, ttag? Did Bloomberg just buy you something shiny?

    How would stop and frisk work where there is an armed populace?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What are you smoking, ttag? Did Bloomberg just buy you something shiny? ”

      A proposition was posited; an idea. Put out there for evaluation and comment (debate). If reading things that upset you upsets you, you can apply for a transfer to a more accommodating forum.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Wrong. It’s an opinion piece from someone who wants stop and frisk to work. It’s not a survey, or a “proposition” as you put it, it’s an opinion. And a VERY wrong one for anyone who supports freedom. Freedom, period.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And a VERY wrong one for anyone who supports freedom.”

          No opinion is “wrong”. An opinion is like the nose on your face; it is just there. An opinion may be misinformed, malformed, weird, silly, badly organized/announced, wild, ignorant, unflattering, not worthy of reply, suppressed. An opinion may be all of those things at once, but it is not “wrong”.

          You say to me, “The sun came up this morning.” I say, “I think that is a dangerous thing because too much sunlight makes things look better than they are.” Is my opinion “wrong”?

          In 1947, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili is alleged to have said, “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” I think that statement proves the man was a political genius. Is my opinion wrong?

          Thought police and censorship are not prescriptive for liberty and freedom.

          (BTW: you do have absolute control over the “delete” function.)

  36. avatar Ralph says:

    “U.S. law . . . has recognized a police officer’s right to stop a member of the public to inquire about potentially criminal behavior.”

    Under Bloombag, “criminal behavior” included the heinous crime of walking while black. It’s almost as if there weren’t enough reasons for black people to hate cops, so Bloombag gave them another one.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      I agree. But it should open EVERYONE’S eyes into how cops justify what they do – more specifically – these types of tactics. (I’m not bashing police)

  37. avatar StLPro2A says:

    If you don’t like the way the public and police perceive you….CHANGE YOUR DAMN BRAND!!!!! Quit being the expected A__hole on the evening news for negative reasons. Police don’t stop eighty year old Q-tipped widows for Stop and Frisk….because they aren’t on the evening news for negative reasons.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      You’re right. Cops don’t stop eighty year old Q-tipped widows. That’s what the TSA is for.

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      Wrong. You have no idea what that Police officer see ANYONE as.

      Nobody should have to change to please tyrants. Period.

  38. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    We all quote the Bill of Rights like they are important.

    It’s time to admit the Constitution and Bill or Rights are no longer in effect.

    When politicians and judges at every level and a significant number of LEOs ignore the highest laws of the land they don’t agree with “we the people” are in trouble.

    Repeating “shall not be infringed” like an incantation is not doing any good. Most people here probably agree with you but we are not in charge, the left is!… And they don’t care what you/we say.

    Be Prepared !

  39. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    A question just occurred to me:

    How many of this group do not use “profiling” every day when out and about? How many do not evaluate the threat level based on how someone else looks?

    We don’t have the LEO badge that gives us authority but we likely make decisions based on profiling our surroundings.

    We may use a different name for it….situational awareness.

    So is it OK for me but not for thee?

    1. The argument is that “thee” exercises the power of the state so “thee” must be held to a higher standard of conduct.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So is it (profiling) OK for me but not for thee?

      It is Ok for me and Thee, but not for government.

    3. avatar Dan W says:

      Anyone who is not literally blind and retarded profiles. It’s something everyone knows but because of political correctness we’re not allowed to.
      Government intrusion into our lives could be cut significantly if profiling were allowed. But because it’s not people who are obviously not a problem are targeted like people who obviously are the problem.

    4. avatar B.D. says:

      If you consider your profiling to be equal to situational awareness, you have deeper problems than stop and frisk, sir.

  40. Why all the big fuss about stop-and-frisk?

    Did not Michael Bloomberg say it was a common-sense, sensible policy to protect us from street thugs and gangbangers, just like gun control laws?

  41. avatar Chuck says:

    Stop, Question and Frisk is a policy that while it has its Pros, it also has its Cons. From a legal standpoint, What constitutes suspicious behavior? Simply walking near an area where a crime may have been committed isn’t enough. The biggest problem I see with it, is there is no established standard by which LE chooses to execute the policy. What passes for a SOP in one locale, doesn’t pass muster. There’s also the risk of LE being accused of racial/stereotypical profiling. So IMO, the advantages and disadvantages need to be carefully considered and department policy needs to reflect that it’s been done.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      So I slipped and fell on the sidewalk, cop asks me if I’m drunk.
      I refuse to answer any questions, this is suspicious, right?

