Jeffrey Toobin: Bratton’s Endorsement of Stop-and-Frisk

[Purveyor]

Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has named William J. Bratton his Police Commissioner. In returning to the job he held under Rudolph Giuliani in the nineteen-nineties, Bratton will be in charge of fulfilling one of de Blasio’s most prominent campaign promises: to end the stop-and-frisk tactics that were such a prominent part of Michael Bloomberg’s record as Mayor.

But Bratton’s views on stop-and-frisk may be considerably different from those of his new boss. In May of this year, I profiled Shira Scheindlin, the federal judge who presided over the class-action lawsuit that challenged the N.Y.P.D.’s stop-and-frisk policies. In the course of reporting that piece, I interviewed Bratton, and we discussed stop-and-frisk in some detail.

Bratton emphatically endorsed stop-and-frisk as a police tactic. “First off, stop-question-and-frisk has been around forever,” he told me. “It is known by stop-and-frisk in New York, but other cities describe it other ways, like stop-question-and-frisk or Terry stops. It’s based on a Supreme Court case from 1968, Terry v. Ohio, which focussed very significantly on it. Stop-and-frisk is such a basic tool of policing. It’s one of the most fundamental practices in American policing. If cops are not doing stop-and-frisk, they are not doing their jobs. It is a basic, fundamental tool of police work in the whole country. If you do away with stop-and-frisk, this city will go down the chute as fast as anything you can imagine.”

We also discussed the current controversy over stop-and-frisk under Raymond Kelly, Bloomberg’s Police Commissioner. “What you have right now is a controversy in which nobody really understands what they are fighting about,” Bratton said. “Stop-and-frisk is not a tool solely to look for guns. Unfortunately, both the Mayor and the Police Commissioner refer to it that way, and that’s a problem because so few guns are recovered. But so what? The vast majority of stops are for a wide variety of things. Is someone drinking a can of beer on the corner? You want to stop that behavior. If somebody is aggressively panhandling on the street, urinating against a building. Is there somebody that you suspect is casing a building? Or is that two guys just locked out of their apartment? Police officers notice what may be a burglary. Of course they should be noticing and investigating. There are countless examples of what you want police to do.”

MORE...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/12/brattons-endorsement-of-stop-and-frisk.html

[PeoViejo]

1. Terry searches are only for weapons any thing else found is not admissabe as Evidence.

"In highly volatile or dangerous situations, a LEO's authority to require compliance is much higher than in non-threatening contexts. The Supreme Court has ruled (with Terry v. Ohio being one of the primary cases) that the police are allowed to protect themselves from potentially dangerous people or situations. Under the umbrella of "concern for safety" or "search for weapons" the police have wide latitude to do what they want and to order citizens to comply with their demands.

The Terry v. Ohio case created the "weapons search", "terry search", or "terry pat" exception to the 4th Amendment 'probable cause requirement' for searches. The court ruled that if a police officer "[has] reasonable cause to believe that [someone] might be armed" they can require they submit to a quick patdown. What this has meant is that it is now standard practice to pat down anyone that a LEO wants to, without the need for arrest, probable cause, or even suspicion of a crime.

Many police use weapons pats as a way to intimidate and harass citizens, since it is a power the courts have allowed them to use with little justification. Often a LEO will find something during their patdown which is clearly not a weapon which they would like to see, but this is beyond their Court-approved authority ( see below )."

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/police/police_consent1.shtml

[X_Digger]

4. Well, yes and no..

Cops are *supposed to* be able to articulate reasonable suspicion (a lower standard) for a pat-down.

In places like NYC, however, cops have been told to use Stop and Frisk as a way to 'get their numbers up'.

See the Village Voice's long running series on the Schoolcraft Tapes.

[PeoViejo]

6. I understand about the NYC Policy

That doesn't mean it's legal. It's in the Courts now. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

[ProSense]

2. It's surprising how little attention this is getting. n/t

[X_Digger]

3. Not really. Stop and Frisk threads drop like stones.

We seem to have a lack of folks who care about the fourth amendment.

[X_Digger]

5. As expected. *sigh* n/t

[X_Digger]

8. Two bumps, and barely a blip on DU's radar. *sigh* n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. Hiring Bratton will be the first of de Blasio's broken promises.

Stop and frisk AIN'T going away. Anyone wanna bet a $20 donation to DU that it isn't gone in a year?