Ray Kelly Says That the NYPD Has Never Stopped and Frisked a Person Who Didn't Have It Coming

If you are black or Hispanic and have been stopped and harassed by a member of the NYPD, Ray Kelly believes you're guilty of something. That's essentially what the prospective new head of the Department of Homeland Security said this morning during a discussion of stop-and-frisk on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." 

Here's a summary of the exchange, courtesy of Mediaite

“It is a practice that is essential to policing. Police use it throughout America. As a matter of fact, you can’t police without doing it.” He said the criticism of the practice has been “overblown” and pointed out that “it’s only one piece of what we’re doing in New York City and in other cities, too.”

Brzezinski pushed back on the benign picture of stop-and-frisk painted by Kelly saying, “You put a lot of numbers on the table here, but the numbers also show that the people who are stopped and frisked are primarily minorities and primarily end up to be found doing nothing wrong. So one of the arguments would be that going up to people who are doing nothing wrong is not stopping crime–it’s breeding resentment and playing a dangerous game of profiling that could explode at some point.”

“The notion anyone stopped has done absolutely nothing wrong is not really the case,” Kelly responded, insisting that police “need reasonable suspicion to stop someone and question them.” He also countered accusations that the NYPD has “quotas” regarding stops, instead referring to the numbers officers are asked to hit as “productivity goals, like in any other business.”

Kelly's name was immediately floated after DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced she'd leave the department this fall. Chuck Schumer quickly endorsed the idea. Obama said he was open to it. Now Kelly is on a tour to redeem his good name and policing tactics from an onslaught of columns, tweets, and blog posts opposing his nomination. Kelly's MSNBC appearance was clearly part of that. So too was the editorial the WSJ published this morning, titled, "The NYPD: Guilty of Saving 7,383 Lives." For a lie-by-lie takedown of Kelly's fictional recounting of his own tenure, see Alex Pareene's piece at Salon. A sample:

Kelly:

So far this year, murders are down 29% from the 50-year low achieved in 2012, and we’ve seen the fewest shootings in two decades.

Pareene:

Kelly does not mention that murders have declined along with stop-and-frisks. In the first quarter of this year, the NYPD carried out 51 percent fewer stop-and-frisks than in the first quarter of 2012. That is more than 100,000 fewer stops. The result has not been more murder.

Kelly:

Never mind that in each of the city’s 76 police precincts, the race of those stopped highly correlates to descriptions provided by victims or witnesses to crimes. Or that in a city of 8.5 million people, protected by 19,600 officers on patrol (out of a total uniformed staff of 35,000), the average number of stops we conduct is less than one per officer per week.

Pareene: 

Then those officers are quite efficient. The city has recorded more than five million stops since Bloomberg took office. Perhaps Commissioner Kelly is referring solely to this year’s numbers, which, as mentioned earlier, are down significantly, along with the murder rate.

Nominating Kelly to head up the DHS would be a political nightmare for Obama. I hope he thinks better of it. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Slammer||

    He also countered accusations that the NYPD has “quotas” regarding stops, instead referring to the numbers officers are asked to hit as “productivity goals, like in any other business.”

    Classic.

  • anon||

    Jesus fuck, the stupidity is mind boggling.

    Do the New Yorkers themselves honestly believe there's a difference between a "quota" and a "productivity goal?"

  • ||

    Profiling is what redneck southern racists (and white Hispanics) do. Productivity goals are what enlightened liberal New Yorkers do. See the difference?

  • anon||

    If I say yes, will you at least lube the glove before shoving it in my ass?

  • AlexInCT||

    Vaseline and sand is all you get, and you will like it!

    /LEO

  • Tejicano||

    This will not be over quickly,

    You will not enjoy this,

    I am not your servant.

  • Ska||

    Yes, that's exactly what New Yorkers think. Everyone in NY loves the NYPD. Obviously.

  • ||

    Nobody "loves" the TSA, but the majority of the people thinks they are a necessary service to make America safe from terrorism.

  • anon||

    And that's a very sad state of affairs.

  • ||

    Forget it, Ska. It's REGION-WAR-town.

  • ||

    When I was on vacation earlier this year I talked to a young lady who claimed to be an open-minded liberal. She said she really liked Bloomberg because he's "made the city safer". These are the real New Yorkers. Dumb as a box of rocks and so obtuse they're practically horizontal.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    "Dumb as a box of rocks and so obtuse they're practically horizontal."

    Awesome.

  • ||

    It's okay to have racist profiling because we are all enlightened liberals, who aren't actually racist.

  • Rhywun||

    These are the real New Yorkers.

    Except for the 75% or so who couldn't be swayed to actually vote for him.

  • anon||

    "All that's required for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."

  • Metazoan||

    Don't bother, the DC-tarians have to tell us how terrible we are as humans for living in New York City.

  • Irish||

    I don't think it's DC-tarians. It's more the Southerntarians. DC-tarians and Chicago-tarians have no room to talk, since we're in the same boat as you.

  • AlexInCT||

    Titanic?

  • Ted S.||

    I'm neither a DC-tarian nor a Southerntarian. I live up in the Catskills, and think NYC people are a bunch of arrogant assholes.

  • ||

    No. The "there are no quotas" mantra is a classic that has been spewed by the NYPD forever. It's just reflex by them at this point. No one believes it, but they keep saying it.

  • John||

    They used to deny the "productivity goals" existed until some disgruntled cop leaked them out. Now they claim that you shouldn't believe your lying eyes and they are not really quotas.

