52,000 Stop and Frisk Searches, Only 25 Guns Confiscated.

[GreenStormCloud]

http://thecrimereport.org/2010/07/12/52000-nyc-police-stops-in-one-area-did-they-reduce-crime/
52,000 NYC Police Stops In One Area; Did They Reduce Crime?

Monday, July 12th, 2010 6:25 am

Police have made 52,000 stops in four years in an eight-block area of Brooklyn’s Brownsville area, says the New York Times. The encounters — most urgently meant to get guns off the streets — yield few arrests. Across the city, 6 percent of stops result in arrests. In Brownsville, the arrest rate is less than 1 percent. In the more than 50,000 stops since 2006, the police recovered 25 guns.

New York is among several major cities that rely heavily on the stop-and-frisk tactic, but few cities employ it with such intensity. In 2002, the police citywide documented 97,000 of these stops; last year, they registered a record: 580,000. In an era of lower crime rates, te practice has come under intense scrutiny. Lawmakers are monitoring the situation. Civil libertarians are challenging it. Police officials, from Commissioner Raymond Kelly to local precinct commanders, are defending it. Criminologist Richard Rosenfeld of the University of Missouri St. Louis says police should “provide credible evidence that the stop-and-frisk campaign actually is responsible for the crime reductions the city has enjoyed.”

I believe that progressive should be against such police-state tactics as the stop and frisk with no probable cause. But I would be willing to accept it if there were signifigant improvements in public safety. But only 25 illegal guns collected in over 52K stops does not demonstrate an increase in public safety that is worth such an intrusion into citizen's privacy.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. "I would be willing to accept it if there were significant improvements in public safety"

So you would be willing to sign away your 4th amendment rights?


Sounds to me like the same justification could be used to take away your 2nd amendment rights.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. The key word is "significant".

Under some circumstances, if the public danger is great enough, and the improvement is great enough, a right may be subject to some restrictions. Yes, that would include the 2nd. The questions is how much improvement and how great the restriction. In the current debate on the 2nd, the gun control measures have failed to show any improvement in public safety, in fact solid arguments can be made that the gun control measures hurt public safety.

[TheWraith]

19. The constitution doesn't give a fuck whether it's "significant" or not.

We could get a "significant" reduction in crime by throwing out all rules of evidence and warrants too, but that would be illegal, just as these "stop and frisk" searches are.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. But by doing that we would also get a signifigant increase in state abuse of power.

Rights exist in balance with other rights and liberties. We make the state jump through all the hoops that it has to for gaining a conviction because we fear a powerful police-state. We accept a higher crime rate as the trade-off for avoiding a police-state. It is a good, albiet often frustrating, trade-off.

[SteveM]

38. I must respectfully disagree with "...if public danger is great enough..."

This rationale would allow for restriction (as it evidently has in NYC, even where there is little to show for this "public policy"). Certainly, gun-control laws (or any law) can be attacked because it cannot be shown how such laws affect the general welfare for the better, but it is not a rationale for restricting or "expanding" a Constitutional right.

We have seen in New Orleans during Hurrican Katrina how a policy of outright gun confiscation was justified as necessary for the safety of the public when (since the fiat was pre-emptive) there was no evidence AT ALL that such a policy would be beneficial.

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Yes. I only stated half of the requirment.

Not only, "public danger great enough", but also the degree of surrendered right must be effective in helping to meet the public danger. And such rights must be restored when the emergency is past.

Consider an out-of-control fire. The firefighters will freely hose down the electronics in your warehouse if they think it is needed to control the fire. They won't bother with a warrant to bust in the doors to contain the fire. If you arrive, they will keep you from entering your own warehouse. But when the fire is out, and the post-fire investigation is complete, you get your rights back. I will grant that I have over-simplified for the sake of illustration.

[oneshooter]

47. "the degree of surrendered right"

How many times have a "surrendered right" taken from the people, been returned by Government? Freely and without a long court battle?

"Those who would surrender liberty for Safety, deserve neither."


Or something like that.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

48. Sadly, the government has to be pushed back.

But that still does not invalidate the principle.

During the Civil War, many civil rights were suspended.

Consider this: After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Hawaiian Islands were placed under Martial Law. That was because there was believed to be a real threat of a Japanese invasion. That was very real surrendered rights. In 1943 Martial Law was lifted.

BTW - That was the last time any part of the U.S. has been under Martial Law. The use of troops to quell riots and such is not Martial Law. Under Martial Law, the court system is militarized. An arrested civilian is tried by a military court.

