"Stop and Frisk" solved murder case

[Truebeliever]

I know the controversy about "stop and frisk" or a Terry stop on this an another forum.

This is just an example of a "stop and frisk "( bad name for what was originally called" Stop, question and frisk" and should have been called "Stop and Question and possibly Frisk") or a Terry stop.

Dogged cop kept working slain jogger case until he cracked it | New York Post

 

[Magnus]

Something about this story bugs me though. There just seems to be....."too much" evidence for my liking and such a big time gap since the murder.

 

[Phauxtoe]

Ends never justify the means !
PERIOD!

 

[stuck in ny]

Ends never justify the means !
PERIOD!

Exactly.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If only one child is saved.....

 

[spat]

I know the controversy about "stop and frisk" or a Terry stop on this an another forum.

This is just an example of a "stop and frisk "( bad name for what was originally called" Stop, question and frisk" and should have been called "Stop and Question and possibly Frisk") or a Terry stop.

Dogged cop kept working slain jogger case until he cracked it | New York Post

I'm sure you could solve a lot more cases if we got rid of the bill of rights.

What you guys dont seem to understand is that your job is not so important that it takes precidence over everything else. Sometimes the answer to "I can't do my job without X" is that your job doesn't, and shouldn't get done.

 

[Airborneguy]

I'm sure you could solve a lot more cases if we got rid of the bill of rights.

What you guys dont seem to understand is that your job is not so important that it takes precidence over everything else. Sometimes the answer to "I can't do my job without X" is that your job doesn't, and shouldn't get done.

There's better ways to explain the concept you are driving at, especially considering the example at hand. You'll be hard pressed to convince many people that pursuing murder suspects is not an important job.

Many aspects of daily policing are pointless, "CYA" driven nonsense that we'd be better off without, but the highly-politicized "SQF" is an extremely important concept in policing without which the entire concept of combatting street crime would change.

The ability to stop and question suspicious persons suspected of having committed a crime is the basis for all street policing, like it or not, and the courts have routinely held that when conducted properly, it is well within the Constitution to do so.

 

[spat]

There's better ways to explain the concept you are driving at, especially considering the example at hand. You'll be hard pressed to convince many people that pursuing murder suspects is not an important job.

Many aspects of daily policing are pointless, "CYA" driven nonsense that we'd be better off without, but the highly-politicized "SQF" is an extremely important concept in policing without which the entire concept of combatting street crime would change.

The ability to stop and question suspicious persons suspected of having committed a crime is the basis for all street policing, like it or not, and the courts have routinely held that when conducted properly, it is well within the Constitution to do so.

Sure, catching murderers is important, but so is keeping the lights on, and keeping the store shelves stocked. Truck drivers, and industrial workers dont get to say "well, my job is important, so I can skip some of those rules".

The entire concept of combatting street crime *needs* to change, it is badly broken.

Catch and release policing can never work, and trying to fix it by making the "catch" part easier is a recipe for a police state.

It shouldn't be a policy that we inconvience people all the time hoping to catch some bad guys, then when we do we turn them loose again in a few weeks.

If they were locked up twice as long, you could make the process to catch them twice as hard with no net change, except non criminals would get harrassed less.

If you eliminate crimes that have no victim, you can concentrate on the real crimes, and again, make it harder to catch one, but put him away for a very long time. Net more freedom, and less crime.

 

[Truebeliever]

That's the point of the thread. They didn't skip any rules and followed them.

You guys need to learn the rules of what is allowed and what isn't. You quote the constitution but don't always know the rules as made by our followers. A "Terry stop" was always legal under the constitution even our founders time and the Terry case was to actually limit those powers.

Go look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[spat]

That's the point of the thread. They didn't skip any rules and followed them.

You guys need to learn the rules of what is allowed and what isn't. You quote the constitution but don't always know the rules as made by our followers. A "Terry stop" was always legal under the constitution even our founders time and the Terry case was to actually limit those powers.

Go look it up if you don't believe me.

Again, you're trying to justify the current state of affairs by saying "hey, its always been legal". Were not saying it isn't legal, we're saying it *shouldn't* be.

 

[GOPerfect]

ure, catching murderers is important, but so is keeping the lights on, and keeping the store shelves stocked. Truck drivers, and industrial workers dont get to say "well, my job is important, so I can skip some of those rules".