  • SugarFree||

    Considering that no one seems to care about the quotas, I think denying them is just a game at this point.

    I'd like to think they have a sick sense of humor about it all, like Kelly is sitting around with his sycophant, and they are all shooting ideas at him about bullshit statements to make just to see if they can get away with it.

    I mean, Kelly could come out and say all dogs are male and all cats are female and at least one idiot at the Post would die on that hill to defend him.

  • pan fried wylie||

    and at least one idiot at the Post would die on that hill to defend him.

    To make it fair, they'll all draw straws.

  • Brett L||

    Was talking to an IT guy (ok we're all IT guys, but he's one of the company cable and server guy) from the home office in Tampa who used to be shore patrol in the Navy and has a bunch of cop friends. He was telling me the 'productivity targets' for the various Tampa area cops. Airport black and whites are supposed to issue 45 a month while Hillsboro county patrols are on a 116 citation/month "target".

    No quotas my ass. Tell your boss you only found 95 violations and see what your review looks like.

  • AlexInCT||

    It's about the revenue stream...

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It's just like traffic tickets, when they say there are no quotas. Sure, if you're on traffic and you don't write as many tickets as they want, you'll get your ass chewed out and a poor review. But there is no quota.

  • ||

    At the bank we used to call it "upselling." Sell products people really didn't need because that was your objective.

    They even used to sucker poor tellers into the sales objectives.

  • pan fried wylie||

    People voluntarily purchasing products from a merchant isn't really comparable to violating the rights of The People to be free of unreasonable search or seizure.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    He also countered accusations that the NYPD has “quotas” regarding stops, instead referring to the numbers officers are asked to hit as “productivity goals, like in any other business.”

    So what's the difference between "quotas" and "goals"? And since when do businesses have sovereign immunity?

  • anon||

    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well to be fair to Ray "the Finger" Kelly, we are all guilty of breaking the law to some degree. Though whether that's the fault of our wicked hearts or the law itself is another question.

  • Paul.||

    I break the law because I must.

  • Brett L||

    I hate motherfuckers who will tell me a lie we both know is a lie to my face. Do I piss down your back and tell you its raining? No. Give me the same fucking courtesy.

  • anon||

    To be fair, some people are into that kind of thing.

  • ant1sthenes||

    What the fuck is wrong with everyone named R. Kelley?

  • Zeb||

    I think you should piss down Ray Kelley's back and tell him it's raining.

  • Brett L||

    I suspect that would get me Giuliani'd.

  • pan fried wylie||

    It gets me Bloompkinned. Weird.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Bloompkin (TM)

  • SugarFree||

    “The notion anyone stopped has done absolutely nothing wrong is not really the case,” Kelly responded, insisting that police “need reasonable suspicion to stop someone and question them.”

    So everyone that was stopped and frisked were arrested? Or is the average NYPD officer's suspicions not reasonable? Because it can't be both.

  • ||

    This is based on false assumptions and results analysis, not process analysis. It is to be expected that only a %age of terry stops will result in arrest, because EVEN IF the person is doing something criminally wrong, the cop won't be able to develop PC based merely on a terry stop in many cases, because he will be dealing with limited info and it's not necessarily true that the criminal activity will be revealed to the extent that he develops PC

    And it doesn't matter. The "goal" of a terry stop is not to develop PC for a criminal charge. That's only one of the goals. And the test for the validity isn't whether criminal charges resulted. The test is based on the process analysis - was there RS

    At least in my experience, terry stops are exceptionally useful for intelligence purposes. They help us with link charts, with establishing associates, associated vehicles, MO's, gang patterns, etc.

    Regardless, the issue with NYPD is that they are clearly NOT relying on RS to make their stops. They are violating the 4th amendment. THAT is the problem and it's a serious one.

  • anon||

    Regardless, the issue with NYPD is that they are clearly NOT relying on RS to make their stops. They are violating the 4th amendment. THAT is the problem and it's a serious one.

    And yet somehow you can't conclude "reasonable suspicion" is, in itself, bullshit?

    Keep slurping that cock Dunphy.

  • ||

    No, most people and the courts recognize that RS is a valid concept and terry stops aren't going away. If RS was to be eliminated as a valid reason to stop people, cops ability to fight crime would be greatly diminished.

    If a bank is robbed, and the guy gets into a delorean for his getaway and I see a delorean a minute later driving away from the bank is that PC?

    No.

    It's RS. And fortunately, I can stop for RS and see if it pans out or not.

    RS aint going away. Comparing to other nations, nearly every other nation on earth (civilized one) allows cops to stop for similar reasons to RS. It's simply good police work.

    If I see a guy slim jimming a car in a parking lot at 2 am is that PC? No. It's RS.

    But I can stop him for it.

    Stuff like that.

  • anon||

    If a bank is robbed, and the guy gets into a delorean for his getaway and I see a delorean a minute later driving away from the bank is that PC?

    What a terrible example, considering the amount of DeLoreans on the road. That is the definition of Probable Cause.

    If I see a guy slim jimming a car in a parking lot at 2 am is that PC? No. It's RS.

    Actually, it is.

    Jesus fuck Dunphy, at least fucking google up PC before making yourself look retarded.

  • Zeb||

    People do slim jim their own cars sometimes.

  • ||

    We used to slim jim cars who parked in my grandfather's lot and then didn't pay. We'd move them off to the street where the city would tow them.

  • anon||

    Yeah, they do, but I'd say it's not very common.

    Although, most of the time now criminals just break the window, so there's that..

