Looks like the NYPD is taking some heat due to the stop and frisks that they're doing. It looks like some racial profiling could be taking place as well.
NEW YORK - The citys police department, tarnished in the past by charges of brutality and racism, is defending itself against fresh criticism over how officers decide whom to stop and search on the streets.
Statistics provided by the police department to the City Council last week show a fivefold increase since 2002 in the number of so-called stop and frisks, to more than 500,000 in 2006.
The topic is a fair one for discussion, but the MSNBC article gives us precious little of what we need to make an informed judgment. In dealing with the mainstream media, we all should be more critical customers.
Nobody should be stung by "charges", they should be shamed by proof of said charges.... if that is available. That is a huge "IF".
Any sleazy lawyer, opportunistic politician, resentful collared criminal or self appointed 'community leader' can make charges..... get lots of free air time..... and what repercussions do they face? Anybody suffer any consequence whatsoever for smearing a police department - ever?
Tucked away in the article is a line that hearings and an investigation are forthcoming some time in the future. Anybody think we should await the evidence from those?
An increase in reports to the Review Board? I take that with as much credence as I do the reputation scratches we see here...... proves nothing.
Are there bad cops, racist cops? Sure, just like there are flawed humans in every other occupation. But, think about it... do they reflect the entire NYPD?
I've got a lot of issues with the tone of the MSNBC article, and the underlying assumption. In the past few years, many police departments have shown a significant increase in documented stop & frisk or vehicle searches. Why? Because the cops are now required to document them, when they weren't necessarily required to do so before.
Beyond that -- it did address the terms it threw around. "Stop & frisk" is actually a pretty specific law enforcement action, with specific standards to meet to justify it (assuming that the officers are playing by the rules). The officer needs reasonable suspicion (articulable facts and circumstances, that based on an officer's knowledge, training, and experience lead him to believe that criminal activity is afoot) to detain a person. This can include, as the article seems to allude to, physical descriptions of the suspect in a crime -- which often start out with the race of the suspect. So we're not really talking randomly snatching people up... But then, to frisk (a cursory search of the outer garments for weapons), the officer must have reasonable, articuble suspicion that the suspect is armed. Again -- for a robbery lookout, it's a given. But it's also common that gang members have weapons, so gang members are often frisked, too. In a search based on a lookout or other strong suspicion that the suspect committed a crime, limited searching for evidence of that crime MAY be accepted, under certain exceptions.
The article doesn't mention consensual searches, where the officer discovers someone who raises his professional suspicions without rising to the level of reasonable articulable suspicion. The officer initiates a consensual encounter ("Hello, good citizen, would you mind talking to me for a moment?"), and proceeds to request permission to search the person. If granted -- this is a consensual search, and can go as long as the person lets it! Consensual encounters can be fertile ground for biased policing, I admit. Accordingly, many agencies now document consent searches and require officers to attend frequent in-service training on the dangers of bias-based policing.
