Talk:Stop-and-frisk in New York City/Archive 1

What is the difference
This article should explain what is the stop-and-frisk program. Since Terry v. Ohio the supreme court said every police officer has the right to stop and fisk people with less than probable cause. What is different with how the NYPD conducts stop and frisk and other police departments? I can't seem to find any references.Racingstripes (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Racingstripes,
 * The Stop and Frisk policies in New York are notorious for being a combination of racially biased and ineffective, more so than the other states that have similar policies. Also, there have been a few news stories on specific individual teens in Harlem that have claimed to be victimized by the policy, along with recordings of their encounters ([]). These type of complaints have brought a considerable amount of attention to the NYPD. Adamh4 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Racingstripes is on to something. Instead of only talking about the policy in New York City, why not change the name of the page to "Stop-and-frisk" or "Stop-and-frisk in the United States" with a section about the policy in New York City. This way we can add sections with similar policies in different cities, as well as point out the differences between them, how they vary from city to city.Firebird 62 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you guys are missing the point of the original question: stop and frisk vs. Terry stop seem to be totally different: a Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion, but AFAICT, stop and frisk detentions are fishing expeditions. E.g. IIRC, in 90% of stop and frisk detentions, there is NO evidence of illegal activity (I think I read that stat from this article). I'm not a lawyer, but that almost certainly fails legal tests of "reasonable suspicion". If so, stop and frisk seems to be blatantly illegal. So, if I may rephrase the original question, how can stop and frisk detentions be considered (legal) Terry stops as claimed in the introduction of this article??172.56.15.51 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you meant by "no evidence". Did you mean simply that after being questioned and frisked, 90% of people stopped were released with no arrest or summons? Or did you mean that the questioning process did not produce probably cause for a frisk in 90% of the cases? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs a major writing overhaul
IMO the whole article is somewhat in need of a complete rewrite, not to change the content or resolve controversy, but simply because the writing is not that great. JoGusto (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
The ACLU and the NYCLU are not reliable sources for content to this article. They are obviously biased because they have a current lawsuit regarding this matter.21:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Biased" and "unreliable" are not quite the same thing. As a party to the controversy, the CLUs are in a better position than just about anyone to represent the opposition to the program. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, representing the opposition clearly shows a bias.Racingstripes (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to the ACLU [removed?}. The only NYCLU reference are to statistics that they derived from NYPD documents, and their numbers are in turn linked to these documents, so the "reliability" of these stats isn't reasonably questioned. 68.108.105.175 (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The numbers are what the NYCLU say that they derive from NYPD documents. Which is unreliable since it is secondhand information posted by an organization that does not have a neutral point of view to the subject matter.Racingstripes (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So would the investigations and analysis of the New York State Attorney General's Office be a more "substantiated" or "unbiased" pool of data? (Cwt101 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

