New York City

Constitution, Schmonstitution, Bloomberg Says


Over the weekend New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg condemned critics of the NYPD's "stop and frisk" program, under which police detained supposedly suspicious people, overwhelmingly black and Hispanic, for questioning and/or pat-downs a record 684,330 times last year. "They sit there, and they pontificate and they complain," Bloomberg told reporters after speaking at the Greater Allen AME Cathedral in Queens on Sunday, referring to the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU). "Our police officers put their lives on the line every single day." The implication—that respecting civil liberties endangers officers' lives and is therefore a luxury they cannot afford—is not exactly reassuring, especially coming from a man who implicitly concedes that the "reasonable suspicion" police are supposed to have when they stop someone is no more than a legal fiction used to justify a more or less random dragnet whose main value is not crime detection or weapon confiscation but deterrence.

Writing in The New York Times, the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald likewise defends the stop-and-frisk strategy based on its purported effectiveness. Since the early 1990s, she says, crime has declined faster in New York than in other big cities, and "only New York's policing revolution, which began in 1994 and seeks to prevent crime before it happens, explains the distinction." Mac Donald admits that "being stopped when you are innocent is an infuriating, humiliating experience" and suggests that "New York's officers need to better explain to stop subjects why they were accosted." (Toward that end, the NYPD plans to supply its officers with "informational cards" that "provide a written description of the legal authority for such stops and a list of common reasons individuals are stopped by the police.") Mac Donald even allows that "if a more powerful method of deterring crime is developed, the N.Y.P.D. should and would adopt it." But "for now," she says, the NYPD should stick with the "assertive style of policing" that has allowed "New York's most vulnerable residents" to "enjoy a freedom from assault unknown in any other big city." 

Bloomberg and Mac Donald both seem to think a policing strategy is justified if it reduces crime, but surely that is not the end of the analysis. One can imagine "a more powerful method of deterring crime" that even Mac Donald would reject because it entailed unacceptable violations of civil liberties: omnipresent, 1984-style surveillance, say, or summary execution of suspicious characters. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that stop and frisk is a crucial part of a "policing revolution" that is largely responsible for the big decline in crime the city has seen since 1994, that does not make it legal. In a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of innocent people stopped by the NYPD, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argues that New York cops routinely violate the Fourth Amendment by detaining and searching people without the "reasonable suspicion" the Supreme Court has said is necessary. The NYCLU's numbers support that argument, showing that stops, which are supposedly justified by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, result in a summons or arrest (including trumped-up pot busts) in just one out of 10 cases, while searches, supposedly justified by a reasonable suspicion that the target is armed, almost never turn up a weapon. In short, New York cops' suspicions do not seem very reasonable.

Routinely subjecting innocent people to the "infuriating, humiliating experience" of being stopped, interrogated, and frisked for no good reason may indeed have some deterrent value, as Bloomberg and Mac Donald claim. But that does not mean the practice is just or constitutional. As U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin emphasized in certifying the CCR class action, "suspicionless stops should never occur." It would be nice if the mayor of our largest city, who has admirably defended the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, at least paid lip service to the Fourth. Instead he displays what Scheindlen called a "cavalier attitude towards the prospect of a 'widespread practice of suspicionless stops,'" reflecting "a deeply troubling apathy towards New Yorkers' most fundamental constitutional rights."

NEXT: John Stossel on Washington's War on Young Workers

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Our police officers put their lives on the line every single day.” Doesn’t that need a ? after it?

    1. Yes, it does.

      As well as the phrases:

      “Shots were fired”
      “Officer safety is paramount”
      “Our usurious pensions are sacrosanct”

      1. The last statement is never actually stated as such, it’s merely implied as a consequence of putting their lives on the line every single day?.

    2. Notwithstanding the fact that even sanitation workers have a higher job mortality rate than cops, who aren’t even in the top 20.

      1. And not one of those sanitation fatalities, AFAIK, comes from a dog that comes running out to greet them, either.

  2. “Our police officers put their lives on the line every single day.”

    Non-sequitir. What does that have to do with stopping and frisking random people?

    1. *sequitur*

      Still, don’t make no sense.

    2. By stealing each others’ guns and selling them to criminals.

  3. Feck Bloomberg. He is a festering pustule on America’s buttocks. Drink! Arse! Girls!

    1. Drink! Arse! Girls!

      Newsletter? You have one?