  • Zeb||

    I think that most modern car locks are not so susceptible to slim jim attacks. Do any cars still have the button that pops up?

  • ||

    I think they all use servos now, so no, they are generally not susceptible. It's been quite some time since I had to break into a car so I'm not as up on it as I used to be. I haven't had to hotwire one in over 20 years.

  • Juice||

    But it still can be probably cause for a search or investigation.

  • Zeb||

    I'm no expert, but I'd say it's RS, not PC. It is sufficient reason to go ans ask the person doing the slim-jimming if it is their car, and get some proof of that. But not to arrest someone.

  • Adam330||

    PC doesn't mean that there couldn't possibly be a non-criminal reason for the actions.

  • Zeb||

    Right, but it does mean there is sufficient cause to make an arrest, I believe.

  • pan fried wylie||

    With the slim jim they remembered to put in their pocket while they were forgetting to take their keys out of the ignition.

  • ||

    It's RS not PC

    If I could make a custodial arrest, it would be PC and I can't make a custodial arrest merely because he's slim jimming *a* car. I have to first determine if it's his car or not.

    I've had this happen. He was found guilty. The courts held up my terry stop and my subsequent arrest ONCE I determined the car was not his and he did not have permission

  • Free Society||

    If RS was to be eliminated as a valid reason to stop people, cops ability to fight crime would be greatly diminished.

    Not so greatly diminished as their ability to perpetrate crimes.

    And the problem isn't reasonable suspicion per se, it's that what constitutes reasonable suspicion can be literally anything. Cops smelling out a bag of weed from outside of the house 50 feet away in his patrol car, is found to be 'reasonable' suspicion. Don't pretend your reasonable suspicion is all that reasonable Dunphy.

  • Whahappan?||

    Exactly. The problem isn't RS for a stop, it's the lack of any standard for RS. Literally anything is accepted, in bad faith, as RS by the system.

  • Adam330||

    And the assumptions and analysis underlying Kelly's comment are true?

  • Fluffy||

    The key here is the threshold for "reasonable".

    If the suspicion was indeed reasonable, a substantial number of RS stops would result in arrests.

    You are using a definition of "reasonable" where the arrest likelihood is orders of magnitude lower than "probable" and that's just not what the words actually mean. Frankly, going by the actual definition of the words, "reasonable" should be higher than "probable". Because "probable" means only "likely" and "reasonable" means "in accord with reason", e.g. true.

  • ||

    My definition is based on case law- about 200 cases or so. I've made hundreds of terry stops myself, not including the case law I have studied.

    You can like it or not like it, but RS is the standard for temporary detention

  • Free Society||

    It takes a certain kind of asshole to be a cop. Be proud of all your hard work.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Only judges and cops could think suspicions that are wrong that often are "reasonable." It's the fucking definition of "unreasonable."

  • Whahappan?||

    Your definition is based on self-serving BS shitted out by dishonest, dishonorable, power-mad sociopaths who seek out the power to order people about and take their money through the initiation of violence, and the threat thereof.

  • Meerkatx||

    Just because there is case law, just because you've managed a bunch of probably bullshit stops doesn't make what you're saying ethically correct. To make it clear, just because you can, does not make it right.

    Cops, you guys have no ethics because you protect every bad cop you can. If I was the AG I would be looking at investigating every agency in the country under RICO statutes.

  • Meerkatx||

    Just because there is case law, just because you've managed a bunch of probably bullshit stops doesn't make what you're saying ethically correct. To make it clear, just because you can, does not make it right.

    Cops, you guys have no ethics because you protect every bad cop you can. If I was the AG I would be looking at investigating every agency in the country under RICO statutes.

  • Meerkatx||

    The limited info the NY LEO's are dealing with is "black kid" or "Hispanic kid" versus "not black or Hispanic".

    Doesn't matter if they stop a white person in case of lack of minorities, they are still wrong to stop and frisk with no probable cause and they are clearly doing just that.

  • Dankee||

    Kelly is right, there are VERY good reasons for stopping people. You get stopped for looking around and being mixed race: http://www.occupy.com/article/.....g-his-ipod

  • Invisible Finger||

    “productivity goals, like in any other business

    I have the feeling that Ray Kelly knows NOTHING about how an actual business is run.

  • SugarFree||

    Or he's just a liar. Occam, yo.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Or he's just retarded. Hanlon bitchez!

  • ||

    Like retards don't lie.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Quiet you. Retards are the gentle giants of modern society. Only they, with their childlike innocence, are pure in the eyes of Ray Kelly. Why else would so many of them work for the NYPD?

  • anon||

    Don't forget that retard strength. We can't offend them; they might choke a bitch out.

  • ||

    You might be screaming "no, no, no", but all they hear is "who wants cake?" They all do. They all want cake.

  • Tim||

    Cake?

  • db||

    More like Jeantel's Razor.

  • anon||

    Good thing razors can't experience disgust.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I'm not familiar with that principle. Is it all things being equal, the most retarded explanation is the correct one?

  • Zeb||

    And the whole ideas of productivity goals for police is absurd. For one thing, police aren't supposed to produce anything. They are supposed to respond when a crime has been committed and perhaps patrol to serve as a deterrent to crime. If we are to believe that part of the purpose of police is to deter crime, then if they do their job well, their "productivity" should go down.

  • Invisible Finger||

    It's government. Nothing succeeds like failure.

    This is why Kelly knows nothing about how an actual business is run. However, I do not deny that city hall treats the PD as a revenue center.