IMO the real problem posed by all of the above is that we are not going to tertiary sources for the basis of the article. Reports that argue one side or the other in what is a policy debate are not preferred sources for a Wikipedia article. Instead, the article should summarize a tertiary source which has already considered and recapped the pros, cons, arguments in favor of each, and has weighed all of this in a reliable and neutral way. THAT is what a Wikipedia article should be based upon. Otherwise, we are all here grinding some axe... We should be able to find some investigative journalism, preferably several articles, or a book or books, from which to draw the material, rather than writing our own book and citing the primary data sources. JoGusto (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Article needs massive expansion
This article needs to be seriously expanded. It doesn't mention that by the NYPD's own stats no more than 1-2% of the people they stop had weapons(which is what this program was intended to get off the streets), that whites are the MOST LIKELY to carry a weapon on them(1% of blacks vs 1.4% of whites), and frisk qoutas the officers are required to meet. Turtire (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to make these edits yourself, as long as they are reliably sourced and neutrally written. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the fourth amendment should be introduced into this article. Although it is a topic of much debate, it has a close relation to the stop and frisk policy. The constitution comes up under “Activist and legal responses” when stating the police department adopted a policy, but doesn’t state anything about the 4th Amendment in particular.Firebird 62 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I expanded on the section "New York's transition from crime to safety" adding some statistical information from an online source as well as changed the heading to something that didn’t sound so bias.Firebird 62 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC) I'm going to add a history section to replace the "beginnings" section that was removed, but attempting to expand beyond new york city because the policy was adopted.Firebird 62 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to put a chart on this page like the one on the page “Crime in New York City”, showing how many stops there were yearly as well as some miscellaneous similar to the percentages of stops resulting in convictions. I don’t know how to make one or else I would. Come on people, their page is better than ours!Firebird 62 (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Article bias
This article majorly expresses a single point of view. It is important for it to be reworded, and for new information supporting and criticizing this program to be equally added.-- ɱ   (talk)   22:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Every police department has a stop & frisk policy that is almost identical the NYPD's policy.  Maybe there should be articles based those policies as well, or just an article on police departments stopping people on less than probable cause.Racingstripes (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy has received a greater amount of criticism because they have been accused of racially profiling more than the rest of the police departments across the country. I think that it is important for this article to stand alone because it has received so much attention. Adamh4 (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the title of the section "New York’s transition from crime to safety" is bias in itself, or at least opinionated about the policy's effect on crime. Maybe we could change it to something more neutral like "Changes in New York's crime rate" or "The policy's effect on crime in New York". Firebird 62 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Firebird 62. Many would argue that New York is most certainly NOT safe. The title implies that the police's tactics have succeeded, which is a biased angle on the subject. Adamh4 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move
The official name of this program is "Stop Question and Frisk", which is not reflected in the title of the article. To remain neutral, shouldn't we refer to the program by its official name? UncappingCone64 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that an irony?
Not being american I don't quite understand, is this quote supposed to be irony or not:

"Consider this example: An abandoned building with a few broken windows. Alone it poses no threat. However a few vandals come along and spot these broken windows and decide to break more of them. The building, because of its condition later gets tagged with spray paint. Looking completely run down a few homeless people break in. With time, they light fires, destroy the inner workings of the building and become squatters. This domino effect is the premise behind the broken windows theory. Minor crimes, if left unnoticed, will eventually escalate in to bigger, more serious crimes."

Did the author of this theory seriously suggested that squatting is worse than breaking windows, lighting fires and "destroying the inner workings pf the building"? Why would you even do that if your intention is ultimately to live in that building, not to destroy it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qweoiu (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it's not encyclopedic or factual and therefore should be removed.-- ɱ    (talk)  15:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual irony is a country with the "brilliant" idea to allow possession of weapons as a constitutional right, having to solve this huge and absurd issue by sending police officers to randomly stop and frisk people. ;) --TheLazza (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Currency
Added court activity through mid-August 2014 and current Newsweek article. Maybe the "out of date" alert can be dropped. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Something's left out.
The article has the following text: QUOTE: The broken windows theory is a criminology theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism leads to additional crime and anti-social behavior. UNQUOTE

This does not adequately state "broken windows theory". There's too many tacit assumptions (i.e. assumptions that an author working with evil intent hopes to sneak under the door, because if they are stated explicitly the horror is in full view). Since when is "norm-setting" a legitimate governmental activity? Here in the USA we can't regulate our conduct in the public sphere by "norms", since our population is so diverse that we, in effect, don't HAVE norms. WHOSE norms are to be "set"? Everyone has to live a Beaver-Cleaver-Family lifestyle or go to jail? I do not think that that is an objective or encyclopedic version of policy in the USA. Further, since when is "anti-social" behavior a legitimate concern of government? Everyone who debunks the construction of "society" (or accepts such a construction and while accepting the reality of "society" rebukes the belief that it is a moral arbiter) should go to jail? Advocating individualistic philosophies is a crime? I had thought that police-departments existed to fight crime (i.e. acts by one individual (or set of individuals) that infringe on the individual rights of other individuals). When did we change their mission to social engineering? Absent an EXPLICIT statement of these necessary underpinnings of "broken windows theory" (which some author is trying to pass off as unquestionable "facts"), the "theory" is incoherent babble. Wikipedia should not be hijacked as a soap-box for authoritarians.2604:2000:C682:B600:C8A8:1FAF:3CD0:65AD (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Literally no information except criticism
When was the program started? Who advocated for it? who was against it? What were the arguments back then? Has S&F successfully reduced crime? Or didn't it help at all? Do other cities or other countries have similar methods? Almost all question you could have about S&F remain unanswered. 22:50, 02.10.2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.28.221 (talk)


 * "Has S&F successfully reduced crime? Or didn't it help at all?" This is answered on the page. I added the answers. I don't know about the other issues, I haven't read the rest of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Disparity
Who calls the stopping of lots of African-Americans and Latinos a "disparity"? If disparity means "difference", then what are the two things which are different? Do they mean that more blacks were stopped than whites? Do they mean that stopping more blacks than whites is unfair, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the wording was intuitive, myself. If it isn't, it should be changed.


