Yes. Perhaps a few extra seconds catchinup on the discussion which followed would have been useful.
In 2000, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act was passed. It forbids forfeitures the type that plagued Mr. Jones and others. This was a problem before the Act, certainly. It’s not a problem NOW.
Yes, in reply to Squink’s post #14. He brought up “watch lists,” whatever they might be. I was replying to his term.
Commentary on Texas dildos follows.
It’s relevant because the new policy explicitly authorizes officers to carry out searches, in a particular area, of anyone they see fit to search. When cops have shown some propensity to break the rules governing their actions, it’s dangerous to give them even more opportunities to put such tendencies into practice.
Of course, you might argue that a rogue cop will always be able to find someone upon whom he can carry out his nefarious intention but, as the RNC arrests demonstrate quite effectively, there are certain situations in which the potential for abuse rises exponentially, and i think that the case in question is one of them.
One could also argue that, as long as the right people are found “not guilty,” or the charges are dismissed, then no harm has really been done. But that’s rather cold comfort to someone who’s already spect 24-48 hours in a crowded lockup based on an arrest that never should have been made in the first place.
Anyway, even in every single member of the NYPD were pure as the driven snow, the most honest and able peace officers ever to don a uniform, this policy would still be essentially nothing more than window-dressing.
Whose side of the argument are you on? I agree, but you’re making my point.
We’re discussing what the law and procedure should be. If we all agree that there should be no random searches, then how can we reconcile the story of the lying cops with this decision? If all agree there SHOULD be random searches, how can we reconcile the lying cops with the decision?
Either way we decide, the conduct of those cops is beyond the pale. It’s wrong. But how does that help us decide what the search policy should be?
OK, valid point.
But have cops shown “propensity,” as you say, or is this the result of a very small number of bad cops?
How so? What potential for abuse is there? People being arrested after searches, even though they’ve done nothing wrong?
If an epidemic of such arrests were to happen, I’d revise my opinion. But I see no evidence that this is likely.
That’s a valid argument. I express no opinion on it. I’m refuting the silly ideas. That idea is not silly; it’s a perfectly valid attack on the plan. I have no comment on it.
Who mentioned anything about innocence or guilt? YOU may be willing to trust the LAW to treat you fairly once they have your bag open, I don’t trust them to treat me fairly. Part of your confidence comes from your “protection” as a lawyer…I’m not a lawyer; just some guy and I’ll be damned to give anyone the ability to decide whether or not I’m breaking the law AFTER they’ve culled me from the herd.
Your refutation of silly ideas comes from your knowledge, do you really believe that the average New Yorker knows that the police can’t take your money anymore?
I trust the LAW, not it’s enforcers. Give me a clearly, written procedure: A, B, C, D and you may have my compliance, any leaving it to “judgement” calls and I’m out.
Well, to be honest, i’m not sure how many is required to show a propensity.
But when 1806 people are arrested, 1670 cases run their full course, and over 90 percent of those result in dismissals or “not guilty” verdicts, and when, in about 400 of those cases, the dismissals are the result of video evidence that directly contradicts police reports, then i think that if “propensity” is not the right word, we can at least use the term “tendency” or “inclination.” Whichever term is used, i think those numbers are a little worrying.
What evidence would there be?
I mean, before last year’s RNC i had no evidence that police were likely to fabricate stories in order to justify arresting law-abiding citizens. And yet it happened.
Um, because now they have more leeway to abuse the law?
You don’t believe that people’s past track records has any bearing on the question of how much autonomy they should be permitted to exercise in their work?
With respect to Texas, the law that you quote has been found to be unconstitutional in Hall v. State, 646 S.W. 489 (Tex.App. Houston {1st Dist.} 1982) rev’d on other grounds, 661 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Crim.App.1983).
I’m no expert on Texas law, and I welcome a clarification on this point. But from where I sit, the courts have already struck down the six dildo presumption.
Individual people? Sure.
“Cops” as a monolithic entity? No.
This should be repeated. Often. A real life example of how THIS JUST DOES NOT WORK.
Or let’s use a totally unrealistic senario and see how this random search will work out.
Let’s say there are 7 bombers waiting for the big day and the day has arrived. There are over 7 million riders a day on the subways and buses (we’ll just talk about the subway and buses, too keep things simple). And let’s also say, for the sake of simplicity, that the bombers won’t try to hide and will walk in with everybody else and show the police the bombs in their bags.
If we have a police officer at every bus stop and subway entrance in NYC and they check 10,000 random bags in the 24 hours of the the big day, what are the odds of them finding all 7 bombs? As always, my math is suspect, but my calculations tell me the odds of them finding just one bomb is 1 in 700. And you still get several big KABOOMS.
I still don’t understand. What, specifically, are you picturing could happen to you?
Plus if I were a terrorist, I would send in the most obvious looking “brown guy” with a huge backpack as a dummy. No one moves on him, I would assume I could get in the station without being searched. BTW there were no cops at the Wall St. 4/5 station today when I left work. Wall St. for fucking sakes! These pathetic “lock the barn door after the horse has bolted” solutions are a waste of time and money.
I don’t know Bricker you tell me. Random search. I’m a young black male, with $5,000 in cash in my backpack. They search and find the money. They let me go.
Is it unreasonable for me to be worried that somewhere down the line, there’s going to be Narc waiting for me to exit the train?
Let’s say, for the purposes of this discussion, that it’s reasonable. A narcotics officer is wating for you to exit the train.
Then what happens?
I think not. From that 1983 decision:
According to this opinion regarding the section from the state attorney general’s office, at least as of 1989, the possession section of the law seems to be provisionally constitutional.
Is it reasonable or not?
Not only that but, as i said in my post above, i’ve not yet seen any evidence that the police who lied were subjected to any disciplinary action. And if those police officers are still on the force, then surely we can reasonably express concern about the way that the NYPD does its job?
I admit that it’s possible that disciplinary action has occurred, and that it escaped my notice. A search reveals that the officer mentioned in the story i linked to above, Matthew Wohl, was under investigation by the Manhattan DA back in January, but i haven’t found any updates detailing what happened next.
Here’s more detail about what happened that day:
Wohl himself, and many of the other officers on the scene that day, were members of a Task Force designed to respond to riots and shooting. They had apparently received “extensive additional training throughout the year” in order to be able to do his work properly. And yet this extensively trained officer
That sort of policy, on the part of superior officers and the cops on the street, should not inspire much confidence among people subjected to random searches on the subway, IMO.
Move to NY and find out yourself. Your narrow nitpicking outlook on how the world actually operates is totally devoid of reality.
Hint: They think the nigger is up to no good
My post was addressed to Bricker, don’t know why it didn’t quote.