Former Police Chief Defends NYPD's 'Stop And Frisk' Program, Because It Has A Checklist
from the meanwhile,-certain-commanders-seem-to-be-encouraging-profiling dept
NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" program has never really been considered "constitutional" by anyone involved on either side of the law. In fact, certain elements of the stop-and-frisk program have already been ruled unconstitutional (making trespass stops outside residential buildings). But a case currently underway (Floyd v. City of New York) is hoping to prove that the NYPD's program violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Since 2002, the NYPD has performed these "street interrogations" over 4 million times. The end result? Nearly nine out of ten "suspects" have been completely innocent, and this is according to the NYPD's own reports. In addition, an overwhelming percentage of those stopped have been minorities. (Stops of whites hovers around 11% of the total.)
Not only are the NYPD's numbers damning in their own right, but NYPD officer testimony alleges that the department pressures officers with a quotas (20 summonses + 1 arrest per officer per month -- a.k.a. "20 and one"), something many states have recognized as creating perverse incentives and have outlawed accordingly. (Of course, this just leads to police departments utilizing other terms, like "productivity" or "benchmarks" or "performance goals.") Secret recordings even caught a commanding officer stating explicitly who patrol officers were supposed to target with the stop-and-frisk program: "I told you at roll call, and I have no problem telling you this, male blacks 14 to 20, 21."
Recently retired police chief Joseph Esposito was called to testify in the Floyd v. City of New York case and Scott Greenfield noticed a rather interesting exchange between the chief and the presiding judge. After Esposito played to part of the crowd for a bit, mentioning the 40% reduction in crime and saluting his sergeants as the "best in the world," he answered a few questions directly related to the stop-and-frisk program.
Mr. Esposito also put much stock in the paperwork that officers must fill out after each street stop. That form includes numerous check boxes, each describing behavior that might lead to a stop, like “furtive movements” or “actions indicative of casing.”(Here's a copy of that form, usually referred to as a "250" form [UF-250] despite the fact that its form number is 344-151A.)
Mr. Esposito insisted that a supervisor could conclude that a stop was legal based on reviewing that form alone.
“If it’s filled out properly, it gives you reasonable suspicion. And if you have reasonable suspicion established, then you do not have racial profiling,” Mr. Esposito said. “It’s as simple as that.”
That's an interesting rationale. And not just the fact that Esposito believes "reasonable suspicion" can be entirely unyoked from "racial profiling." It's not as if narratives (and their corresponding paperwork) have never been altered to justify racially motivated actions.
But the worst part of this rationale is how little it takes for an officer to "establish" reasonable suspicion, and how the NYPD seems to prefer it that way.
A checklist. The holy grail of grocery clerks. Check off a few boxes and, bingo, reasonable suspicion is established. "It's as simple as that."As Greenfield says, this is what's presiding over New Yorker's constitutional rights -- a set of checkboxes so vague any person could be considered "reasonably suspicious."
[T]his... testimony... provides the deepest understanding of the failure to grasp what's at risk when cops roam the street under the leadership of a guy like Espo.
With his three stars, he was a "near-mythic figure" in the NYPD. Yet on the witness stand, he revealed himself to be an errand boy for grocery store clerks, who thought a checklist was real. "It's as simple as that." They so adore checklists. Check the right boxes and all is well with the world. There is no better proof than a checklist.
Fortunately, the judge was underwhelmed by Eposito's "star power" and his affection for reasonable-suspicion-via-checklist. Her response points out just how broadly written the form is and how easily it can be abused.
But Judge Scheindlin appeared skeptical that the paperwork proved anything.No. You really can't tell much by looking at the form. And like all paperwork, it's usually filled out after someone has already been shoved against a wall for walking in a high crime area. The department's own stats show that 9 out of 10 times, nothing illegal is happening. But yet the practice persists, failing to do anything more than assert control over the populace with systemic harassment sporting a gaudy 90% failure rate.