      See how fucked up this shit is? Stop and frisk and anything like it is 100% wrong. You have no right to question me, and if you touch me, I will defend myself. If more people took this stance, Police would know their fucking place.

  42. avatar old law prof says:

    There is a HUGE difference between the traditional STOP and INQUIRE (requiring no basis at all and to which the individual may say “not today and keep walking” without risk) and the modern technique of STOP and FRISK (requiring “some minimal” basis to stop and an ADDITIONAL condition to frisk — actually a mere “pat down” of other surfaces).

    EVERYONE who favors the technique, including these 2 scholars DELIBERATELY OMITS that essential additional condition. As Justice Warren’s opinion puts it “An officer justified in believing that an individual [whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range] IS ARMED may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon” (emphasis added).

    BOTH are required to physically touch the individual’s clothing.
    (1) belief the subject is acting “suspiciously” AND
    (2) belief the subject presently “armed”.

    Number (2) is the most ignored, with success, legal requirement in American law.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      So I slipped and fell on the sidewalk, cop asks me if I’m drunk.
      I refuse to answer any questions, this is suspicious, right?

      See how fucked up this shit is? Stop and frisk and anything like it is 100% wrong. You have no right to question me, and if you touch me, I will defend myself. If more people took this stance, Police would know their fucking place.

  43. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Stop and Frisk was successful at stopping crime. According to the criminals themselves. Who were caught on open phone conversations saying that exact thing.
    But stop and frisk is also unconstitutional. It needed to be stopped.

    The best way to make NYC safer is to make sure the law abiding can carry a gun and travel wherever they please.

    1. So even though it worked, it was unconstitutional?

      But I was told it was a common sense, sensible policy to deter gun violence.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The white jewish Bloomberg said it worked very well in stopping black criminals. He was very happy about that.
        Of course he didn’t need the black NYC vote back then. Now as a national candidate he needs the national black vote. So currently he has changed his mind on Stop and Frisk.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        Of course it fucken worked! Are you stupid?

        A cop can stop ANYONE and INTERROGATE them, and nothing is going to stop it once it starts.

        Just because something “works” does not make it constitutional. The CIA wanted Torture to work, and took every method to tell you it did, and you believed it…. we know now, that shit was the most unconstitutional thing our country has ever done. So yea, it’s pretty fucken obvious that stopping random people and questioning what they are doing simply because you wear a badge is unconstitutional.

  44. avatar old law prof says:

    Item number (2) should read “belief that the subject is PRESENTLY “armed AND dangerous to the officer or to others.”

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      sure, I believe you are.

      Now what? I can frisk you, right?

  45. avatar Mark says:

    “That includes careful recruitment and selection of new officers, excellent training and clearly written policies. Moreover, officers must be supervised in ways that increase accountability and transparency, potentially involving external oversight.”

    Often, in hindsight, it’s found that some folks just aren’t cut from the cloth that defines a good officer.

  46. avatar Mark says:

    Stick with discussing 2A, TTAG.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Stick with discussing 2A, TTAG.”

      Firearm safety practices, changes in/to a firearms law, observations of gun owners, sharing of experiences regarding firearm safety practices – or experiences with/about firearms laws, are all directly related to actual/potential infringements on the Second Amendment. As are discussions regarding the history and politics of gun ownership. Should the subscribers here “stick to 2A”, we would daily see only repetitions of “Shall Not Be Infringed” and “RTKBA”, ad nauseam. Such myopic pablum would render TTAG totally useless, leading to its demise. We need to see, discuss and understand the interconnectedness of firearms and the world around them. Echo chambers provide nothing of value.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Nazi like police tactics have nothing to do with 2A.

        This kind of shit ruins this website and shows their true colors. Red, like the coats they wear.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Nazi like police tactics have nothing to do with 2A.”

          Seems such tactics would be a direct threat to the Second.

  47. avatar Anonymous says:

    I don’t care how effective it is.

    Nope!

  48. avatar Anonymous says:

    You know what else is effective? North Korean authoritarianism. Maybe we should implement it here.

  49. avatar B.D. says:

    FUCK YOU!

    STOP & INTERROGATE is fucking tyranny!

    You do not have the right to “indiscriminately” force me to STOP, then question my daily activities. You fucking tyrant.

    The author of this article should be tried for treason along with everyone who supports this crap, and hanged publicly. Fuck you FUDD motherfucker.

  50. “Was this Article written in conjunction with a Statist in mind….?”

  51. The first thing that should go is the police Unions…(Re: A Nationwide BAN on ALL Police Unions/Guilds/Brotherhoods…Political Workhouses…14 th Amendment violations…)

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email