 * The fact that those ethnic groups were more likely to be stopped than Whites is not enough to prove that they were being treated unfairly. There are other reasons why this may be the case. For example, people from those groups might be more likely to live in neighbourhoods with high crime, or to be involved in crime. However, the point the study was making was that even when those factors were taken into account, they were still more likely to be stopped than Whites. The chance of someone stopped should be determined by the chance of them being a criminal, but in practice it was being skewed by race. That was the "disparity" – an inequality, different treatment, whatever you want to call it.


 * It should also be noted that the program was reformed a few years ago, and the stats on this article say that number of stops has fallen by 95% since the peak of the program in 2011. So some of the criticisms of the program may be out of date. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of the program
One person above said the purpose of the program was to get weapons off the streets, but the article does not mention this. Who said that was the purpose, and (if anyone did) what was done to measure the achievement of this purpose?

Another calls the program racially biased and ineffective. Who called it biased, and on what basis? And who called it ineffective (and why)?

One viewpoint I've heard is that too many minority people were frisked (after questioning) but not found to be carrying any illegal weapons. Complaints then poured in about this. Another viewpoint I'm aware of is that the program was intended to reduce crime in poor minority neighborhoods. Some statistics indicate the program achieved this.

I don't want to make the article favor the stopping and questioning of minorities - but I would like to see a balance of viewpoints and maybe even some relevant facts. Anybody with me? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Source or critic?
Is the judge who ruled the program unconstitutional considered an objective source, or a critic? I wanted to mention her opposition to the program in the new Criticism section I created, but it's already in a section above.

In general, are court findings considered to "objective" or "neutral" when we write article about American life? Can we call a government official a critic of a government policy, if they are in the legislative or executive branch, but not in the judiciary? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

When cops frisk
Are the people they stop always frisked?
 * Once such a stop has been made, New York law authorizes a frisk of the person only if the officer “reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury.”

I mean, is the policy that the cops come upon someone and do all three of the following?
 * 1) stop
 * 2) question, and (regardless of the person's answers)
 * 3) frisk

Are cops required to do it like this, allowed to, or forbidden? Isn't there anything in NYPD policy (or NYC or NY State law) that says they need a reason (or probable cause) before proceeding from step 2 (questioning) to step 3 (frisking)?

I think that if they don't have to ask questions - or more to the point, if the answers don't really matter, then the short form of the policy's name is apt: "stop and frisk". It would be a dragnet.

Is there any information on the need or requirement to have a reason before frisking? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Crickets are chirping here, but I answered one of my own questions:
 * "at times" the cops follow questioning with frisking, according to the November 2013 Stop and Frisk Report of the Civil Rights Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Stop-and-frisk in New York City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120328092707/http%3A//ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk to http://ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140123012251/http://gothamist.com/2012/07/02/nypd_shames_activists_by_hanging_wa.php to http://gothamist.com/2012/07/02/nypd_shames_activists_by_hanging_wa.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704205950/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120704/west-harlem/professional-agitators-on-nypd-wanted-flier-eyed-by-cops-activists-say to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120704/west-harlem/professional-agitators-on-nypd-wanted-flier-eyed-by-cops-activists-say
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101174359/http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23843622/federal-appeals-court-blocks-stop-frisk-ruling to http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23843622/federal-appeals-court-blocks-stop-frisk-ruling
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120328092707/http%3A//ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk to http://ccrjustice.org/stopandfrisk
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112052142/http://www.billdeblasio.com/issues/crime-fighting-public-safety to http://www.billdeblasio.com/issues/crime-fighting-public-safety