“Any officer can check off ‘high-crime area’ and ‘furtive movements,’ ” Judge Scheindlin said, referring to two check-box categories on the stop-and-frisk form. “You really don’t know much about the stop, looking at the form, do you?”
The number of stops dropped 20% last year (from its 2011 peak), suggesting a couple of things are happening. Either batting .100 isn't sitting well with some officers or the form itself is slowing down the process of establishing reasonable suspicion. Below is one of the forms the NYPD is reportedly* considering using to replace the inefficient, two-page "250" form.
*Actually not considering this completely made-up form at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nypd, stop and frisk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
*no prejudice meant, I'm just that heterosexual and my gf is black which makes us a nice coffee and milk mixture ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now I see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Played
Man got to have a code, ya know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you look at the population numbers by race in the city, and the numbers by race of people stopped under stop and frisk, the numbers are even more disturbing.
MORE black/Hispanic/other minority groups of that age range are stopped and frisked a year in NYC then LIVE in NYC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1)A tick in a box is proof that they had reason to stop and frisk.
2)Someone filming them in action is impeding them in carrying out their duties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suspiciousness
(Analogous to the "interesting number paradox" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox]...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not as simple as that. Even if reasonable suspicion exists in every single one of those cases, it's STILL racial profiling if they do NOT stop everyone who exhibits the same behavior. And the form has no way of showing that.
Not to mention the condition of "if it's filled out properly". As if an officer who is willing to frisk someone for no reason isn't going to be willing to fudge on the form. Especially when the form helpfully tells them exactly where they "must" check a box. Never mind what actually happened; here's what we need you to claim happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self deportation....
They are not trying to abuse anyone's civil liberties, nor as some people incorrectly assume are they trying to stop crime (that's why they 10% guilty rate doesn't faze them).
They are simply taking Arizona's version of now disavowed republican taking points regarding illegal immigration and putting it into action.
The obvious goal of this policy is to get _undesirable_ groups (i.e minorities, esp. blacks age 14-21) to "self deport". Make life so miserable for the _undesirables_ that they will leave New York of their own accord.
The fact that most of these people are native born American citizens and have no other country to actually go to isn't a problem. The NYPD don't care if they never leave the country, just as long as they leave New York City.
Now that that's cleared up, doesn't it make much more sense?
[not that I think it's a good idea or anything, just trying to clear things up. ;> ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooo.. I make a form, let's call it the "Reasonable Suspician of Breast Cancer" ... if filled out properly, it gives me "reasonable suspicion" to stop and grope?... and because "reasonable suspicion" has been established, it's not "sexual harassment/assault"? If the TSA finds out about this, were all screwed....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You see officer, I had to film you because I have this checklist here and it says that if I see any of these things occur in public, it is my duty to film it for release it on Youtube."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My question is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My question is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My question is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This form is actually very useful.
It needs to be filled out by the person they stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This form is actually very useful.
* SMACK *
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This form is actually very useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1)a black guy whistling and pimp walking... (3 in a row across the top)
2)possible possession of a cell phone, furtive movements, and the officer in a lousy mood (3 in a row)
3)Black (or spanish) person jaywalking at night (4 random - uses both walking and jaywalking)
4)Officer in a lousy mood, at night, walking, potentially with a cellphone (4 random - works for anyone)
Idk who I should be more afraid of, the TSA or NYPD. At least the TSA stay in the airports and aren't in the whole city when they feel you up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For now, aren't ships, trains, buses, car and bikes also transport?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed that for you
On a more serious note, at least as serious as one can be about such a retarded argument, using the chief's logic I should be able to rob as many banks as I want by simply filling out a checklist afterward and checking items like, "no gun used" and "any property taken was actually mine." I don't think there are any laws saying my word isn't just as good as theirs after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beat brothers to the ground, like, every day?
What I'm sayin', what if people start shootin' 'em back?
Spit caps outta gats till the beast collapse."
-Paris
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow 1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FRISK Worksheet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]