  • Slammer||

  • Killazontherun||

    Please tell me they picked the Niagara Falls for their expedition.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That would have made a great opening scene for Deliverance 2: The Deliverancning

  • Brett L||

    Deliverance Boogaloo!

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    "I'm not looking for Curly's Gold in there!"

  • ||

    Terms of Deliverancement

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's why there's no libertarian river guides.

  • John||

    The notion anyone stopped has done absolutely nothing wrong is not really the case,” Kelly responded, insisting that police “need reasonable suspicion to stop someone and question them.” He also countered accusations that the NYPD has “quotas” regarding stops, instead referring to the numbers officers are asked to hit as “productivity goals, like in any other business.”

    Love the weasel words there. What is "not really the case"? Is it the case or is it not. I am unaware of the epistemological status of "not really". And "productivity goals" is just classic. Your boss setting goals for you is totally advisory. No one would ever feel pressure to meet them or anything.

    Unless the Senate just rubber stamps this clown, which is possible if not likely, his confirmation hearing is going to be a train wreck. He seems to have never had to explain his actions to anyone for any reason.

  • ||

    It's been shown pretty conclusively that NYPD is not making stops based on reasonable suspicion. It's of course a logical fallacy to conclude that if cops don't discover PC for criminal activity pursuant to a terry stop that the people were not doing something wrong. Some were, some weren't. But that's irrelevant. It's a process analysis not a results analysis. The process requires that cops have reasonable suspicion. As long as they do, it doesn't matter if they are unable to develop PC, because the proper legal process is being followed. NYPD is clearly not following that proper legal process.

  • John||

    That is true. Sometimes the suspicion doesn't pan out. But yes, the evidence is overwhelming that New York cops are not making stops based on reasonable suspicion of anything.

  • ||

    Exactly. And it's taking a valuable police practice (terry stops) and turning it into a method to harass people without cause.

    It's really not that difficult to do the RIGHT thing and only make terrys based on RS. I've been doing it for 20 yrs.

  • Fluffy||

    At least in my experience, terry stops are exceptionally useful for intelligence purposes. They help us with link charts, with establishing associates, associated vehicles, MO's, gang patterns, etc.

    The problem is that these are the things you listed that make Terry stops a "valuable police practice".

    And you know what?

    Fuck you, you don't get to stop me for ANY of these. Not one.

    I don't care how valuable you think they are.

    As far as I am concerned, if the reason you stopped me was to achieve ANY of these goals, then you have harassed me without a justifiable reason. Because none of these things justifies you impeding me, or even justifies you interacting with me in any way under color of law.

  • ||

    No, I get to stop you for RS. But ONCE I DO, I can use the intel I get for whatever purpose is proper for law enforcement.

    You can think whatever you want, but it comes down to a simple analysis. Did I have RS? If I did, the stop is valid, even if I use the info from the stop for intel purposes

  • anon||

    "What the fuck are you looking at boy? Stop right there asshole, you're getting the full fucking cavity search."

  • ||

    What happens when 'reasonable suspicion' and 'Roid boy' collide?

    World's colliding!

  • Adam330||

    It's also a fallacy to conclude that just because a cop stops someone, he was doing something wrong. Which is what Kelly appears to be saying (although his sentence is too incoherent to really be sure what he meant).

  • John||

    I am really surprised that the White House allowed the MSDNC hacks to ask him about stop and frisk. Was the idea to throw him a softball to let him explain? Are they actually concerned about it being an issue in his confirmation? Why else did they have MSNBC ask the question if not because they wanted to get the issue out and deal with it now rather than later? It kind of makes me wonder if his confirmation is not totally in the bag.

  • Bryan C||

    For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of Ray.

  • JW||

    “The notion anyone stopped has done absolutely nothing wrong is not really the case,”

    Three felonies a day.

    So, he may be telling the truth. Our masters have criminalized so many normal activities, that you can't not break the law.

    Yay.

  • Inigo M.||

    Isn't there some idiotic gubernatorial candidate who wants to make oral sex a felony, even for married couples? That's what Raytard needs to get behind -- his goons could freely grab anyone with a pulse.

  • ||

    That would be Ken Cuccinelli, running in VA.

  • Gene||

    Three!?! Maybe if I was sick and was only up for a few hours. A tally would put many of us in prison for eons.

  • Anders||

    I have a 'reasonable suspicion' that Kelly is a very proud out of the closet Fascist.

    And I don't need to feel his balls to confirm that.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Aw, cut the poor laddie some slack, would ya? He's just a mick with a few bricks short of a full load.

  • sarcasmic||

    insisting that police “need reasonable suspicion to stop someone and question them.”

    Here are some "probable cause" excuses cops have given me for stopping me and demanding identification so they could try to get me for a warrant.

    An untucked shirt is reasonable suspicion to believe someone is hiding a weapon. So tuck in your shirt if you don't want the cops to stop and search you.

    Sidewalks are meant for movement. Any pause, no matter how slight, is loitering. So keep moving, peasant, unless you want to be interrogated.

    Any property that is not the sidewalk or the road is private property. Step onto that property without explicit permission and you're trespassing. So don't step off the sidewalk, peasant, unless you want to be interrogated.

    Dropping a cigarette butt on the ground is littering. So put all your butts back into the pack, peasant, if you don't want to be interrogated.

    And in all cases I was told that if I had any warrants, they'd cite me for whatever violation had given them probable cause to stop me in the first place.

  • db||

    Dropping a cigarette butt on the ground is filthy. What, were you raised in a landfill?