[slackmaster]

2. Great use of police resources

:eyes:

[Recursion]

3. Nationally crime is at a 50-year low

We did that by incarcerating most young, poor males and having police tactics like this.

Your call whether that's worth it or not. I certainly don't want to go back to the level of violence of the early 90s.

[benEzra]

7. Actually, I'd question whether those tactics had anything to do with the decrease.

Nationally crime is at a 50-year low. We did that by incarcerating most young, poor males and having police tactics like this.

Actually, I'd question whether those tactics had anything to do with the decrease. Crime has also fallen in areas that did not void the 4th Amendment and institute police-state-esque tactics (which is to say the vast majority of jurisdictions. Stop-and-frisk-with-no-reasonable-suspicion is not a mainstream policy nationwide; it is fringe.

[Recursion]

11. IMO clearly the mass incarceration was a much bigger contributer

(And though nobody likes talking about it, Roe v. Wade was an even bigger contributer.)

I guess I wasn't thinking specifically of stop-and-frisk as much as the more general "broken windows" attitude that has returned to police work since the early 90s.

[Statistical]

15. Longer sentences & mainstream available abortion. You nailed it.

Neither are very popular but violent repeat offenders will re-offend roughly 20-40 times per year IIRC last time looking at FBI stats.

So keeping 100,000 violent felons who would re-offend in jail for just 1 extra year reduced violent crime rate by roughly 20 million instances.

Obviously this isn't sustainable or cheap but it has "worked". Hell is we reduced sentences for non-violent offenders and decriminalized marijuana we likely could free up enough space to increase sentences for violent criminals (epecially recurring violent criminals) by even more.

[safeinOhio]

44. Just as one gives up some 2nd rights

by being a felon, I like what they are doing in one city, forget which one. That is having a violent gun list just like the sex offender list. If one commits a violent gun crime they go on the list and can be stopped and searched for weapons. As you said most violent offenders will re-offend. This would help keep those that have not violated any crime keep their 4th liberties.

[X_Digger]

46. That would be Baltimore and NYC, but no, they don't face random searches.

Man, you have an authoritarian streak wider than the mississippi, don't you?

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/new-york-city-administrative-code-new-/ADC010-603_10-603.html

See also Doe v. Shurtleff.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. There were more social changes than just a change in police tactics.

Courts and parole boards have a greater impact than police do. Often young criminals have been arrested multiple times. Adding more police just increases the number of times the crook has been caught and released. The welcome trend is to quit releasing the crooks.

Also, since the early 90s there has been a gigantic increase in the number of armed citizens. Estimates are between 4 to 8 million citizens have CCW permits. Street crime and hot-burglary have become much riskier for the hoodlums.

The increased number of states with Castle Doctine laws has made homeowners more willing to shoot.

Legalized abortion in the 70s decreased the number of at-risk youths in the 90s and beyond.

[SteveM]

39. Your rationale is tempting; certainly, the GOP uses it...

Much of the defense of the massive prison-building program (and the expenditures required), penalty-enhancing laws to jail drug dealers for scores of years, 3-strikes, etc., is made by the Republicans. I'm not so sure. It may have had an effect, but since most homicides are committed by repeat-felons (who are somehow out on parole), I wonder just how many really bad actors were taken off the streets. Further, over the last 20 years, we have had a relatively strong economy. Other factors may be at work, like police task forces which keep tabs on thugs once they are out of jail.

It is also possible that the thug now perceives a heavily-armed public, some of which is carrying-concealed, and acted accordingly by reducing his/her more promiscuous violent tendencies. But evidence of this cause/effect is not conclusive either.

[armueller2001]

4. "Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little temporary security

deserve neither"

[GreenStormCloud]

9. Agreed.

And in this case, they are sacrificing a lot of liberty for next to no increase in security. For me, the security gain would have to be huge to make it worth the sacrifice in liberty.

An example of signifigant gains for the lost liberty would be the blackout regulations on the coasts during WWII. The lights on shore were backlighting cargo ships off the coast and helping Nazi U-boat commanders to sink Allied shipping. Requiring everybody to shut off their lights or to put up blackout curtains helped save ships. When the war was over, the regulations were no longer needed.

[Euromutt]

35. The key word in that quote, though, is "temporary"

The whole social contract between government and the governed rests on the notion that, by consenting to be governed (and thus becoming citizens), we sacrifice a certain amount of personal freedom in exchange for security. We give government the power to create laws that restrict our freedoms, and even to use force to coerce us into compliance and punish us when we fail to do so. But we do so in order that those private entities who might seek to deprive us of life, liberty and/or property in more drastic ways will be prevented from, or at least punished for, doing so by an entity that is least answerable to us if it fails to protect the "common weal." Thus, we sacrifice liberty for (what is supposed to be) permanent security.