While I understand the statement, I do not see how it fits in this story.

What "rules" did the cops break in this story? What Rights were violated?

 

[spat]

While I understand the statement, I do not see how it fits in this story.

What "rules" did the cops break in this story? What Rights were violated?

The rules about unreasonable search.

We all know that just because the courts claim something is a reasonable infringement on a right doesnt really make it reasonable.

To be reasonable a search needs to be for a specific thing, with a high probability of finding that thing. How many of these searches would be conducted if you needed to get a warrant for them ?

The ability to bypass a warrant based on circumstances is there for the case where waiting is likely to cause serious harm, not for when its inconvienent to wait.

 

[GOPerfect]

In this story, what was so unreasonable?

 

[GOPerfect]

Am I reading something wrong?

He spotted Lewis, who sources said was either prowling in back yards or casing parked cars, in the area. Russo immediately called it in, ensuring that cops interviewed Lewis and recorded his personal information, sources said.

Last week, Russo then reminded the detectives investigating Vetrano’s slaying about the incident, leading to a Thursday interview, during which Lewis “freely gave a swab” of DNA to the investigators, Boyce said.

 

[spat]

In this story, what was so unreasonable?

As written in the story, nothing. I find the "freely gave a swab" line a bit suspect though. I suspect there was at least some degree of coersion involved.

 

[GOPerfect]

As written in the story, nothing. I find the "freely gave a swab" line a bit suspect though. I suspect there was at least some degree of coersion involved.

Absolutely there would have been some coercion involved. Not anything wrong with coercion.

So if they did nothing wrong in this story, why bring up that rules were broken?

Does anyone, besides the police here have any idea how crimes are solved and the bad guys are brought to justice?

Not you Spat, but there are some really clueless people talking about how police work should be done. If it were up to some, no criminal would ever get caught!

 

[spat]

Absolutely there would have been some coercion involved. Not anything wrong with coercion.

Were going to have to disagree on that one. As soon as any form of coersion is applied to get someone to waive a right, then that right has been violated.

Even if it's as straightforward as "let us search now and get it over with, or we'll have to hold you here for hours while we get a warrant, then search anyway"

 

[GOPerfect]

Were going to have to disagree on that one. As soon as any form of coersion is applied to get someone to waive a right, then that right has been violated.

Even if it's as straightforward as "let us search now and get it over with, or we'll have to hold you here for hours while we get a warrant, then search anyway"

Yeah, we will absolutely disagree on that one. Police work is not cut and dry. If you were ever a real victim of a crime, I promise you, you want some Police coercion!

 

[spat]

Yeah, we will absolutely disagree on that one. Police work is not cut and dry. If you were ever a real victim of a crime, I promise you, you want some Police coercion!

I've never had worse than a cell phone stolen from a parked car, but unless they actually hurt my family, no, i don't want the cops to act like criminals.

If they hurt my family, then I'm not going to hold back, but I'm also not going to pretend I'm a good guy while I'm doing it.... You can't claim to be for law and order and justice if you are bullying people into giving up their rights, you just can't.

 

[GOPerfect]

You can't claim to be for law and order and justice if you are bullying people into giving up their rights, you just can't.



Yes I can!

 

[GOPerfect]

I've never had worse than a cell phone stolen from a parked car, but unless they actually hurt my family, no, i don't want the cops to act like criminals.

If they hurt my family, then I'm not going to hold back, but I'm also not going to pretend I'm a good guy while I'm doing it.... You can't claim to be for law and order and justice if you are bullying people into giving up their rights, you just can't.