      1. Nudie Father Jack!

        I, too, would like to subscribe to your newsletter. If you have one.

  4. You know who else reduced crime with a police state?

    1. Palpatine?

    2. Eugene Tackleberry?

      1. Has anyone else noted the striking similarities between Mayberry and the DPRK?

        Someone should make a film where Aunt Bee is the dictator of an isolated dystopia like North Korea, and Barney Fife is her top evil Henchman. I am trying to figure out where Opie Cunningham fits into this picture…

        1. He can wear a scout bandana and learn a different lesson about the Glories of the Worker State every week.

          1. The first comment on there would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so true:

            today we Taser people to death for running stop? signs

        2. Oops, I forgot, Opie already has a role!

          Opie Speaks

    3. Singapore?

    4. somolia?


    5. “Reduced” is the wrong word. “Co-opted” would be more accurate.

    6. Sheriff Joe?

    7. Ming the Merciless?

    8. *bzzzzzzzt*

      Correct answer was “Drakon”.

    9. He who must not be named?

  5. Every white person in NYC who remembers when Dinkins was mayor supports random stop-and-frisks.

    New Yorkers are really good at finding unprincipled exceptions to their liberalism.

    1. Which is strange, if this is true regarding the crime rates:

      Although rates of most crimes, including all categories of violent crime, made consecutive declines during the last 36 months of his four-year term, ending a 30-year upward spiral and initiating a trend of falling rates that continued beyond his term, Dinkins was hurt by the perception that crime was out of control during his administration.[13][14] Dinkins also initiated a hiring program that expanded the police department nearly 25%.

      1. I think a major part of the perception of Dinkins’ record on crime gets skewed because of the Crown Heights Riot. And IIRC, wasn’t the Central Park jogger trial during that time as well?

        1. Yeah I’m pretty sure it was the riot that did him in. I just don’t like that Rudy Guli rode in and took all the credit for a trend that was already well underway.

          1. I thought it was non-fat yogurt and a campaign to make all New Yorkers wear name tags?

            1. I think Lloyd Braun told Obama to slap down the American Dream the other day, too.

        2. In any democracy, perception is about a thousand times more important than statistical reality.

  6. I’m gonna put money on Bloomberg trying for a 4th (and more) term; he’ll want to be God-Emperor of New York for life.

    1. They deserve him.

      1. No we fucking don’t, thanks.

        1. You’re right, even New Yawkers don’t deserve him.

    2. “People of New York, please welcome a man who started as a slave, but worked his way up to Lord of All Creation!”

      1. “REMEMBER ME!”
        “*sniff* I will!”

      2. I watched that episode last night

    3. He’s the chavez of this city.

  7. It seems government officials think “effectiveness” is the only answer they need to questions about their policies. It’s the same thing with drones: “Is it reasonable for the President to have this much power to kill all over the globe? How many civilians have we killed who had nothing to do with 9/11?”

    Answer from some Gov’t lackey: “Drones are a very effective way of killing terrorists.”

    They are answering the wrong question, and trying to frame the discussion as one of competence rather than law.

  8. New York’s most vulnerable residents” to “enjoy a freedom from assault unknown in any other big city.”

    Sounds like “NY’s most vulnerable” are subject to a much more increased chance of assault – by police.

    Oooooohhh…you mean when she said “NY’s most vulnerable” she meant rich white folk?

  9. Heather and Mike are down with stop and frisk because they know they’ll never be stopped and frisked. If you’re a young guy, black or Hispanic, all you need to do is get a tasteful, $1,000 outfit (no jewelry–cops hate that) and, well, you will still get stopped and frisked, but probably not as often. Just think of it as doing your part to make rich white people happy.

    1. doing your part to make rich white people happy.

      You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    2. You’d probably still get stopped an frisked just as often if not more. A young black or Hispanic male in a low income neighborhood in a $1,000 suit would look about as out of place as an 8 year old girl in a dark alley with a bunch of alien monsters holding a physics book. “She’s about to start some shit!”

      1. A young black or Hispanic male in a low income neighborhood in a $1,000 suit would look about as out of place as an 8 year old girl in a dark alley with a bunch of alien monsters holding a physics book.

        You’ve never heard of pimps?