[Remmah2]

5. Just say no!

To the police state and zealot mayors. I wonder where the ACLU is?

[X_Digger]

10. I can't endorse it in any shape or fashion

Without probable cause, this should be illegal.

Even if it was successful, I don't think a court properly focused on the rights of people would find this passing scrutiny. (The 'narrowly focused' leg of the test.)

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Add the poor results and the program clearly needs to stop. N/T

[X_Digger]

13. Definitely not the 'least restrctive' means, either. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

14. It's the thought that counts

[SteveM]

40. Yeah, "social engineering" (ain't that a RW expression?) failed here. nt

[TPaine7]

16. We have to stop teh evil gunz!

Each one of those evil gunz would have made its owner kill at least 100 people, so that's 2500 lives at least--mostly babies.

If we managed to save just one life, the program would be worth it--it has to be worth it to save 2,500 lives!

Think of the children!

[one-eyed fat man]

17. I am curious.

Of the 25 guns that actually made it to the evidence room, how many were Lorcins, Jennings, RG revolvers and how many were pre-war Colt .38's or nice shiny new Sig-Sauer P229?

Or does the number of guns seized just coincide with the number of arrests. How many nice or collector grade guns got taken with the erstwhile 'owner' being 'let off with a warning'?

There was testimony from New Orleans officers about some of the guns the City of New Orleans seized during Katrina. The nice guns were 'adopted' by officers who were loathe to see them homeless, while the cheap guns were tossed in the river.

If you were talking about Chicago, it wouldn't even be 25 guns. The same clunker BB gun would have been checked into evidence 25 times! The rest would have been resold on the south side. You gotta wonder about a PD that has cops who ARE gang members, with tattoos, rap sheets and everything or in a class of new hires at the academy.

http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/crime/37625,cst-nws-gangbcop08.article

[MisterBill45]

18. This issue recently came before the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court

and they ruled the practice out of bounds. Which actually only reinforced existing supreme court rulings. This stuff is a slam dunk on 4th amendment grounds. No doubt the ACLU is foot-dragging as usual.

Under what I understand to be existing case law, a search can only be made of an individual who is detained upon "reasonable suspicion" that they are engaged in unlawful activity. Any such search, unless is is made subsequent to actual arrest may include ONLY a pat down for weapons for officer safety. Any evidence uncovered from a search that was made without this reasonable suspicion cannot be used in court. Nor can evidence be used if a cop stops you just to talk to you. He is allowed to pat you down for an officer safety search, but that's it.

This is as it should be IMO. You can stop a guy if you can articulate in court exactly what he was doing that constituted reasonable suspicion for the stop. If the judge buys it, then it's a good stop. Otherwise any evidence obtained is suppressed.

As I recall, the Mass SJC set the bar on reasonable suspicion a little higher than existing case law, which will dramatically affect how the cops stop people. I.E they can't just stop you because they have a hunch and go on a fishing expedition, which was largely the case before.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

21. So, it's O.K. to infringe on one Right...

by destroying another Right?

WTH?

[KansasVoter]

22. So DUI checkpoints bug you also? No probable cause.

[PavePusher]

30. Yes, actually they do. n/t

[Glassunion]

31. They bug me.

They have been shown to be ineffective. And in my eyes an intrusion on the 4th A.

The head of the state police in my state also feels that they are a waste of money and yield little results. He stated that an officer/trooper in a given evening can catch more DUIs while on patrol than by waiting at a checkpoint.

I would agree.

[KansasVoter]

32. I actually agree with both of you also.......

unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled them OK.
I am not happy about it.

[Glassunion]

33. Just give it a small test, replace the 52000 stop and frisks with another term.

52000 people tortured, 24 terrorist discovered
52000 people wiretapped, 24 drug dealers discovered
52000 people put to death, 24 were guilty
52000 people jailed, 24 were criminals

I know it is quite a bit of a stretch, but that is how I look at it.

[KansasVoter]

34. I agree with you.

[SteveM]

41. No need for these, either. nt

[Callisto32]

49. DUI checkpoints are teh B.S.

Unfortunately, the SC found that if the police don't have discretion, and it's "not for law enforcement purposes" but rather for something like "public safety" it is okay.

