Thread: Is stop-and-frisk unconstitutional as alleged during the Trump / Hillary debate?

Terry v. Ohio (1968

Home » Crime Library » Terry v. Ohio (1968

Terry v. Ohio was a 1968 landmark United States Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the ‘stop and frisk’ practice of police officers, and whether or not it violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Courtdetermined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public without probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person may be committing a crime, have committed a crime, or is planning to commit a crime, and that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous”. The court justified this decision with the clarification that the Fourth Amendment is meant to be applied to gathering evidence, not to crime prevention.

The long road to the Supreme Court began on October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio when police detective Martin McFadden saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, who McFaddenstated were acting suspiciously. He saw the two men walking back and forth on the same block, before talking with each other. They repeated this process several times, until a third man joined, and talked with them for several minutes before leaving. McFadden grew suspicious, and decided to follow the men, where they joined once again with the third man. Detective McFadden, who was dressed in plain clothes, approached the men and identified himself as a police officer. He asked for their names, and when, allegedly, one of them “mumbled”, he began to frisk Terry, and discovered a concealed pistol. He ordered the three men to face the wall with their arms raised, and completed the ‘stop and frisk’. He also found a gun in Chilton’s possession. The three men were taken to the police station, where Terry and Chilton were arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. Terry and Chilton were found guilty, but appealed the case all the way up to the federalSupreme Court. The Terry v. Ohio case set a precedent for a number of Supreme Court cases that took place in the following years, the most recent being the Arizona v Johnson (2009).

http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/terry-ohio/

Fact-Checks Hillary Clinton on Systemic Bias and Stop-and-Frisk R

The NYPD has repeatedly turned a blind eye to clear evidence of unconstitutional stops and frisks.” The court found the NYPD guilty of violating both the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits racially discriminatory policing, and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Aug 21, 2014

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory
https://ccrjustice.org/.../landmark-decision-judge-rules-n...Center for Constitutional Rights

NYC Police Stop-and-Frisk Ruling Delayed as Judge Removed

Patricia Hurtado
November 1, 2013 — 5:37 PM EDT

A federal appeals court delayed enforcement of a U.S. judge’s ruling that the New York Police Department’s use of stop-and-frisk tactics is unconstitutional and removed her from the case, saying she appeared biased.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York stayed enforcement of remedies directed by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan, who ordered the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee changes. The appeals court took the extraordinary step of removing Scheindlin from the case.

“We conclude that the district judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,” the three-judge panel said in yesterday’s ruling. “The appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation was compromised.”

The court cited Schiendlin’s comments in at least three media interviews while her decision was pending, as well as her statements to attorneys in a case involving the NYPD’s tactics that was brought by some of the same lawyers involved in the stop-and-frisk case.


“If you’ve got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don’t you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related,” Scheindlin told lawyers during a December 2007 court hearing.

Related Case

“What I’m trying to say, I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit,” she told the lawyers. “As I said before, I would accept it as a related case, which the plaintiff has the power to designate.”

The lawyers later filed the suit, which Scheindlin accepted as related. The appeals panel said its decision shouldn’t be construed as a comment on the merits of the case.

By marking the stop-and-frisk lawsuit as related to the earlier case, Scheindlin was able to steer the new case about NYPD practices to her docket, the appeals court said.

During a court hearing on Oct. 28, Circuit Court Judge Jose Cabranes asked lawyers if they thought Scheindlin had steered the stop-and-frisk case to be assigned to her. Scheindlin’s comments cited by the panel in yesterday’s ruling included interviews with the New Yorker magazine and the Associated Press. She was quoted by the AP in May saying the city engaged in a “below-the-belt” attack on her reputation.

Judge’s Response

In a statement yesterday, Scheindlin said she had sided with the city in a key issue involving the earlier police stop-and-frisk case and said she didn’t steer the new NYPD case to her docket.

She also said she didn’t give statements to the press before issuing her ruling.

“All of the interviews identified by the Second Circuit were conducted under the express condition that I would not comment on the Floyd case,” Scheindlin said. “And I did not. Some of the reporters used quotes from written opinions in Floyd that gave the appearance that I had commented on the case. However, a careful reading of each interview will reveal that no such comments were made.”

Scheindlin’s ruling in the case followed a nine-week nonjury trial that ended May 20.

In that case, four black men sued the city alleging they had been stopped and questioned or frisked by police without reasonable suspicion in violation of their constitutional rights. Police have made more than 4 million such stops in the past nine years, the men alleged. At least 80 percent of the people stopped were black or Latino, according to court papers.

‘Fundamentally Inconsistent’

Scheindlin ruled in August that the stop-and-frisk practice as carried out by the city’s police “is fundamentally inconsistent with the law of equal protection and represents a particularly disconcerting manifestation of indifference.”

Each stop was a “demeaning and humiliating experience,” the judge said.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the plaintiffs, said in an e-mailed statement that it was dismayed by the decision of the appellate judges.

“We are shocked that they cast aspersions on the professional conduct of one of the most respected members of the federal judiciary and reassigned the case,” the group said.

Donna Lieberman, head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which joined in the challenge to the NYPD tactics in the suit, said the group will appeal.

No Overturn

“It’s important to note what the panel did yesterday did not overturn the judge’s ruling,” Lieberman said in a phone interview.

“We’re confident that the next city administration will take steps to fundamentally overhaul the way stop and frisk is utilized by the NYPD,” she said.

Michael Cardozo, the city’s corporation counsel, said in a statement that the ruling will receive a “fresh and independent look” by the appeals court and, if needed, a different trial court judge. Cardozo called Scheindlin’s ruling “unjustified and deeply problematic.”