        1. That was kind of point. A young black or Hispanic in a $1,000 suit is likely to be profiled as either a pimp or a drug dealer.

          Or are you saying the 8 year old little white girl with the physics books is the pimp? The science pimp.

      2. First MIB reference I have ever seen here… or in any other board for that matter. Good job indeed.

  10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    It’s that pesky “unreasonable” in there. It gives to police a loophole big enough to drive a battering ram through.

    1. Crazy teabagger rhetoric. Bet you wear one of those three corner hats.

      1. RWers luv em sum constitution…’cept the bad parts they dont wanna read aloud on the floor

    2. The “unreasonable” part of that statement is irrelevant and is merely a descriptor. The 4th is supposed to have teeth due to the “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” part. No warrant, no search, and no warrant if no evidence.

      Still doesn’t change what Lysander Spooner said:

      “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

      1. “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”


        1. You got that right.

          1. I knew there was a reason I liked you. Spooner is one of my favorite authors.

        2. Anarchist!!!!

          Unless he’s white and has a job then he’s just a libertarian.

          1. That’s straight up racist.

            1. Yes it is.

    3. What’s unreasonable about lowering crime?

      1. Potentially, the methods and costs?

        1. What’s wrong with the methods? Look. These are criminals. It’s not like they’re human beings. They’re drug users. Drug users aren’t people.

          As far as cost goes, we’re talking about safety. How safe are you when some guy is walking down the street all wacked out on drugs? He might decide to rape your daughter or something. He’s on drugs!


  11. off-topic: Rush thinks that the revolutionary, anti-rich terrorist “Bane” in TDKR is an attack on Mitt Romney just because of his name…..h.html.csp

    1. In other word, Rush Limbaugh is retarded.

      1. nah, just another entertainer, same as jon stewart…but not as (intentionally) funny

      2. “retarded”
        He prefers the term republican.

        1. Arguing with Rush is like running in the Special Olympics. Doesn’t matter who wins… you’re still retarded.

    2. Who knew Chuck Dixon and Doug Moench could see the future in 1993?

    3. Is it Bain or Bane? I’m not up on my Batman. What’s he supposed to be, some sort of half assed Hulk?

      1. Bane. ‘roided out supervillian. Broke Batman’s back around the time they briefly killed off Superman.

        1. Are you saying that the Batmobile has a handicap parking sticker now?

          1. Batman was healed through the plot-complication-unraveling power of mystical mumbo-jumbo.

            1. Our medical staff is working up the privilege card for that right now.

              Of course, its not covered by insurance, so it’ll be a cash-only business.

      2. Yeah, I haven’t kept up on Batman since his comic book/TV days either so I was surprised to see the clip of this new movie that seemed to show Batman as kind of a menacing character. Waddup with that? – he’s a good guy superhero, isn’t he?

        1. He’s still a good guy, just on the other side of the Machiavellian coin from Superman: Batman would rather be feared than loved.

          1. Pretty good quote from Bats that sums it up:

            Deep down, Clark’s essentially a good person… and deep down, I’m not.

        2. Batman is the poster boy for “Good Is Not Nice”, hence the moniker The Dark Knight.


    4. Everyone knows the word “bane” has no meaning of its own, so it must be true.

    5. Yeah… ’cause when I hear “revolutionary, anti-rich terrorist” I think of Mitt Romney.

    6. If Rush and Bane got together they could swap stories about OxyContin and Venom.

    7. Maybe Romney should have thought about that when he signed up. I mean, at least Sandra Fluke can argue that she was born with her handicap.

  12. And if we put telescreens in private homes, we could reduce domestic violence and child abuse to almost nothing. What, you oppose this? You are so SELFISH. You don’t care how many innocent little photogenic children get raped to death, so long as YOU can sit in your living room picking your nose and scratching your itchy genitals without an audience, huh?

    1. picky and scratchy eh?

    2. Why do you hate the children?

      1. Why? You know why.

      2. They want to be fed, like, everyday. And they can barely carry half their own weight.

        1. I childproofed my house, but they keep getting back in!

    3. Why do you hate cameras?

    4. Hey, Jennifer! Glad to see your nom in the comments.

      Congrats, in case you missed that thread

      1. She’s married now. Shouldn’t you be getting Jeff’s permission to speak to his wife?

        1. (Sigh) Yeah, I’ve been a respectable married woman for all of seven days now. No more flouting traditional values; I am the bedrock on which American civilization is built. Kneel before me in gratitude, bitchez.

