Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
Much has been written about New York City’s stop and frisk policies, but until now, the evidence of who the police were stopping and why was not a matter of public record. A recent class action suit has opened the door to learning the true numbers involved as well as the accurate demographics of just who is getting stopped by the NYPD. “New York police officers testifying before a federal court this week said that racist quotas imposed by ranking officers are behind the police department’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, confirming years of accusations made by civil rights and community advocates that the department’s tactics disproportionately target minorities.
The class action suit, Floyd v. City of New York, is taking on New York police commissioner Ray Kelly and mayor Michael Bloomberg—both long champions of the tactic— as well as the city itself, in an attempt to prove that the NYPD has “demonstrated a widespread and systemic pattern of unconstitutional stops,” the Guardian writes. According to department data, the NYPD has made roughly 5 million street stops in the past decade, the vast majority of those stopped being young African American or Latino men. Nearly nine out of 10 of those stopped by police have walked away without a summons or arrest.” Common Dreams
It seems that the police are handcuffed by their supervisors requirements and forced to stop certain demographic groups and to maintain a prescribed minimum number of those stops. Is the NYPD breaking the law when they stop and frisk young Latino and Black men just because of who they are? “By law, the NYPD is permitted to stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person is about to commit a crime, is in the process of committing a crime, or have just finished committing a crime. The officer is allowed to frisk, or pat down, an individual “if they have reason to believe the person is an armed threat.” And they can then reach inside the clothing, or search the individual, “if they have encountered an object they have reason to believe is a weapon.”
According to critics, these defined parameters regularly go unmet and instead, the NYPD has instituted “a sense of second-class citizenship in minority communities in which individuals—particularly young men—are routinely subjected to illegal and degrading stops,” the Guardian writes.” Common Dreams
The NYPD officers testifying in the class action trial allege that their supervisors required quotas of stop and frisk actions and that there were adverse consequences if those officers did not meet the quotas.
“Officer Adhyl Polanco began his testimony Tuesday by saying “there’s a difference between” the department’s policies on paper and “what goes on out there”, on the city’s streets. Polanco testified that in 2009, officers in his Bronx precinct were expected to issue 20 summons and make one arrest per month. If they did not they would risk denied vacation, being separated from longtime partners, undesirable assignments and other consequences.
Polcano claimed it was not uncommon for patrol officers who were not making quotas to be forced to “drive the sergeant” or “drive the supervisor”, which meant driving around with a senior officer who would find individuals for the patrol officer to arrest or issue a summons to, at times for infractions the junior officer did not observe. “We were handcuffing kids for no reason,” Polanco said. Claiming he was increasingly disturbed by what he was witnessing in his precinct, Polcanco began secretly recording his roll call meetings. ” Guardian
Officer Polcano actually went a step further and secretly recorded conversations with his supervisors and those recordings are not pretty for civil libertarians. One of his fellow NYPD officers also recorded his conversations with his supervisor. “Bronx police officer Pedro Serrano also secretly recorded comments made by supervisors at the same Bronx precinct. His recordings were also played for the court this week.
On a track played Thursday, Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack was heard telling Serrano he needed to stop “the right people, the right time, the right location”. When asked what he believed McCormack meant Serrano told the court: “he meant blacks and Hispanics.” Later in the tape McCormack says: ‘ “I have no problem telling you this … male blacks. And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem [to] tell you this, male blacks 14 to 21.” ‘ Guardian
Whether New York City is continuing these allegedly illegal stop and frisk policies in order to make money for the city or to prevent crime may be irrelevant. If the testimony of these officers is to believed, NYPD is breaking the law on an immense scale. How many of the 5 Million stops in the last decade were done without probable cause? We may never know the exact number, but if the quotas and the demographics of who they are supposed to stop are accurate, Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly are leading a massive, purposeful violation of the law.
The officers who bravely testified and secretly recorded the conversations with their supervisors have taken a huge personal risk. They forwarded their complaints to Internal Affairs and their confidential claims were “leaked” to their supervisors. The Village Voice
Will they lose their jobs and or their pensions because they saw a wrong and wanted to right it? What impact do these allegedly illegal stop and frisk policies have on the Latino and African-American communities? Would it be surprising to think that these stops could cause even more unrest in the communities that the NYPD claims they are trying to prevent?
Is the rule of law dead in New York City? I can’t imagine what laws would have been broken if these young men of color had been stopped while drinking a Big Gulp! What do you think?
This is our America:
“Kaylan Pedine, a 29-year-old Tennessee native who lives in Greenpoint, said she was standing in front of a bar in the Murray Hill neighborhood of Manhattan in July when she saw a passing police officer and said, “I wish they would stop stop-and-frisk.”
“The cops overheard me, turned around, and came over to me and said ‘turn around,'” she told HuffPost. “I said, ‘are you serious?'”
The officer, Craig Campion, apparently was: Pedine was arrested, taken to a precinct and charged with blocking a bus lane. She said she never raised her voice and was never in the street. The charge, which she said was “100 percent a fabrication,” was later dismissed.”