  • Contrarian P||

    If he drops one on the ground in order to grind it out with his shoe before disposing of it in a waste receptacle, at least he's preventing a fire. Still a nasty habit though.

  • SugarFree||

    Are you old enough to remember when civics teachers used to boast about how free America was and that someone demanding your "papers" was a nightmarish dystopia of fascism or communism?

    I wonder what they boast about now? "At least we aren't Yemen!"

  • ||

    They boast that we have Obamacare and really strong border enforcement with Mexico.

  • sarcasmic||

    I wonder what they boast about now?

    The government keeps us safe from terrorists and drug dealers by stopping and searching anyone who looks the slightest bit out of place. If they happen to stop you and demand your "papers," you should thank them for keeping you safe.

  • Spoonman.||

    But we do prop up and arm the government of Yemen, so we kinda are.

  • ||

    Do they still even have civics in public school? I barely did, and that was like 15 years ago.

  • ||

    In my high school, you only took civics if you were on the retard track. The college prep track actually took an extra year of US history instead, obviously so as to instill the proper respect for the revolution and founding fathers and such...hahahahha no.

  • ||

    So how was civics class?

  • ||

    There was lots of cake.

  • Irish||

    Nicole was too dumb for civics class. Once you get down to Nicole's level, they just chain you to a radiator and periodically toss you a sandwich.

  • ||

    We had "Social Studies", and everyone took it. When I did, our teacher was a very nice but very liberal young lady who was way too earnest. So everyone just sort of tuned out and did the minimum necessary, because it wasn't a "real" class.

  • Zeb||

    I was fortunate enough to have a very attractive and reasonably nice English woman of Gypsie heritage teaching my freshman socail studies classes, so that was nice.

  • ||

    My teacher was one of the few in my school who was legit. Definite statist, of course, but you weren't getting out of that class without learning 90% of what was in the textbook at least.

  • Jerryskids||

    Where I went to school they didn't hire social studies teachers - they hired coaches for the football and basketball teams and let them teach social studies.

    The worst teacher I ever had was a math teacher who actually had gotten certified to teach social studies, found out she couldn't get a job since she didn't coach, went back and got certified to teach math and got hired to teach geometry and algebra despite struggling with concepts like multiplying and dividing fractions.

  • Zeb||

    They had started calling it "Government" class instead by the time I took it in HS 20 years ago. (fuck, is it really that long ago?)

  • ||

    Speaking of government class, any truth to the rumor history textbooks will have Obama's face on them in the future?

    Forward!

  • Inigo M.||

    I am old enough. And when I was a kid, if another kid told you shouldn't do something, the standard response was, "Hey, it's a free country!" Now, I'm sure that kind of response would just cause some confused stares.

    As for what the civics teachers boast about now, it's probably how many of their students they've managed to suspend for atrocities such as chewing a Pop-Tart into a gun-like shape or bringing a pink Hello Kitty bubble blower to school. Just think of how many innocent lives have been saved due to these vigilant teachers!

  • sarcasmic||

    It's no longer "Hey, It's a free country!"

    Now it's "Who said you could do that?"

    Freedom means asking permission and taking orders.

  • Zeb||

    Just ask Giuliani. Seems to be a common theme in NYC.

  • ||

    Mine spent almost all his time ranting about Reagan. A few years ago, I dated a girl whose younger sister had him as a teacher and I learned that he spends almost all his time ranting about Bush now. Good to see he's kept up with the times.

  • Jerryskids||

    We have a highway here named after a martyred drug warrior (who was run off from 3 different police forces for being a psycho) who seriously explained that he really did have a sixth sense for picking out drug runner's cars. Some of the telltale signs were 1) if it was speeding to get rid of the drugs fast, 2) if it was driving slowly to avoid getting stopped by the cops for speeding, or 3) driving exactly the right speed so as to blend into traffic.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Now Kelly is on a tour to redeem his good name and policing tactics from an onslaught of columns, tweets, and blog posts opposing his nomination. Kelly's MSNBC appearance was clearly part of that.

    Mika is a serious journalist, dammit!

  • Tim||

    I say make George Zimmerman head of DHS.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Awesome.

  • ||

    If your house is burglarized and you chase the perp, he gets into a volkswagen cabriolet color blue and drives off. A cop 2 minutes later sees a blue cabriolet a mile away from your house.

    Do you believe the cop should be able to stop the cabriolet?

    IF you believe so, then you believe in the concept of RS for terry stops, because that's the perfect example of RS. It doesn't rise to PC but it clearly is more than a mere hunch.

    Most people accept such common sense practices are reasonable. The courts do too.

    So, ask yourself that question. Most people would think the cops have a right to stop that vehicle and see if it's the burglar (you bring the victim to the scene for a showup. If you move the suspect you risk a constructive arrest and getting your case thrown out).

    Should this person be briefly detained for the purpose of seeing if a witness can ID him?

    If you say yes, you believe in the concept of PROPER terry stops

    RS- it's what's for dinner

  • anon||

    If your house is burglarized and you chase the perp, he gets into a volkswagen cabriolet color blue and drives off. A cop 2 minutes later sees a blue cabriolet a mile away from your house.

    Since you obviously can't use teh googles, I'll just copy and paste for you:

    In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law [edited for length] ... "Probable" in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs.

  • ||

    False. Probable cause is the standard for custodial arrest. Reasonable suspicion is the standard for a brief seizure, which was established by case law in the case Terry v. Ohio

    If you don't believe in terry stops, then in the above case, you don't believe the cop should be able to stop the cabriolet, because it doesn't rise to the level of PC

  • anon||

    "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."