          1. Just means that you have to start having children and ensuring the rest of us are oppressed miserable so your little special snowflakes are never in any danger of seeing something yucky.

            Until you do that, you really haven’t become a married white person. 😉

          2. Somebody get this woman a subsidy!

            1. When she pays her taxes, I bet she will wish she hadn’t gotten married. I am still looking for this marriage subsidy everyone is always talking about. All it meant for me was taking it up the ass on my taxes.

              1. That, John, is the primary reason we did NOT bother to marry for so long; it’s just that now, for us, the insurance benefits of being married outweigh the tax penalties for it. We already intended to stick together regardless of whether we check the “single” or “married” box on our tax forms.

      2. Thanks, RC, but what thread?

          1. Aww. The one thread with nothing but good things about me, and I went and missed it.

            Who is Dr. Frankenstein? I don’t recognize that name.

            1. I was H man. Just a long time lurker basically.

  13. Our police officers put their lives on the line every single day.

    As all regular reason readers know, this is bullshit. They refuse to put their life on the line when the situation arises.

    1. Maybe the “their” is referring to “civilian’s”.

      1. Obviously ‘police officers’ is the subject of the sentence and not the object.

      2. Our police officers put their lives on the line every single day.


  14. First Schumer, now Bloomberg. It looks like the 2012 “Biggest New York Asshole” competition is ON. Quick, somebody tell Charlie Rangel to advocate reinstating the draft!

    1. Now with registration I can no longer do my Rick James celebrity impersonation and yell “Charlie Rangel!” whenever his name is mentioned.

      I haz a sad.

      1. Charlie Rangel!

    2. Can Alec Baldwin run,too? Or is this elected officials only?

  15. And to think that New Yorkers really like this guy.

    He’s voted into office not once, but twice, then he extends the term limits on the Mayor’s office, no one in New York even blinks and they vote him in a third term.

    This guy is fucking odious, and New Yorker’s can’t get enough of him.

    1. Which is why New Yorkers deserve whatever they get. Including the Mets.

      1. And hipsters!

      2. People in Phoenix keep electing Joe Arpaio. And then we cheer ourselves hoarse when someone in AZ mentions maybe possibly loosening the rules on Marijuana.

        I’ve said before, we’re not making progress. These people have occupied our land, are now quartered in our homes, drinking our beer and sleeping with our women.

        I am officially depressed for the rest of the day.

        1. People elect Arpaio because he is the only person who will listen to their concerns. People have legitimate concerns about illegal immigration and crime. But sadly, our political elites cede the entire subject to lowlifes like Arpaio by dismissing any concerns as racism.

          1. You have to understand, those Arizonans will never be subjected to Arpaio’s policies. Most of the people who are subjected to it are felons, immigrants or out of towners who can’t vote. The white people who love Arpaio will never be subjected to an asset forfeiture or be required to show proof of citizenship at random while driving. They just love it that you can go to the Grand Canyon without worrying about brown people.

            1. All true. And Arizonans concerns about the crime are not less legit than New Yorkers. In both cases telling them to fuck off and live with crime and a lousy state or city in the name of the Constitution is a really bad idea. Bloomburg and Arpaio are just smart enough to figure that out. When will Libertarians be that smart?

              You have to address people’s concerns and offer solutions to problems. You can’t just tell people “fuck off and die”

      3. Sure they deserve the Mets. But do even New Yorkers deserve the Knicks?

    2. You have to understand, those New Yorkers will never be subjected to this policy. Most of the people who are subjected to it are felons, immigrants or out of towners who can’t vote. The rich and middle class white people who love Bloomburg will never be subjected to a stop and frisk. They just love it that you can go to Times Square and Central Park without worrying about crime.

    3. idk I’m a white New Yorker and I don’t like Bloomberg.

  16. They sit there, and they pontificate and they complain

    A little self reflection going on there, Bloomie?

  17. Hey, I hear Singapore’s “policing revolution” of the 80s worked wonders on reducing their crime rate. Perhaps NY should try implementing some of their solutions: caneing for vandalism, chopping off hands of thieves, public executions of murderers and drug dealers, etc.

