Courts Rule Stop And Frisk Unconstitutional, Detroit Continues Procedures

[1lluminated1]

Detroit Police Chief James Craig: Department stop-and-frisk policy will proceed

 

DETROIT — Detroit's stop-and-frisk policy involving the pat-down of suspicious individuals has gone on for "some years" and will continue, despite a judge's ruling last week that called the practice in New York City unconstitutional and discriminatory, Chief James Craig said Tuesday.

 

"There has been no change," he said. "I should remind the" public "that we're under consent judgement and part of that is that we adhere to the best policing practices. Any time we stop someone, certainly that stop is documented and is based on reasonable suspicion and is articulated in a report."

 

Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee reform of the New York City Police Department stop-and-frisk procedures, the results of which Craig said could lead to changes with Detroit's policy.

 

Meanwhile, proponents of New York's current policy praise the proactive policing measure for leading to record-low homicides and shootings within the city.

 

Detroit police officials acknowledge that because of Detroit's racial makeup it will undoubtedly affect mostly black citizens.

 

Detroit Assistant Chief Erik Ewing issued this statement to Fox 2 News:

Based on reasonable suspicion, the Detroit Police Department is already a stop-and-frisk policing agency. Detroit's population is mostly African American, so it stands to reason that a high number of African Americans will be stopped, based on reasonable suspicion. This is not racial profiling, just officers doing good constitutional police work.

According to a report by George Hunter of the Detroit News, Detroit traffic officers are presently working with the Manhattan Institute and Bratton Group, the same consultants that helped implement stop-and-frisk in New York City, on an expansion of Detroit's program to include more aggressive searches resulting from traffic stops.

 

Stop-and-frisk as defined by Cornell University Legal Information Institute: "A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing."

 

Whether the department is working to enhance its policy, it is and has been in effect, according to Craig and Ewing.

 

"There has been no change and yes we are looking at the report out of New York to see what are best practices, what has come out of the judge's decisions that we can impart here," Craig said. "We have not degraded the great work that has gone on for some years and we will continue to do that."

The practice isn't going unchallenged.

 

"We don't intend to allow it to happen, even though it may be happening in some form," Ron Scott, the founder of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality, said during the Detroit Police Commission last week.

 

His organization has long scrutinized police action and reports of brutality or civil rights violations.

 

Do you support a stop-and-frisk policy in Detroit? Please answer the poll question and share why in the comment section below.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/08/detroit_police_chief_james_cra_5.html

 

 

[1lluminated1]

It's funny how the government entities don't have to listen to the supreme court when it suits their fancy, while us slaves are molested, stolen from and imprisoned and killed for a god given plant.

[ozzrokk]

It's funny how the government entities don't have to listen to the supreme court when it suits their fancy, while us slaves are molested, stolen from and imprisoned and killed for a god given plant.

 

 

They figure if you dont like it then join them and you can then do what you want without consequences too......