    Give you two guesses who said that.

  • Anders||

    Dunphy, do you think you have the right to sexually assault people if you have a reasonable suspicion that they might be a bad guy?

    I've got it now. You're TSA.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Having read the case that actually existed in Terry, no so caleld "Terry stop" made since has had anywhere near the level of evidence which the officer in Terry had. The problem is simple - abuse of the word "reasonable" until it no longer means to the officer what the public thinks it means. None of this crap carried on under the legal fiction of being a "Terry stop" has been "Reasonable" to an objective person.

  • anon||

    Which is exactly why I'll submit to a stop based on statistics, and not what some asshole thinks is "reasonable."

    Shit, Loughner's actions seemed "reasonable to Loughner. Hitler's actions were "reasonable" to most germans.

    And yes, godwinned.

  • pan fried wylie||

    And yes, godwinned.

    Godwinning was reasonable to Godwin.

  • Finrod||

    I met a guy once that had done research into the legal underpinnings of Nazi law. The phrase "the free and reasoned opinions of the German people" apparently popped up all over the place.

  • SugarFree||

    And what the detective did in Terry that was deemed acceptable was at odds with the reason it was reasoned to be acceptable. A Terry stop is not supposed to be about gathering evidence, but the evidence that was found was what Terry and his accomplice was convicted on.

    Therefore, deciding if the search is Constitutional is all based on the officer's intentions for the search and does not constitute an objective standard.

    Terry frisks for finding weapons should be legal only if any evidence it finds it inadmissible. If you want to legally search them, arrest them or get a warrant.

  • John||

    Terry was literally a guy breaking into warehouses at 2 in the morning. Somehow we went from, "a cop confronting a guy alone in a dark alley at 3 am" to "anytime a cop approaches anyone he is free to search that person at his discretion". Terry was for officer safety and really should have been limited to its facts. It was a rare case where an officer really had reason to be concerned. Instead, the courts took the doctrine and ran wild.

  • sarcasmic||

    Even in my one encounter with a mythical "good cop" I was searched.

    I was walking home from a bar in a winter storm, and a cop pulled up beside me. I muttered "Not again" under my breath. He says "I'm going to give you a ride home. Let me pat you down for weapons. What's that? Cigarettes? OK. Get in." and then gave me a ride home. Didn't demand ID. Didn't run me for warrants. Didn't give me a speech about how he was going to get me sooner or later after no warrants came up because he didn't run me. Just a quick pat-down and a ride home, then he was gone.
    I was speechless. Literally. Nothing like that had ever happened before. Nor did it happen again.

  • anon||

    To be fair sarc, if I picked up some random drunk dude I'd want to know whether I was gonna have to shoot him *before* I gave him a ride.

    But that's also why I don't give rides to random drunk dudes.

  • Inigo M.||

    What the hell is a "terry" stop anyway? Is that when a sweaty marathon runner gets handed a towel?

    "Tarry" means to stay longer than intended or to delay leaving a place. "Terry" means a fabric with raised uncut loops of thread covering both surfaces, used especially for towels.

  • ||

    It's a reference to Terry v. Ohio.

  • mnarayan||

    It's named for the Terry in "Terry v. Ohio", not based upon any actual word.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ignore these people. It's called that because cops first did it to frisk women in terrycloth bathrobes.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Guess what, Fosdick; it's none of your fucking business where I'm going or what I'm doing, you Stasi fuck.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is the job of the police to protect and serve the public.
    The public being defined as anyone except any individual member of the public with whom they are dealing with at any time.
    So of course it's their business to know where you're going and what you're doing. They're serving and protecting the public, as in everyone but you.

  • ||

    What dunphy fundamentally doesn't understand is our opposition to someone being able to stop and detain us because they are "suspicious" in the first place. As a subscriber to police authority, and as a member of the class allowed to exercise police authority, he's all for it, and myopically cannot understand how those who either are not in said class or do not believe in having such a class might be opposed.

    Authority is literally the water that he as a fish swims in, and cannot feel.

  • ||

    If I see a guy slim jimming his way into a vehicle at 2 am in a parking lot, do i have the right to stop him and investigate?

    if you believe the answer is "yes", then you believe in RS and terry stops.

    I'm honestly asking this simple question.

    DO YOU BELIEVE THE COP IN THAT CASE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STOP THE PERSON AND INVESTIGATE OR NOT?

  • sarcasmic||

    Considering that a slim jim is illegal (in this state anyway), then that looks more like PC than RS.

  • ||

    It's not illegal in my state, and in the case *i* investigagted (see below) it was actually a coat hanger, to be precise.

  • Adam330||

    Your example is undoubtedly PC and thus irrelevant.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If I see a guy slim jimming his way into a vehicle at 2 am in a parking lot, do i have the right to stop him and investigate?

    No. You could just keep driving and let the guy get his keys out of the car.

    I'm honestly asking this simple question.

    No. You're seeking justification for a conclusion that you've already reached. That conclusion being "man is slim jimming a car, therefore, man is stealing car." At that point, you are not investigating, you are just looking for something to confirm your bias.

    But, dunphy is an authoritarian shitheel who thinks it proper to summarily execute people for touching their waistbands. What else would you expect from SS wannabes like dunphy?

  • Rhywun||

    Good lord, I read the headline as "R Kelly says..." at first.