    1. Or maybe even try one of Singapores more recent trends, like low taxes and a business friendly environment.

      1. Hey now, let’s not go crazy!

    2. I could get behind caning for vandalism.

  18. If being stopped and totally groped by a police officer is not a search, what is a search. And if the police doing so for no reason whatsoever other than “hey we catch criminals doing this” is not “unreasonable”, just what the hell is an unreasonable search in McDonald’s view?

    I generally like McDonald. But she is showing herself to be an ignorant twat here. It is Olympic level question begging to answer the Constitutional objections to this with “hey it works”.

    And what is even more appalling is that McDonald, being a decently attractive upper class white woman, will never be subjected to the policy. It is pretty rich of her to tell people subjected to this well I know it is demeaning and humiliating (not like it would ever happen to me) but hey, your dignity is the price we have to pay for a marginally lower crime rate.

    1. Time for that cataracts surgery? How she could be considered any kind of attractive is beyound me.

      1. She is thin. She is not bad looking. She is not a model. But she doesn’t have a horn growing out of her head.

        1. You’d turn down a fuck just because she had a horn growing out of her head?

          Somehow I doubt it.

      2. If it can walk upright and has a vagina, there’s a good chance John finds it attractive.

        1. The curse of heterosexuality.

          1. The curse of having standards.

            1. So that is what they are calling it these days.

              1. There was a time in my youth when I’d fuck most any willing female, but at some point I grew up.

                1. That is an interesting euphemism. I know a few people who got older and “grew up”. Usually it happened in college though.

                2. Willing? You do have high standards.

  19. “New York’s officers need to better explain to stop subjects why they were accosted.” (Toward that end, the NYPD plans to supply its officers with “informational cards” that “provide a written description of the legal authority for such stops and a list of common reasons individuals are stopped by the police.”)

    Wouldn’t handing a stop and frisk subject a laundry list of reasons he might have been stopped (for him to sort out, I guess) serve to nicely verify that he wasn’t in fact the object of a specific “reasonable suspicion”?

    1. Yes. And my God McDonald is being willfully stupid there. Does she seriously think that someone who is stopped and frisked will feel better about it if only the cops explain why? Really?

      1. Oppression. . .with understanding.

        1. McDonald is someone who truly lives in a bubble. She is a classic upper class pampered white woman who has no idea how cops actually act and normal people actually live.

          1. McDonald works for the Manhattan Institute. As does Claire Berlinski. Claire Berlinski is crazy hot.

            Jus’ sayin’

            1. I love Claire. If think I would gladly run off to Istanbul if she ever offered.

            2. Yum!

              1. Can I have my Nobel Peace Prize for bringing John and sarcasmic together?

            3. Not with that hatchet of a nose on her face. My God she could split rails with that thing.

              1. You sound like my wife Dragon. I don’t mind a big schnaz on a women.

                1. To each his own. She could use a boob job too.

  20. Maybe during inspections for salt, transfats, and drinks larger than 16 oz, Bloomberg’s food nazis could get around to salmonella inspections.

    1. Or doing something about bed bugs. Funny how real health threats get ignored when the government obsesses over fake ones.

      1. If they take on a problem with metrics, their failure will be documented.

        1. Which is why politicians always avoid real problems and make up imaginary ones to solve. They also make the imaginary ones impossible to determine the outcome of their solutions for, and then claim victory. Either that, or they make sure that the problem exists forever and claim that they are winning, – see Drug War, Terrorism.

      2. But then we might have to use pesticides! :'(

        1. Better to let something go on that we know is unhealthy than use those evil chemicals that might be unhealthy.

          Greens really will live in filth and pestilence in order to avoid anything “unnatural”.

          1. I agree, I was just being sarcastic. But they really will, and it can be quite disgusting.

            You know, I like organic food (I’m allergic to some of the pesticides). I like farmer’s markets, and I think renewable energy is an interesting concept with some decent chance in the future. But I would never use government coercion to enforce any of those things, nor would I take some sort of “all-natural” creed to the point of living in filth and disease (like malaria). Sometimes you have to use evil man made chemicals to avert a much greater evil.

    2. But they have to save people from themselves. They don’t have time to deal with actual public health issues.

      1. But they have to save people from themselves

        But, it’s for the children!