I have yet to figure out how this stuff is "not for law enforcement purposes" when they are arresting and charging people.

[spin]

23. Baltimore has a war on guns ....

A specialized unit in Baltimore takes the lead in building cases against the “bad guys with guns,” as Bealefield calls them. Officers in the Violent Crimes Impact Section carry lists of violent repeat offenders — people with gun arrests or convictions in their backgrounds.

About 120 are on the list, and many know it, said Col. Dean Palmere, who oversees VCIS. That’s intentional — if criminals know police want to catch them with a gun, they’re less likely to carry one.

Officers try to talk to the people on the list when they see them, but that rarely leads to an arrest. Instead, officers work informants and friends. Dombroski, a VCIS platoon leader, cites a recent case in which a repeat offender was caught with three guns in his house. The break came when police arrested a friend on a drug charge, and she tipped off officers to the home where the guns were found.

***snip***

In 2008, Baltimore became the second city, after New York, to create a gun offender registry that functions much like a sex offender registry. Gun offenders must register their addresses after being released, and officers do frequent home checks. About 370 people are on the registry, and since it began, only 3 percent of registrants have been arrested for new gun crimes.

The drop in shootings means city prosecutors are getting fewer gun cases, but also better ones. Prosecutors dropped charges in 25 percent of felony gun possession and nonfatal shooting cases last year, down from 40 percent the year before, according to the State’s Attorney’s Office.

http://newsone.com/nation/associated-press/baltimores-crime-drop-as-war-on-drugs-becomes-war-on-violence/

To me, this approach makes sense. If you can take the really dangerous people who misuse firearms off the street, or at the minimum convince them that carrying an illegal firearm is a BAD choice, the streets will be safer.

That also means that honest people who currently feel threatened will find their environment safer and have far less reason to buy a firearm for self defense. The number of concealed carry permits should also drop.

For many years, gun control has focused on restricting or banning firearms for honest citizens. Focusing on known violent criminals who misuse firearms is a far better approach.

[knownothing]

29. That approach makes sense

Too bad many people in office are eager to create new guns laws rather than enforce the ones we have...

[MisterBill45]

24. I'm not sure. I do know I'm not dumb enough to throw the 4th

amendment in the fire in order to gain safety (Even though the numbers show essentially zero results for getting guns off the streets).

You keep making authoritarian arguments and then claim to be a progressive. I think perhaps you're in the wrong party. That kind of thinking goes down well in the GOP.

[rrneck]

25. They just don't carry them in front of the cops.

Are you so dumb to not realize almost nobody gets mugged in a police station? With cops loitering all around your house, your hang out, and every other place you socialize, you just leave the gun at home till you need it. No criminal is likely to mug anybody anyplace he thinks there might be a cop close by.

[ManiacJoe]

28. Exactly right.

The results of the study should not surprise anyone. The Bad Guys who are known to the cops know better than to get caught with a gun. So they just don't have one one themselves most of the time, but instead know where to get it when needed.

[TPaine7]

26. Classic ironic humor!

"Are you do dumb to not realize that maybe the searches stop people from carrying guns?"

That's classic, KansasVoter. First there's the "do dumb," as opposed to "too dumb". That's for the surface readers. But you go deeper.

Even corrected, the sentence is wrong:

"Are you too dumb to *not* realize that maybe the searches stop people from carrying guns?"

That's nonsense--at least from the perspective of a carry opponent like you. It only makes sense with the "not" removed. The layering actually makes this better than the famous "get a brain, Morans" sign.

Tell me you did it on purpose.

[Tejas]

27. 52,000 stops in an 8 block area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_Brooklyn

Demographics
As of the 2008 U.S. Census, Brownsville's population was 88,411 and the demographics were 75.1% Black or African American, 13.8% Hispanic or Latino, 12.6% Caucasian, 2.7% Asian/Pacific Islander and 9.2% described themselves as other. 37.7% of the population were High School graduates and 13.2% had a Bachelor's degree or higher. As of 2008, the median household income was $25,967. There were a total of 28,298 housing units in Brownsville.

further down the page:
Notable natives (born or lived there)
Al Sharpton
Andrew Dice Clay
Mike Tyson
Moe (Three Stooges)

[SteveM]

42. Ahh, now it all makes sense! Definitely not Manhattan. nt

[Endangered Specie]

37. and how is this not blantantly unconstitutional?

Be nice to see the police frisk Guiliani or Bloomberg, see what happens then...

[east texas lib]

45. Now that's efficiency!

:D