U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres in Manhattan was assigned randomly to preside over the case after the appeals court completes its review of the city’s challenge to Scheindlin’s rulings, according to court records. Torres, who was confirmed for the federal bench in April, served as an acting New York State Supreme Court justice from 2004 to 2011 and as a Civil Court judge for New York City from 2003 to 2004.

Declined Case

The case first reassigned yesterday afternoon to U.S. District Court Judge John Koeltl, who without explanation declined to take it, according to court records.

As a state judge presiding over criminal cases, Torres also criticized police tactics in New York City Housing Authority developments.

Torres said in a December 2010 ruling that NYPD officers appeared to be routinely and systematically violating the law by stopping and questioning people without legal justification outside public housing projects. As a result, Torres barred the admission of 29 bags of cocaine that police seized from a man in the lobby of a public housing unit on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

Stop-and-frisk searches have been a focal point of the campaign to succeed Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.

de Blasio, Lhota

Democrat Bill de Blasio, the city’s public advocate who is leading in polls in the mayor’s race, said in statement that he was “extremely disappointed” with yesterday’s ruling.

“We shouldn’t have to wait for reforms that both keep our communities safe and obey the Constitution,” de Blasio said. “We have to end the overuse of stop and frisk -- and any delay only means a continued and unnecessary rift between our police and the people they protect.”

Joe Lhota, the Republican nominee, said the ruling was an “unprecedented rejection of both the result of the case and the manner with which it was achieved.”

He said Scheindlin’s “biased conduct corrupted the case and her decision was not based on the facts.”

Scheindlin, who has been on the federal bench since 1994, was reversed by the appeals court after she dismissed perjury charges in 2002 against a Jordanian student who knew two of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and was accused of lying about one of them.

Scheindlin ruled that the government’s use of the Material Witness Statute to hold the man for questioning during a grand jury investigation was unconstitutional. The appeals court in 2003 reversed and reinstated the charges.

The appeal cases are Ligon v. City of New York, 13-3442, and Floyd v. City of New York, 13-3461, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan). The lower-court cases are Floyd v. City of New York, 08-cv-01034; Ligon v. City of New York 12-cv-02274, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...tayed-by-court

Originally Posted by Judy

NYC Police Stop-and-Frisk Ruling Delayed as Judge Removed

. . . No Overturn

“It’s important to note what the panel did yesterday did not overturn the judge’s ruling,” Lieberman said in a phone interview.

“We’re confident that the next city administration will take steps to fundamentally overhaul the way stop and frisk is utilized by the NYPD,” she said. . .

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...tayed-by-court

.

Trump is wrong: ‘Stop and frisk’ was ruled unconstitutional

By ISAAC ARNSDORF
09/26/16 10:04 PM EDT
Updated 09/27/16 03:15 PM EDT


“‘Stop and frisk’ was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and hispanic young men…” — Lester Holt

“No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge who was a very against police judge. It was taken away from her and our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal.” — Donald Trump

On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled the controversial police tactic unconstitutional. The Bloomberg administration appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals suspended the order and sent it back to a new judge. But the court denied the city’s motion to vacate Schneidlin’s decision. Eventually, the de Blasio administration dropped the appeal.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-p...#ixzz4LVkOxsJx

I think I will go with the Supreme Court ruling from Warren in 1968 - Terry vs Ohio - not some politicized Federal Judge with a social justice axe to grind that is trying to legislate from the bench. JMO

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

The NYPD has repeatedly turned a blind eye to clear evidence of unconstitutional stops and frisks.” The court found the NYPD guilty of violating both the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits racially discriminatory policing, and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Aug 21, 2014

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory
https://ccrjustice.org/.../landmark-decision-judge-rules-n...Center for Constitutional Rights

On August 12, 2013, federal Judge, Shira Scheindlin, found the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk “practices” were unconstitutional. The judge explained:

“[The City has] received both actual and constructive notice since at least 1999 of widespread Fourth Amendment violations occurring as a result of the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices. Despite this notice, they deliberately maintained and even escalated policies and practices that predictably resulted in even more widespread Fourth Amendment violations. . . . The NYPD has repeatedly turned a blind eye to clear evidence of unconstitutional stops and frisks.”


The irrefutable fact is, the court did not rule “stop-and-frisk” was unconstitutional. What was ruled unconstitutional were the NYPD’s practices under “stop-and-frisk”

Why is this distinction so difficult for so many to comprehend?


JWK

What did Hillary Clinton really say about the TPP [Trans Pacific Partnership] deal? CLICK HERE to hear the startling truth.

Originally Posted by johnwk

On August 12, 2013, federal Judge, Shira Scheindlin, found the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk “practices” were unconstitutional. The judge explained:

“[The City has] received both actual and constructive notice since at least 1999 of widespread Fourth Amendment violations occurring as a result of the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices. Despite this notice, they deliberately maintained and even escalated policies and practices that predictably resulted in even more widespread Fourth Amendment violations. . . . The NYPD has repeatedly turned a blind eye to clear evidence of unconstitutional stops and frisks.”


The irrefutable fact is, the court did not rule “stop-and-frisk” was unconstitutional. What was ruled unconstitutional were the NYPD’s practices under “stop-and-frisk”

Why is this distinction so difficult for so many to comprehend?


JWK

What did Hillary Clinton really say about the TPP [Trans Pacific Partnership] deal? CLICK HERE to hear the startling truth.

Which is exactly what Giuliani said in the video.