I think that many are confused on what are Rights and what are not. Getting an individual to do what I request is not a violation of his/her Rights. Much confusion and ignorance.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I think I can understand both sides of the argument. In the other thread regarding this type of issue, @GOPerfect and @Truebeliever did a good job of explaining what most people (including myself) don't understand about the LEO perspective on issues like a Terry stop, probable cause, stop and frisk, Etc. I know it broadened my understanding of it and I hope that neither of you guys took my comment as police bashing. It wasn't meant that way. I just really do believe we have lost and are continuing to lose privacy rights and protections. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong here), things like a terry search, stop and frisk and the like are all statutes subject to the 4th amendment and while they have so far been upheld, are only a lawsuit away from being ruled to the contrary. The 4th is the standard to which they are held and unfortunately, that seems to be more and more subjective when it should be more cut and dry, but I digress. Goperfect, truebeliever and airborneguy, you guys all seem like stand up dudes who are out there trying to do the best you can with the tools you have under the law and if we could all rest assured that every LEO we might encounter is like you, we would probably feel a lot better.
@spat has also had some good arguments from the citizens' point of view and just how vulnerable and uneasy a lot of us feel about stop and frisk or what have you. A lot of us don't have a lawyer on retainer and don't know what a judge or DA is likely to do. All we know is, if arrested, we could lose our jobs or ruin the prospect of getting a job, go bankrupt having to hire legal council, personal relationships could be affected. These are real possibilities even without being convicted in the end. Even though most of us, including myself are NOT criminals and don't participate in criminal activity, there is still a real fear that when getting pulled over or stopped we are just one wrong word or one simple mistake or stupid harmless oversight of the law away from being in trouble. Maybe that is an irrational concern to have, but there it is and I admit it's mostly out of ignorance. After hanging back and reading the back and forth I think ultimately just boils down to fear of the unknown and trust.

 

[spat]

I think that many are confused on what are Rights and what are not. Getting an individual to do what I request is not a violation of his/her Rights. Much confusion and ignorance.

Depends on how you do it.

Ask nicely, no its not a violation.

Beat them with a rubber hose till they acquiesce, of course it is. What forms of coersion do you think are acceptable ?

 

[GOPerfect]

I think I can understand both sides of the argument. In the other thread regarding this type of issue, @GOPerfect and @Truebeliever did a good job of explaining what most people (including myself) don't understand about the LEO perspective on issues like a Terry stop, probable cause, stop and frisk, Etc. I know it broadened my understanding of it and I hope that neither of you guys took my comment as police bashing. It wasn't meant that way. I just really do believe we have lost and are continuing to lose privacy rights and protections. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong here), things like a terry search, stop and frisk and the like are all statutes subject to the 4th amendment and while they have so far been upheld, are only a lawsuit away from being ruled to the contrary. The 4th is the standard to which they are held and unfortunately, that seems to be more and more subjective when it should be more cut and dry, but I digress. Goperfect, truebeliever and airborneguy, you guys all seem like stand up dudes who are out there trying to do the best you can with the tools you have under the law and if we could all rest assured that every LEO we might encounter is like you, we would probably feel a lot better.
@spat has also had some good arguments from the citizens' point of view and just how vulnerable and uneasy a lot of us feel about stop and frisk or what have you. A lot of us don't have a lawyer on retainer and don't know what a judge or DA is likely to do. All we know is, if arrested, we could lose our jobs or ruin the prospect of getting a job, go bankrupt having to hire legal council, personal relationships could be affected. These are real possibilities even without being convicted in the end. Even though most of us, including myself are NOT criminals and don't participate in criminal activity, there is still a real fear that when getting pulled over or stopped we are just one wrong word or one simple mistake or stupid harmless oversight of the law away from being in trouble. Maybe that is an irrational concern to have, but there it is and I admit it's mostly out of ignorance. After hanging back and reading the back and forth I think ultimately just boils down to fear of the unknown and trust.

I do see both sides of the issues. I just think that there are too many that have a very limited understanding of the laws and of the Constitution.

The Forth Amendment for example...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So many think that nearly all searches fall under the 4th, but what exactly is Unreasonable? Each to his own. That is why the courts have had so many opinions and different rulings.


BTW, I never think of these conversations as Cop Bashing. Ever, just good conversations!

 

[GOPerfect]

Depends on how you do it.

Ask nicely, no its not a violation.

Beat them with a rubber hose till they acquiesce, of course it is. What forms of coercion do you think are acceptable ?

Seriously? The list is endless. Could be as simple as making someone stand outside of their vehicle in the rain during a traffic stop.

