# And now: What about all those cops turning their backs on De Blasio? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 27, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293 "2014-12-27T20:22:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/521 "2015-01-11T23:35:41Z")
Driving is a licensed privilege, it is extended and authorized so long as the licensee meets certain standards of behavior, one of which is not getting drunk and then driving. The driver implicitly declares his willingness to have his status verified by driving. Lurking with intent to loom does not qualify. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2015, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/522 "2015-01-11T23:45:08Z")
Choose ignorance if you’d like, but your original statement about NYC’s S&F was facile and wrong. Judge Scheindlin did not make her ruling per your claim, and only someone who doesn’t understand how judicial review works in the US would make the error of thinking her ruling was definitive. This was still working its way through courts when DeBlasio became mayor, and he isn’t going to pursue this further. A future mayor might, in which case we will have the opportunity to see what the higher court says. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/523 "2015-01-12T00:03:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Driving is a licensed privilege, it is extended and authorized so long as the licensee meets certain standards of behavior, one of which is not getting drunk and then driving. The driver implicitly declares his willingness to have his status verified by driving. That’s not how the court found traffic stops for drunk driving to be constitutional. They used a “balancing test” where they balanced the need for public safety against the intrusion on the citizen. [_ **Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz** _](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz) > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court held that Michigan had a “substantial government interest” to advance in stopping drunk driving, and that this technique was rationally related to achieving that goal (though there was some evidence to the contrary). The Court also held that the impact on drivers, such as in delaying them from reaching their destination, was negligible, and that the brief questioning to gain “reasonable suspicion” similarly had a negligible impact on the drivers’ Fourth Amendment right from unreasonable search (implying that any more detailed or invasive searches would be treated differently). Applying a balancing test, then, the Court found that the Constitutionality of the search tilted in favor of the government. Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/524 "2015-01-12T00:36:19Z")
N.B.: I don’t cite all this legal crap because i agree with it. In fact, I don’t. I think Traffic Stops area an abomination. I think Stop and Frisk makes a mockery of the 4th amendment. But what I try not to do is filter actual facts through an ideological lens, refusing to recognize reality because it differs from my own political perspective. Same things with the cops, which is what this thread is about. I think they’re assholes, and are acting like spoiled children. But being an asshole isn’t, per se, agains the law. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/525 "2015-01-12T00:54:27Z")
Concur, with the reservation the textualism bites it. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/526 "2015-01-12T01:21:03Z")
The Drug War killed the 4th amendment, and the War on Terror desecrated its corpse, cremated it, and used the ashes in a Satanic ritual. we’re not getting the 4th amendment back while there’s still a Drug War. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/527 "2015-01-12T15:29:20Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not how the court found traffic stops for drunk driving to be constitutional. They used a “balancing test” where they balanced the need for public safety against the intrusion on the citizen. Well, he’s half right. Part of the rationale in _Sitz_ is that drivers on public highways have a reduced expectation of privacy. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/528 "2015-01-12T17:11:17Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > In Floyd v. City of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices **violate** the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments Sure. > [@](#): > > In October 2013, the Second Circuit stayed Scheindlin’s decision and removed her from the case for violating the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. On November 13, 2013, in response to a Motion filed by Judge Scheindlin seeking reconsideration of her removal from the case on remand, the motion panel of the Second Circuit that issued the Order of removal declined to permit Scheindlin to dispute her removal, but issued an opinion purporting to disavow its previous conclusion that she had “run afoul” of the Code of Conduct. Rather, the panel stated, “We conclude only that, based on her conduct at the December 21, 2007 hearing and in giving the interviews to the news media in May 2013, Judge Scheindlin’s appearance of impartiality may reasonably be questioned… and that ‘reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice.’” If the case went to a high enough level to make a precedent I believe the policy would probably have been invalidated or at least given very strict limits. But you are failing as a constitutional scholar. First you boldly state that all warrantless searches are illegal because 4th amendment while ignoring a couple of centuries of case law then you start shotgunning precedents with no understanding of what they mean. Just say you don’t like and move on. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/529 "2015-01-12T17:40:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, he’s half right. Part of the rationale in _Sitz_ is that drivers on public highways have a reduced expectation of privacy. But that isn’t about licensing. The same argument is made that people walking on the street have a reduced expectation of privacy, as compared to someone sitting in his homes. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/530 "2015-01-12T17:47:06Z")
Well, no. People driving have even less of an expectation of privacy because of “the highly regulated nature of the highways.” It’s the primary grounding for the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/531 "2015-01-12T18:42:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, no. People driving have even less of an expectation of privacy because of “the highly regulated nature of the highways.” It’s the primary grounding for the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement. Perhaps I was unclear. We departed from the “plain text” of the 4th amendment with the “balancing test” in cases where public safety trumps the need for the cops to have probably cause or a warrant. The original statement was made that S&F violates the 4th amendment because there is no probable cause and the cops have no warrant. But the courts recognize there are times when public safety overrides this. One needn’t invoke the licensing of vehicles in order to skirt the strict reading of the 4th when it comes to vehicle searches, at some level. S&F is not, per se, a violation of the 4th even if the particular method of implementation used in NYC is eventually found to be so. (My guess is that would be found to violate the 4th, but I wouldn’t bet much money on it.) They might then to need to make procedural adjustments to the policy, but they wouldn’t need to abandon it altogether. We left the strict reading of the 4th (which **Steve** invoked in his argument) a long time ago, and one can’t simply rely on such a reading to determine if a given law or policy is in violation. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2015, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/532 "2015-01-12T18:56:58Z")
That depends on how you define “stop and frisk”. If you mean _Terry_ stops, sure, they’re fine. However, _Terry_ and its progeny require an LEO to have articulable reasons for frisking a suspect. You can stop everyone, but you can’t frisk _everyone_. The evidence in the NYC stop and frisk litigation tended to show that pretty much every black and Hispanic male who was stopped in certain neighborhoods was frisked. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/533 "2015-01-13T03:32:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Driving is a licensed privilege, it is extended and authorized so long as the licensee meets certain standards of behavior, one of which is not getting drunk and then driving. The driver implicitly declares his willingness to have his status verified by driving. Lurking with intent to loom does not qualify. that does not cover being searched while walking on the sidewalk, does it. > **[15 Amazing Facts About NYPD Stop And Frisks](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nypd-stop-and-frisks-15-shocking-facts_n_1513362)** > > 15 Amazing Facts About NYPD Stop And Frisks > [@](#): > > “In Brownsville, Brooklyn In 2009, 93 Out Of Every 100 Residents Were Stopped By The NYPD” > > The NYPD Can Stop And Frisk You In Your Building > matt taibbi clean halls bloomberg nypd > > “Operation Clean Halls,” has been in effect since 1991. As Matt Taibbi describes, “it allows police to execute so-called “vertical patrols” by going up into private buildings and conducting stop-and-frisk searches in hallways –- with the landlord’s permission.” > > The NYPD conducted 240,000 vertical patrols in 2003, and according to the NYCLU – who has filed a lawsuit against the police department regarding Clean Halls – “virtually every private apartment building [in the Bronx] is enrolled in the program,” and “in Manhattan alone, there are at least 3,895 Clean Halls Buildings.” > … > > 1. The NYPD Is Stop-And-Frisk Happy > > Since 2003, after Mayor Bloomberg took office, NYPD stop and frisks have increased 600 percent. In 2011, a record 684, 330 stops were conducted by New York City police officers. In the first three months of 2012, the NYPD stopped and frisked people 203,500 times. In the same three months last year, the NYPD stopped people 183,326 times. > > 1. The NYPD Can Was Allowed To Stop And Frisk You In A Livery Cab > > The Taxi/Livery Inspection Program (TRIP), was designed to prevent livery cab drivers from being robbed. Livery cabs who engaged in the program had placards that allowed the NYPD to pull over the car and search the vehicle. NYPD officers would often frisk the passengers inside. > > After a lawsuit filed by the NYCLU last year, however, Ray Kelly has ordered cops to stop enforcing the program. > > … > 11. Many Stops Are Unconstitutional > > When the Supreme Court deemed stop and frisk a legal practice, they set up a standard of “reasonable suspicion” under which cops “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts.” To rely on “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or [a] ‘hunch’ ” is not permitted. In almost one out of three stops, according to The Center For Constitutional Rights, the NYPD fails to meet this standard: > > Nearly 150,000 stops over the last six years are facially unconstitutional and lack any legal justification. All together, 30 percent of all stops are unconstitutional, underlining a severe lack of adequate officer oversight in the NYPD. > > 1. The NYPD Faces Numerous Stop And Frisk Lawsuits > In the month of January alone, more than three dozen lawsuits alleging improper stop-and-frisks were filed, based on a Voice reading of the complaints. Extrapolated, that means that the city could be sued more than 400 times this year alone just on improper stops. > > If each case settles for a minimum of $10,000, that’s at least $4 million in cost to taxpayers, not including the cost to the police department in work hours assembling the documents and removing cops from the street to be deposed, and the cost to the corporation counsel in paying lawyers to defend those cases. One wonders how much money the city is willing to spend on this litigation just to stick with the police commissioner’s campaign. (We asked the city law department this question but did not receive a response.) And the bottom line is still, the federal court rejected the NYPD stop and frisk policy as unconstitutional. As for feeling humility. nope still not feeling any. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/534 "2015-01-13T03:35:45Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > The Drug War killed the 4th amendment, and the War on Terror desecrated its corpse, cremated it, and used the ashes in a Satanic ritual. > > we’re not getting the 4th amendment back while there’s still a Drug War. Period. … or a war on terror, or a war on whatever. As for the cops acting like assholes, John Mace I agree with you. What I am also saying is, there are and should be legal ways to rein them in, and that those laws already exist. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/535 "2015-01-13T05:47:49Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > And the bottom line is still, the federal court rejected the NYPD stop and frisk policy as unconstitutional. As for feeling humility. nope still not feeling any. And that decision was later stayed and the judge removed from the case. Actually there was never a real higher court ruling on the matter. Since Di Blasio is dropping the defense of the policy in court there never will be. We can only speculate on what the decision would be. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/536 "2015-01-13T06:34:40Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > And the bottom line is still, the federal court rejected the NYPD stop and frisk policy as unconstitutional. As for feeling humility. nope still not feeling any. The federal court? **THE** federal court? Unless one is referring to the Supreme Court, one is referring to a federal court. And in this case, it’s a LOWER federal court. Which doesn’t mean a whole lot in terms of judicial precedent. Clearly an appeal to humility is wasted on someone who insists on doubling down on the stupid. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/537 "2015-01-13T15:25:24Z")
I really think you’re nitpicking, **John**. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/538 "2015-01-13T16:28:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The federal court? **THE** federal court? Unless one is referring to the Supreme Court, one is referring to a federal court. And in this case, it’s a LOWER federal court. Which doesn’t mean a whole lot in terms of judicial precedent. > > Clearly an appeal to humility is wasted on someone who insists on doubling down on the stupid. OK, it was A federal court. You happy now? As for appeal to humility, I never was the humble type and I’m not gonna start now. I don’t have to humble myself to anyone. For that matter, WTF does “appeal to humility” even mean? But I don’t really give a fvck, if you have to resort to insults anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/539 "2015-01-13T21:05:15Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I really think you’re nitpicking, **John**. It is no where near nitpicking. There was a ruling by a lower federal court judge. It was not heard by an appeals court where case law and precedents generally begin. And that lower court ruling was stayed and the judge was removed from the case by a judicial review board. So saying that a court ruled it to be unconstitutional is misleading at best. The case did not get to a court that mattered and the one ruling that was made was thrown out. That is not nitpicking. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293/540 "2015-01-13T22:27:45Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > But I don’t really give a fvck, if you have to resort to insults anyway. I’ll ask again. (But only once, lest I be accused of hijacking or nitpicking.) What is the purpose of this affectation of spelling fuck with a “v”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-what-about-all-those-cops-turning-their-backs-on-de-blasio/708293.md?page=28)