From the following:
Kaylan Pedine Allegedly Arrested By NYPD Officer For Criticizing Stop-And-Frisk
by Matt Sledge
Posted: 03/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/kaylan-pedine-lawsuit_n_2875783.html
NEW YORK — A New York City woman filed a lawsuit on Wednesday alleging that she was arrested for criticizing the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy. The suit comes just as lawyers prepare to put the department policy on trial in a separate federal court case that starts Monday.
Kaylan Pedine, a 29-year-old Tennessee native who lives in Greenpoint, said she was standing in front of a bar in the Murray Hill neighborhood of Manhattan in July when she saw a passing police officer and said, “I wish they would stop stop-and-frisk.”
“The cops overheard me, turned around, and came over to me and said ‘turn around,'” she told HuffPost. “I said, ‘are you serious?'”
The officer, Craig Campion, apparently was: Pedine was arrested, taken to a precinct and charged with blocking a bus lane. She said she never raised her voice and was never in the street. The charge, which she said was “100 percent a fabrication,” was later dismissed.
The department’s controversial practice allows officers to stop-question-and-frisk people, but only if they have reason to suspect criminal behavior. The NYPD stopped 533,042 people in 2012.
Pedine, who works at a social justice non-profit, was incensed. She’s pressing her lawsuit, she said, as “an opportunity to spread awareness about stop-and-frisk policy, and to have real, genuine conversations about the consequences.”
“I recognize that this happens constantly, constantly, so I just felt like I wanted to be a voice,” she said. Her lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages.
A New York City law department spokesperson told HuffPost in a statement, “we have received the papers and will review them thoroughly.” The city has 30 days to respond.
Pedine’s lawyer, Mark Taylor, told HuffPost that the police officer’s actions should be placed in the larger context of the ongoing battle over stop and frisk. That erupted most recently during a City Council hearing on Monday, when City Councilmember Jumaane Williams criticized Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly for his support of the tactic.
“If you look at Police Commissioner Ray Kelly’s testimony in front of the City Council,” Taylor said, “the department is very defensive about the stop-and-frisk policy. And I think this is an instance where an officer is taking his lead from the commissioner.”
“Stop and Frisk Watch App”
http://www.nyclu.org/app
“Stop and Frisk Watch” is a free and innovative smart phone application that empowers New Yorkers to monitor police activity and hold the NYPD accountable for unlawful stop-and-frisk encounters and other police misconduct.
The app is available in English on both Android and iPhone devices and Spanish in the Android version, thanks to a translation by Make the Road New York. Stop and Frisk Watch allows bystanders to fully document stop-and-frisk encounters and alert community members when a street stop is in progress.
It has three primary functions:
RECORD: This allows the user to film an incident with audio by simply pushing a trigger on the phone’s frame. Shaking the phone stops the filming. When filming stops, the user immediately receives a brief survey allowing them to provide details about the incident. The video and survey will go to the NYCLU, which will use the information to shed light on the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices and hold the Department accountable for its actions.
LISTEN: This function alerts the user when people in their vicinity are being stopped by the police. When other app users in the area trigger Stop and Frisk Watch, the user receives a message reporting where the police stop is happening. This feature is especially useful for community groups who monitor police activity.
REPORT: This prompts the survey, allowing users to report a police interaction they saw or experienced, even if they didn’t film it.
http://youtu.be/jDjZq7l-Zs8
Liu: Forget about NYPD inspector general, just abolish ‘stop and frisk’
by Sal Gentile
03/24/2013
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/24/liu-forget-about-nypd-inspector-general-just-abolish-stop-and-frisk/ (with video, UP w/Chris Hayes)
Excerpt:
John Liu, the New York City comptroller and one of the Democratic candidates vying to succeed Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said Sunday that he was opposed to a plan proposed by some of his rivals this week to establish an inspector general to oversee the New York Police Department, which has come under fire for its use of the controversial policing tactic known as “stop and frisk.”
City lawmakers reached a tentative deal on Tuesday to pass a bill that would establish an inspector general to oversee the NYPD. The proposal came as a class-action lawsuit against the NYPD was unfolding in dramatic fashion in federal court in Manhattan, with witnesses who had themselves been stopped and frisked breaking down on the stand, whistleblower cops testifying against the NYPD, and even secretly recorded conversations with commanding officers who seemed to suggest that there were quotas for issuing summonses, and that skin color could be used as a factor in deciding who to stop.
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, widely seen as the front-runner in the mayoral race, supports the legislation, as do two of her opponents, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and former comptroller Bill Thompson. Liu said not only that he opposed the establishment of an inspector general, but that as mayor he would personally direct the police commissioner to abolish the practice of “stop and frisk” altogether.
“I supported, last year, when the council members proposed what was called a ‘Community Safety Act,’ which was a package of four bills, one of which included this inspector general thing. But really, the more you think about it, the less sense an inspector general actually makes,” Liu said. “It’s not like the mayor doesn’t talk with the police commissioner. At the end of the day if I’m mayor, I’m going to be directing the police commissioner not to undertake tactics that I think are undemocratic and un-American.”