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

 * /Archive 1

Demonstrate through WP:RS that the practice is unconstitutional
There's been an edit war on this between two IP numbers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify: permitting police officers to do these stops is not unconstitutional on its own. The precedent set by the Terry v. Ohio court case is that the Fourth Amendment doesn't prohibit these types of searches, but requires them to be made under strict guidelines. The ruling in Floyd v. City of New York was that the way it was being used was unconstitutional. This was for two reasons. Firstly, it was being used in an uncontrolled way, which went against the Fourth Amendment (as interpreted by the Terry ruling). Secondly, the racial bias in its use went against the Fourteenth Amendment. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would like to mention there is a big difference between the Terry v. Ohio that the Warren court decided and the use of Terry as case law that evolved through the Burger and Rehnquist courts! Seahawk01 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

add more historical background plus outline more of settlement, etc
Would like to suggest the following:


 * historical background:
 * war on drugs
 * New York City crack epidemic in the 80's
 * push to clean up city
 * push to get guns off of streets


 * government push-back after controversy:
 * Governor Patterson making it illegal to enter innocent names into database
 * NYC Right to Know Act
 * Manhattan DA to no longer prosecute for marijuana possession, smoking
 * other actions taken (will add later)

Also would like to suggest merging the section "politics of stop-and-frisk" into story-line. I know this is suggested somewhere in Wikipedia's docs. For example, "law and order" view should be in historical context and "racial profiling" view should be when outlining class-action lawsuit.

Seahawk01 (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

‘I Was Wrong,’ Michael Bloomberg Says
nytimes.com: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/nyregion/2020-bloomberg-stop-frisk-nyc.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage But This Policy Still Haunts Him.

After defending the stop-and-frisk policing tactic, Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, has apologized. But black voters may not forgive him.] - imo worth to mention it in the article  (I wonder where). --Neun-x (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"and other contraband"
"... and other contraband" is not covered by the Terry decision, nor is it mentioned in the New York code. Only weapons are mentioned in 140.50 and allowed by Terry. I don't think a pound of cocain is capable of "readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons". Note that's an AND, not an OR. WAR-Ink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Policestops2017q4.png

Lawfulness of frisks at their inception
Please change "if the officer believes the subject to be dangerous" to "if the officer suspects the subject to be armed and presently dangerous." Pizztov (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * . Why? (and as a side note, unless there's a source-specific reason to use "presently", it's a bit awkward). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Because what exists presently regarding the standard for frisks is deeply flawed. I am not in any way affiliated with the law review article cited in footnote 4 of this entry, but I can independently vouch for the accuracy of two crucial sentences in the article. The trouble is that the entry citing footnote 4 does not comport with the information footnote 4 presents. Here is the current language that I seek to edit in the Wikipedia entry:


 * In the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peters v. New York, the Supreme Court granted limited approval in 1968 to frisks conducted by officers lacking probable cause for an arrest in order to search for weapons if the officer believes the subject to be dangerous. The Court's decision made suspicion of danger to an officer grounds for a "reasonable search."[4]


 * I seek to change the word "believes" to "suspects" and to add the word "presently" before "dangerous." Please note further that prior to a recent edit, the phrase above stated this: " ... if the officer believes the subject to be armed and dangerous." As you see, the words "armed and" have also been removed, and I seek to restore them because overall this portion of the entry is seriously mistaken. I can demonstrate this by comparing the sentence to the footnote [4] law review article cited as authority for the sentence. Here are the two crucial sentences in the law review article cited in footnote [4]:


 * In the majority opinion in Terry, Chief Justice Warren initially framed the controversy presenting the two competing global views on stop and frisk: that “the police should be allowed to `stop' a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity,”91


 * 107 See, e.g., Terry, 392 U.S. at 30. We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ....


 * The phrase " ... upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity,"91 does not support the word "believes," and adding the revision "suspects" correctly comports with the law review article cited in footnote [4]. The phrase " ... that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ... " shows that adding the revision inserting the adverb "presently" before "dangerous" correctly comports with the law review article cited in footnote [4]. The immediately preceding phrase further indicates that the erroneous deletion of the words "armed and" does not comport with the law review article correctly cited in footnote [4], and thus the two words "armed as" should be restored. Pizztov (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done : the suggested edit has already been implemented by . Closing request. MrClog (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)