Stop and Frisk is based on so called Terry stops. There doesn't have to be suspicion of a weapon to stop a person, just to frisk them. However, such stops (even before a search) must be based on specific and articulable facts... basically if a cop stops a person, they have to be able to say why, exactly, they stopped them. Further, those facts have to be enough to make a reasonable person believe a crime has been, is being, or will be committed by the individual.<p>That's just to stop a person. The pat down is if they believe the individual has a weapon. If they can plainly tell that the item found by feeling it is contraband (by feel), then that's legit.<p>Now in practice, this isn't what seems to be happening in NY. The stops and the searches don't meet the requirements that courts have set. However, young poor people don't generally get their day in court. Instead, they get plea agreements, which are substantially lighter then what they would get if they went to court. Public defenders and pro bono lawyers for the urban poor often don't have enough resources to do much else but advise their client to take the plea.<p>There is good news however, in that class action status has been granted to a law suit (or at least one) against the NYPD. Class actions can mean that the NYPD can be forced to change their policy.<p>Anyway, if you are stopped while driving, that is also an extension of the Terry stop doctrine, save that police have the power to make people exit their vehicle in most cases.
This is a good video for those unfamiliar with "stop and frisk" -- <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWtDMPaRD8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWtDMPaRD8</a>
"Stop and Frisk" has been the defacto policy in low-income areas for as long as I can remember. On Chicago's South Side (where I grew up) many young black males walking or driving could expect to be stopped and searched one or more times per week, in some areas.<p>For those who have never lived what I'm talking about you might doubt it exists, but it's real and it's in your backyard.<p>I'm glad that activists are taking up the cause. It's long overdue.
I just typed out a big post, hit add comment - "link has expired", highlighted the text, forgot to copy, refreshed and lost it. Fix this already, HN!<p>Similar laws also exist in the UK. Unfortunately both our politicians and activist organisations such as 38 Degrees completely ignore the effects of them. I've tried taking political action against this and have been met with canned responses and ignored outright.<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/14/stop-search-racial-profiling-police" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/14/stop-search-racial...</a><p>> Analysis by the London School of Economics (LSE) and the Open Society Justice Initiative shows during the past 12 months a black person was 29.7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person. That figure was 26.6 the previous year.<p>We also have a "stop and account" law, where a police officer may ask you what you are doing and why you are where you are. Recently, the obligation for police to record these encounters has been removed.<p><a href="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/stop-and-search/" rel="nofollow">http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/stop-and-search/</a><p>> From 7 March 2011 we have removed the national requirement to record stop and account, in order to reduce police bureaucracy. Instead we have allowed police forces to make a local decision on whether they feel that recording stop and account is necessary. Those forces with little evidence of disproportionate use and little community concern should no longer need to spend valuable police hours completing forms, monitoring records and collating statistics.<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/22/police-record-race-stop" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/22/police-record-race-...</a><p>> Five out of the 10 forces most likely to use stop-and-account powers disproportionately against black people – West Midlands, Avon and Somerset, Thames Valley, Sussex and Hertfordshire – have halted recording the race of people they have stopped.<p>> One experienced officer said colleagues could use the power, which does not require reasonable suspicion of criminality, to justify searching someone, which does: "It could lead to a suspicion to arise. Why are you not talking to me? Why aren't you answering questions?"<p>So you're not officially obliged but in practical terms, you are.<p>The worst thing is the heavy duty denial by the authorities that there is anything wrong with this.