=====
“Forget about NYPD inspector general, just abolish ‘stop and frisk’” -Liu
Yes, abolish “stop and frisk”, but the department needs oversight, as well…
Nick, Yeah. He is a blog favorite. 😉
SWM, Al Sharpton?????
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/sharpton-nypd-brass-charged-stop-and-frisk-quota-article-1.1297592 Al Sharpton calls for charges against NYPD brass.
This is a fine article and a great example of what NOT to do when it comes to finding offenders. The racial quota in my book is sufficient for a summary judgment against the city.
The Terry v. Ohio “frisk” is for only one justifiable cause: Officer Safety. The three prongs for this are Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has, is, or is about to occur, the second is belief the person is armed AND third, the person represents a threat to the safety of the officer(s).
It is unreasonable to frisk a person if any of these three prongs are not present.
Often these types of frisks are used as pretexts to search the person further. It is the old “I saw a suspicious bulge in his coat pocket that looked like it MIGHT be a knife so I searched the pocket for a weapon.”
There are times where three prongs are met and it does turn up lawfully seized contraband, such as when the officer having the three prongs met pulls out a handgun off a suspected robber and the bag of illegal drugs catches on the hammer of the gun and falls out. But this is really uncommon and almost a guarantee the officer will be called in to a suppression hearing (which is a headache) It’s best to generally avoid these types of issues all together but be safe when it comes to weapons.
Singling out minorities is not only illegal it is flat out bad practice and unprofessional. Taking out the obviously immoral and illegal part of it, pragmatically it causes so many problems and it does not result in better arrests. Frankly, it is purely a waste of time to just pick someone out of the blue, who “looks like the wrong type” and try to drum up something when they could instead be actually looking more pro-actively for actual violators, serving arrest warrants, attempting to locate suspects in crimes, handling calls, anything is better than pulling over random people based on appearance alone. The crooks are out there, all they have to do is look for them and leave the regular people alone.
I have to give credit to the officers who testified against their departments. That took courage and fortitude given the checkered history NYPD has with corruption and retaliation. In some departments officers are socialized there from the time they are rookies to tow the line. When they are on probation especially in their first year they can be fired for the most BS of reasons, and supervisors in some incidences with these problem departments use this against them. Then once they are through probation and a year or two later they get brought in to the Dark Side of the Brotherhood, that is if one exists at that department. Where there is pressure to keep the status quo and protect their fellow officers, some become willing participants due to the mutual support. The vast majority of LEAs don’t have this problem but it is frequently present in the ones that do.
As for quotas. That is just lazy, or oppressive management. A good manager can see the effort of their officers and know who is working and who is not.
Here is a link to the Memorandum of Law (PDF) supporting injunctive relief in this case.
maybe the TSA should take a lesson from the nypd
Dredd,
I do think that NYPD is a model for many other jurisdictions and that is scary.
Mike S.,
Welcome back!
nick,
Thanks. the war on drugs has always been a mistake and it causes more crime than it prevents. How many people are in jail just because of marijuana arrests? Sad.
Blouise,
Thanks. I am sure ap will have some good contributions to the discussion.
Thanks for covering this.
Let’s hope they do not become the model for other cities.
Let’s hope the courts stop this intrusion into liberty and failure of civil rights.
Stop it now!
Good piece rafflaw. Then there’s the issue of why is simple possession of cannabis a crime? Cops love easy collars, that’s one of many reasons, and that’s what they are looking for..an easy collar.
Very important Larry. Leaving politics out of the equation, for now, a persons position on NYC “Stop and Frisk” defines their support of our Constituion. Those who support the positions of Bloomberg & Kelly do not value freedom and see people of color as the enemy. Bloomberg’s bland demeanor is an expression of the banality of evil.
raf,
Excellent contribution.
I can’t wait til ap gets here.
” In other words, the harm suffered by a “few” is outweighed by the benefit enjoyed by many”
Even if one agrees with the greater good argument, it would appear to be the greater good of the few outweighing the harm to the constitutional rights of many.
Our quarrel is not with sworn officers performing according to their instructions. The problem lies with police management and politicians.
This has to change.
Well said Steve. It is akin to “show me your papers”!
Good column.
First time that I have seen more than anecdotal evidence.
I read the WSJ regularly; they would have us believe that the greater good – public safety – outweighs the systematic violation of the Constitution. In other words, the harm suffered by a “few” is outweighed by the benefit enjoyed by many.
Slippery slope to fascism.
goldmans,
thank you for your clarification.
Rafflaw, you wrote “How many of the 5 Million stops in the last decade were done without probable cause?”
I think that the correct question is “How many of the 5 Million stops in the last decade were done without REASONABLE SUSPICION?”.
The Supreme Court made up this standard in the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio. Reasonable suspicion was supposed to based on “specific and articulable facts”. Presumably, these facts were not supposed to be “black male”.
Thank you for the post. I hope that you continue to update this as the trial goes on.