    3. Salmonella is an awesome way for people without self-discipline to go on a prolonged fast. A cleansing win/win.

      1. I was hanging out with a nurse friend of mine the other night while she was making cookies w/ her daughter. Nurse wouldn’t let her lick the spoon once the eggs went in because of salmonella. Daughter asks, “has salmonella been around a long time.” My answer: “We must not have had it in the early 80s, because I always got to lick the mixing spoon.”

        Daughter: “Oh, so it is really old.” A five year old has a way of unintentionally crushing your spirit.

        1. Heh, heh. And I was in high school in the early 80s. I must be ancient!

          I was also on a raw eggs and tobasco kick for a few months in the 80s when a friend told me a story about a friend of a friend getting real sick from (presumably) salmonella, that scared me off raw eggs. But from what I’ve read (making homemade mayo and stuff) the risk is pretty small, at least in the US.

          1. Vanishingly small. Even NY only has 100 cases per year in the entire state. Given the number of tourists, etc. your chances are probably about 1 in 30M.

  21. “enjoy a freedom from assault unknown in any other big city.”

    except for those 684,330 police assaults. And San Francisco is thinking of implementing stop-and-frisk, so it won’t be unknown forever.

  22. Is it possible to kick a state or city out of the nation (mandatory secession or something)? I sure hope so. After we’re done with Mississippi, NYC is toast.

  23. bloomberg is a statist ninny.the standard under terry v. ohio, “reasonable suspicion” is a REASONABLE STANDARD that properly balances the right to freedom from govt. interference in one’s affairs with the reasonable authority of govt. to investigate crime

    RS-it’s what’s for dinner

    bloomberg thinks cops should be able to stop (and frisk) “just because”.

    i have little doubt bloomberg’s expansive view of state power probably reduces crime to a greater extent than if he actually OBEYED the constitution

    so FUCKING what?

    lots of unconstitutional shit would reduce crime.that’s not a justification for acting unconstitutionally.

    our constitution,and our justice system explicitly accepts the tradeoff – our greater (in general) civil rights mean crimes are often going to be harder to investigate, suspected criminals are going to have greater protection, and it’s going to be easier for the guilty to “get off” what?

    that’s a cost of freedom

    another problem is that people who are subjected to such suspicionless stops do not have enough redress options after the fact.iow, especially in a liberal state like WA, there is little disincentive for officers to not make such stops

    contrast with my state, where if a stop (an “initial transaction”) is made in obvious violation of the constitution and injuries or harm results, officers lose their qualified immunity .

    as they should

    iow, if an officer chooses to violate the constitution, he doesn’t get to hide behind immunity

    1. ugh. typo… should be “in a state line NY, there is little disincentive”

      WA has a strong disincentive, as i note in my post

      incentives.. how do those work?

    2. “bloomberg is a statist ninny.the standard under terry v. ohio, “reasonable suspicion” is a REASONABLE STANDARD that properly balances the right to freedom from govt. interference in one’s affairs with the reasonable authority of govt. to investigate crime”

      A frisk involves unwanted, coercive physical contact. If it isn’t a legal exercise of police authority, it’s basically low-level assault (that is, if a random person went around stopping and frisking strangers, I imagine that would probably be the charge).

      That being the case, SF has actually vastly increased the number of crimes being committed.

      1. a frisk also is justified when there is both reasonable suspicion AND sufficient frisk factors.

        cotnrary to what many reasonoids believe terry does not justify a frisk automatically.

        i’d say about 1/3 of my terry stops involve frisks.

        my best friend was shot in the head a and killed while interviewing a subject he (imo) should have frisked.

        a frisk is UNWANTED (usually) contact.

        just like a terry is often unwanted

        again, the state PROPERLY balances the authority of state agents to detain with the right to walk around freely.

        it’s called reasonable suspicion.

        merely because i have reasonable suspicion does not justify a frisk

        i must have specific articulable facts justifying same

        some that can be considered
        1) high crime area
        2) person being stopped known to have history of violence
        3) person being stopped known to carry weapons, especially illegal ones
        4) a bulge, favoring a weapon by walking manner etc
        5) a 10-65 hit in NCIC
        6) gang affiliation (claimed or obvious by dress)
        7) crime person is suspected of is a crime of violence
        8) witnesses say suspect had weapon


  24. There is one nit I have to pick, here.

    I mean, even Dunphy doesn’t support random stop-and-frisk, and I figure him for a jackbooted thug, given his defense of murder by the police. So of course, neither do I.