 

[spat]

I think I can understand both sides of the argument. In the other thread regarding this type of issue, @GOPerfect and @Truebeliever did a good job of explaining what most people (including myself) don't understand about the LEO perspective on issues like a Terry stop, probable cause, stop and frisk, Etc. I know it broadened my understanding of it and I hope that neither of you guys took my comment as police bashing. It wasn't meant that way. I just really do believe we have lost and are continuing to lose privacy rights and protections. As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong here), things like a terry search, stop and frisk and the like are all statutes subject to the 4th amendment and while they have so far been upheld, are only a lawsuit away from being ruled to the contrary. The 4th is the standard to which they are held and unfortunately, that seems to be more and more subjective when it should be more cut and dry, but I digress. Goperfect, truebeliever and airborneguy, you guys all seem like stand up dudes who are out there trying to do the best you can with the tools you have under the law and if we could all rest assured that every LEO we might encounter is like you, we would probably feel a lot better.
@spat has also had some good arguments from the citizens' point of view and just how vulnerable and uneasy a lot of us feel about stop and frisk or what have you. A lot of us don't have a lawyer on retainer and don't know what a judge or DA is likely to do. All we know is, if arrested, we could lose our jobs or ruin the prospect of getting a job, go bankrupt having to hire legal council, personal relationships could be affected. These are real possibilities even without being convicted in the end. Even though most of us, including myself are NOT criminals and don't participate in criminal activity, there is still a real fear that when getting pulled over or stopped we are just one wrong word or one simple mistake or stupid harmless oversight of the law away from being in trouble. Maybe that is an irrational concern to have, but there it is and I admit it's mostly out of ignorance. After hanging back and reading the back and forth I think ultimately just boils down to fear of the unknown and trust.

The officers are rightly concerned about the 1% of the citizens who would do them harm, but don't seem to understand that the rest of us have to be concerned with the 1% of them who will abuse their power.

 

[spat]

Seriously? The list is endless. Could be as simple as making someone stand outside of their vehicle in the rain during a traffic stop.

If you ask them to stand there because of a legitimate concern, then no. But if you are doing it to make them miserable until they give you permission for the search, then that is absolutely a violation.

Would you offer to let them wait in the back of your car rather than stand in the rain ?

 

[GOPerfect]

If you ask them to stand there because of a legitimate concern, then no. But if you are doing it to make them miserable until they give you permission for the search, then that is absolutely a violation.

Would you offer to let them wait in the back of your car rather than stand in the rain ?

What is it a violation of?

 

[spat]

What is it a violation of?

Their right to be free of unreasonable searches.

The fact that you need their permission indicates that it isn't, on its face, a reasonable search. By trying to coerce them into it you are violating that right, in the same way that blackmailing someone into sex is still rape .

 

[Truebeliever]

The rules about unreasonable search.

We all know that just because the courts claim something is a reasonable infringement on a right doesnt really make it reasonable.

To be reasonable a search needs to be for a specific thing, with a high probability of finding that thing. How many of these searches would be conducted if you needed to get a warrant for them ?

The ability to bypass a warrant based on circumstances is there for the case where waiting is likely to cause serious harm, not for when its inconvienent to wait.

Almost all of cases of DNA samples of a defendant, are either based on a prior convictions where DNA was taken upon conviction as a matter of law, by consent by the defendant or his relatives ( remember a relative's DNA can pinpoint enough to get the warrant)or the warrant you talk about. On TV and some cases they might get it off something the defendant touched(that is very rare and often they will get the warrant first anyway).

The stop and frisk part of the case merely identified the person. How do you get a warrant if you can't ID the person and not holding him at the time, huh?

Now you said coercion by telling him can't leave unless he gives a DNA sample? That's the example you used?

It shows you don't know the rules. Coercion like that will get the evidence obtained suppressed and anything derived from it, tossed out as part of "the fruit of the posionous tree" doctrine.

The "coercion " most likely used was " an innocent man would give the sample to show he is cooperating and not guilty".

Show he gives the sample thinking that if he doesn't , they will suspect him. That is the type of coercion that they would be limited to. That's it. The second he is in a custodial situation in connection to this case and they ask questions, They have read Miranda warnings . If he lawyers up, they can't ask any questions without the lawyer present. No lawyer is going to let him confess or feely give a sample.

Believe it or not. Guys want to tell what they did and just being nice/professional and listening to them gets you more than the BS interrogation things they show on TV.

However there was an episode of Detroit 187 that got it right when the perpetrator asked for a lawyer. The detectives can't ask any more questions until a lawyer is present. So the lead detective doesn't talk to him at all but just stares at him. For hours. He doesn't say one word but sits in the room. The killer couldn't take the silence anymore and confessed. All he did was look at him.

Did you ever read the "Christian burial speech" case? If you did, you would know the limits of coercion allowed.