  • Slammer||

    And there's a discussion above about pissing on people

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    R Kelly, Ray Kelly, they both piss on you for fun.

  • anon||

    At least R Kelly had the decency to record it for all of our enjoyment.

  • kinnath||

    I hope that Ray trips and falls down a long flight of stairs before he comes up for confirmation.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It couldn't make him any uglier.

    Christ, he's got the face of an early 20th-century, anti-Irish pamphlet caricature.

  • anon||

    Those were caricatures?

    I thought they were just pics.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Ray Kelly's ma an' pa.

    Source: his nypd bio page.

  • anon||

    seems legit.

  • Irish||

    Christ, he's got the face of an early 20th-century, anti-Irish pamphlet caricature.

    An Irish family reunion.

  • Slammer||

    We need Irish in here for some perspective.

  • Slammer||

    See?

  • Sevo||

    “The notion anyone stopped has done absolutely nothing wrong is not really the case,”

    It is also totally irrelevant.
    Charge someone with a crime and prove it or get lost.

  • ||

    For the ignorati. This is not my opinion. This is based on case law, specifically a case I investigated.

    I see a guy slim jimming his way into a car at 2 am in a parking lot. That, I believe is REASONABLE SUSPICION. I say "slim jim" but he is actually using a coat hanger, but I digress.

    I approach and ask him what he is doing. This is a threshold inquiry and does not rise to the level of custodial interrogation (per the judge who later ruled on this) so I am not required to issue miranda warnings.

    He says its his girlfriend's car that he borrowed, but he lost the keys so he's trying to get in because he thinks there's an extra set of keys.
    I ask him his name. Which he gives me

    But he can't tell me his gf's NAME.

    I run the RO of the car and it comes back to some person who is not him.

    Now, I have PC. I place him under arrest for Criminal Attempt of RCW 9a.52.100

    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/def.....=9A.52.100

    The case went to trial. He argued I did not have sufficient cause to seize him based on my seeing him slim jim (ok, coat hanger) his way into a vehicle, that I first would have to know he had no permission to do so.

    Judge didn't buy it.

  • ||

    Judge said that I had REASONABLE SUSPICION per Terry v. Ohio , which is what the prosecutor argued.

    Once I found out the RO had a different name than him and he could not tell me the name of the RO, *THEN * I had PC.

    That's pretty much a garden variety terry stop case.

    But for those thinking seeing a person slim jim into a car at 2 am is PC, you are wrong. It's RS.

    It very well may be his car. But it's suspicious enough that I can make a seizure to investigate

    This is the kind of case the Terry v. Ohio case was designed to cover.

    It's basic police work.

    And just like the get away car case, it is NOT PC. It is RS

  • ||

    Judge said that I had REASONABLE SUSPICION per Terry v. Ohio , which is what the prosecutor argued.

    Once I found out the RO had a different name than him and he could not tell me the name of the RO, *THEN * I had PC.

    That's pretty much a garden variety terry stop case.

    But for those thinking seeing a person slim jim into a car at 2 am is PC, you are wrong. It's RS.

    It very well may be his car. But it's suspicious enough that I can make a seizure to investigate

    This is the kind of case the Terry v. Ohio case was designed to cover.

    It's basic police work.

    And just like the get away car case, it is NOT PC. It is RS

  • ||

    If you believe I should have the legal authority to seize the gentleman and investigate, then you believe in RS.

    Just because NYPD is *abusing* RS and terry stops doesn't reflect negatively on the concept itself.

    So simply ask yourself the question - should a cop be able to seize the car prowler and investigate?

    Should the cop be able to seize the get away car a mile from the bank, 2 minutes after the robbery based on same vehicle type as the robber (again RS)?

    If you believe the cops should have the authoritah to make these seizures, then you believe in RS

    In both cases, the person could be entirely innocent. But it's a process analysis, not a results analysis.

    The issue is - does the cop have RS?

  • Adam330||

    "Just because NYPD is *abusing* RS and terry stops doesn't reflect negatively on the concept itself."

    It reflects poorly on the enforcement mechanisms that they have been abusing it on a massive scale for a decade or so and have yet to be punished. In fact, the guy who's heading it up is up for a cabinet post. If there's no way to stop police from abusing this authority, then it should simply be taken away, even if it leads to some criminals not getting caught.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Just because NYPD is *abusing* RS and terry stops doesn't reflect negatively on the concept itself.

    Why not, when it worked so well for jury nullification?

    Or is that because nullification is a power of the peasants and not the Warrior Caste?

  • Andrew S.||

    "Just because NYPD is *abusing* RS and terry stops doesn't reflect negatively on the concept itself."

    Sure it does. It's proof that the concept is meaningless, because an officer can define what RS is, and nobody will question him on it. And once that happens, RS is a dead concept, because a police officer can essentially stop anybody they want, for any reason, as long as they use the right words in explaining themselves afterwards.

  • anon||

    As quoted above:
    "To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."

  • Fluffy||

    You aren't actually detaining that person, so the entire story is irrelevant and moot.

    The stop and frisk program allows police to DETAIN people.

    If you approached that guy and he just told you to go fuck yourself because he's not giving you any information, would you then have PC?

  • Ron||

    If he takes over DHS what type of "Productivity goals" will he be shooting for there. Will he be calling for more road side stops or raids on houses so that they can use all the equipment his predessesor purchased.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Ray Kelly promises that the DHS will never stop and frisk a brown person who doesn't have it coming.