    But the whole “racist” thing is overblown. Blacks and hispanics commit about 98% of all shootings in NYC. 95% of all violent crime in NYC is committed by “non-whites”. Minorities are also disproportionately victimized by a massive amount, BTW, and the police are therefore disproportionately trying to capture those who victimized minorities.

    One would expect to see “racism” in the issue of warrants for arrest, also.

    “Stop and frisk” without RS is wrong on its face. But it’s not wrong because disproportionate numbers of African-Americans are suspected of crimes in NYC, if, in fact, there is a disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by African-Americans (also frequently victimizing African-Americans).

    1. Should say RAS, which is a bit of a higher standard.

      1. utter rubbish

        please show one example of a police “murder” that i have supported

        i support the right of police to use reasonable force, in self defense, defense of others, in the course of making an arrest etc

        i also support, and my state does too per our penal code, the right of noncops to use force as well.

        i support zimmerman for example.

        that aside, as for the disproportionate stop rate of SOME minorities.

        as heather mcdonald has EXTENSIVELY documented in her book “are cops racist” and as i have extensively cited via links to BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) and the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survery), according to crime VICTIMS, crimes are committed disproportionately by race

        cops stop black males more than white males- as proportion in population

        but as NCVS, crime VICTIMS (not cops) show, black males commit far more part I crimes.

        and the disproportionate rate of stops matches almost perfectly the disproportionate rate of offenses

        cops stop, for example, black women much less often than white men. guess who commit more part I crimes.

        cops stop japanese americans far less often than their %age of the population

        1. guess who commits less crime per capita than whites or blacks?

          cops stop 45-65 yr olds of ANY race disproportionately rarely as compared to population represenation

          guess what age demographics commit more vs. less crime

          again, the NCVS is a survey of crime victims. feel free to peruse it at BJS

          it establishes a substantial racial, gender, and age disparity in crime offenders

          and cops make terry in almost the exact same disproportionate ratio

          if cops stopped people the same as their representation in society, they would HAVE to be racist, since people don’t have equal offender rates across age, gender and race lines

        2. Short memory, WRT murder. Very short.

          But in this case, I agree with you. It’s stupid to accuse cops of racism, especially since, per the article I cited, the proportion of minorities stopped on suspicion is LESS than the proportion that actually commit violent crimes. It’s sure not the fault of the cops, if 98% of the shootings in NYC happen to be committed by either blacks or hispanics, which is, in fact, the case.

          1. it’s not 98%, but it’s substantially disproportionate by race. also noted that crime VICTIMS are disproportionately by race. young black males WAY more likely to get killed. by doing aggressive enforcement, it’s THEIR lives that are being saved, disproportionately.

            again, though. if i support murder, name a specific case.

            1. It’s 98% in NYC according to my cite, or it was for the time period immediately preceding when the article was written. Yes, that number is hard to believe, but it’s apparently true — no doubt due to gang-related shootings, mostly.

    2. i also support greater privacy restrictions and less govt power, just like other libertarians

      that’s why i chose to live and work in a state that gives state agents FAR FAR less power to search, seize, and arrest people than most other states.

  25. here’s some cut/paste i did from my previous citation of NCVS/BJS and mcdonald’s analysis as well

    again, crime victims irrefutably establish (note people are victims of crime disproportionately by race as well. a young black male is FAR more likely to be a victim of violent crime than a young white male), crimes (especially part I) are committed disproportionately

    consistent with the rates of cop stops disproportionately

    here’s an hour long c-span event that heather spoke at…

    i strongly recommend her book

    and that you check NCVS at DOJ…
    dunphy|11.5.11 @ 5:45AM|#

    here’s the NCVS…..iliid=245
    dunphy|11.5.11 @ 5:58AM|#

    dunphy|11.5.11 @ 6:02AM|#


    (check out the embedded links in this above one. LOTS of good stuff)

    and OF COURSE, crosscheck her claims with NCVS data. i have yet to find ANY errors.

    feel free

  28. “Stop and frisk” only reduces the crime statistics because the “stop and frisk” crimes aren’t counted as crimes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.