  • creech||

    Dunphy is providing a service to us by letting us know how professional LEOs should be doing their job. My encounters with the police have been generally fair. However, the one time I was really stopped with no reasonable suspicion, I complied with a voluntary trunk search even though I knew it was improper because a) I knew I had nothing illegal, and b) the meter was running on the baby sitter and I knew a cop could really fuck up your evening if he wanted. I suspect that many of us comply with improper LEO and TSA requests all the time just to skip the consequences of saying "no." We all need to grow some balls.

  • sarcasmic||

    I suspect that many of us comply with improper LEO and TSA requests all the time just to skip the consequences of saying "no." We all need to grow some balls.

    What's the point of taking risks with no possible rewards?

    Policy will not change. No individual officers will be punished.

    The best you can hope for by refusing a search is that you'll be detained for a few hours while they make up an excuse to do the search anyway, and the worst you can expect is to be beaten to death for contempt of cop. Meanwhile they get to rack up overtime pay.

    No matter what, they win and you lose.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I knew I had nothing illegal

    A huge mistake to make this assumption. Do you have the entire federal and state criminal code memorized? Did you do a complete search (inside the spare tire, lights, etc) just before the cop did?

  • ||

    Some good "reasonable suspicion" case law

    Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) March ’00 LED:02 (U.S. Supreme Court holds that unprovoked, headlong flight at sight of police car by person in area known for heavy drug trafficking is “reasonable suspicion” under the “totality of the circumstances”)

    State v. Doughty, 170 Wn.2d 70 (2010) Nov. ‘10 LED:04 (Where the sole apparent basis for police officers’ labeling of a house as a “known drug house” was the neighbors’ reports of heavy short-stay traffic to the house, a suspect’s less-than-two-minute visit to that “known drug house” at 3:20 a.m. by a suspect unknown to police officers did not provide reasonable suspicion of drug crime and hence did justify a stop of the suspect’s car)

    Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) May ‘00 LED:07 (U.S. Supreme Court holds that anonymous phone call regarding young man in plaid shirt at bus stop with a gun failed to meet the “reasonable suspicion” test, and therefore seizure and frisk was unlawful)

    State v. Hopkins, 128 Wn. App. 855 (Div. II, 2005) Oct. ’05 LED:09 (Where officers did not call back to get more details, citizen informant’s call on cell phone to report possible juvenile in possession of handgun was not shown, on the totality of the circumstances, to establish reasonable suspicion for Terry seizure of suspect, nor were there sufficient corroborating observations to support the Terry seizure)

  • Andrew S.||

    So Dunphy, just curious. Are you willfully ignoring the arguments being made by others above, or do you just have horrible reading comprehension skills?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Some other "good" SCOTUS case law:

    Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional.

    Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".

    Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate the amount of wheat grown on private land.

  • ||

    excellent case describing case law and reasonable suspicion. With that said, good cops will continue to make stops based on RS and will continue to protect the public and catch bad guys pursuant to case law that says we can stop on RS.

    http://www.find-laws.com/court.....tate-v-lee

  • sarcasmic||

    Bad cops will continue to make bad stops, and nothing else will happen.

  • dinkster||

    This

  • Adam330||

    I don't see many people arguing that if you can actually articulate objective facts justifying your suspicion, then this should be grounds for stopping someone.

    The issue is that it is proven beyond any doubt that police officers in NYC and all over the country are conducting millions of stops based on nothing more than "furtive movements." They continue to do this for decades on end with the full knowledge and support of their superiors and face absolutely no consequences whatsoever. That tells me that either 1) the current standard is too factually dependent to be enforceable by courts and thus needs to be modified, and/or 2) there need to be legally effective remedies against officers and police departments that don't follow the law.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If I see a guy slim jimming his way into a vehicle at 2 am in a parking lot, do i have the right to stop him and investigate?

    if you believe the answer is "yes", then you believe in RS and terry stops.

    You are a tedious, boring pathological liar who incessantly pulls this sort of sleazy rhetorical bait and switch. Fuck off.

  • Rhywun||

    You are a tedious, boring pathological liar who incessantly pulls this sort of sleazy rhetorical bait and switch. Fuck off.

    Oh, come on. Slim jimming one's way into a vehicle at 2 am is just as suspect as walking around in certain clothing and/or wearing a certain expression and you know it.

  • anon||

    See, my thing is, any person walking by someone else attempting to break into a vehicle would go "Hmm, that probably warrants a followup." Anyone, nearly anywhere, would say that person is probably breaking into a vehicle.

    It gives enough "PC" to at least stop and ask a few questions.

    Walking down the street in a "suspicious manner", even in the Ohio v Terry case, should not result in a stop & frisk moment.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    OMG! A furtive gesture! Slap the cuffs on him!

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    Nominating Kelly to head up the DHS would be a political nightmare for Obama. I hope he thinks better of it.

    Those of us who view politics as entertainment hope he goes ahead with it. Six months into his second term and Obama's back is broken by the idiotic gun control push and a litany of serious scandals.

    Don't forbid us the joy of witnessing a little more BHO self immolation or the pleasure of watching Paul and Cruz shoot fish in a barrel.

  • ||

    I wonder if we could somehow arrange for Mr Kelly to be stopped & frisked. After all, if he has nothing to hide andonly people who had it coming get frisked, I wonder what that would do to his public image?

    Likewise, I wonder if Mr Bloomberg ever gets stopped & frisked? I bet any NYPD officer who did so would be unemployed within 24 hours...which itself would be an awesome statement on what Mr Bloomberg really thinks about the police and public order...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement