Alternet via reason.com: The Epidemic of Pot Arrests in New York City

Reason.com: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/135365.html

NYPD commanders direct officers to stop and question many young people and make arrests for possessing "contraband." In 2008, the NYPD made more than half a million recorded stop and frisks and an unknown number of unrecorded stops, disproportionately in black, Latino and low-income neighborhoods. By far, the most common contraband young people might possess is a small amount of marijuana.

According to U.S. Supreme Court decisions, police are allowed to thoroughly pat down the outside of someone's clothing looking for a gun, which is bulky and easy to detect. But police cannot legally search inside a person's pockets and belongings without permission or probable cause.

However, police officers can legally make false statements to people they stop, and officers can trick people into revealing things. So in a stern, authoritative voice, NYPD officers will say to the young people they stop:

"We're going to have to search you. If you have anything illegal you should show it to us now. If we find something when we search you, you'll have to spend the night in jail. But if you show us what you have now, maybe we can just give you a ticket. And if it's nothing but a little weed, maybe we can let you go. So if you've got anything you're not supposed to have, take it out and show it now."

When police say this, the young people usually take out their small amount of marijuana and hand it over. Their marijuana is now "open to public view." And that - having a bit of pot out and open to be seen - technically makes it a crime, a fingerprintable offense.

And for cooperating with the police, the young people are handcuffed and jailed.

:mad::mad::mad:

Say what you want about the drug laws, but does this not strike you as dishonest? And hell, I don't even REALLY blame the police for this. This is an institutional problem.

Say what you want about the drug laws, but does this not strike you as dishonest? And hell, I don't even REALLY blame the police for this. This is an institutional problem.

You don't really blame police for lying to people about their rights in order to enforce needless draconian laws aimed mainly at personal liberty?

No one else is going to do these things for money, if they did not, the needless aspects of drug enforcement would grind to a halt.

You should probably blame the police.

Alternatively, they could just not carry pot around. Or if it's so important that they feel they need to practice civil disobedience, maybe they should read up on their rights. If they can get suckered into incriminating themselves, it sounds like a personal problem to me.

is that not entrapment?

"if you do this, I will not arrest you"

"gee, you're under arrest anyways."

You don't really blame police for lying to people about their rights in order to enforce needless draconian laws aimed mainly at personal liberty?

No one else is going to do these things for money, if they did not, the needless aspects of drug enforcement would grind to a halt.

You should probably blame the police.

is that not entrapment?

"if you do this, I will not arrest you"

"gee, you're under arrest anyways."

Don't think it's QUITE entrapment (any lawyers?).

Cops have to be able to trick criminals into things. Come on guys do you really think police work would work if they had to be perfectly honest with people they suspected of crimes?

Then I'd be accused of being a cop-hater.

Just because someone is a police officer doesn’t make them right.

The purpose of police is to "protect and serve", who are they protecting and serving here?

Cops have to be able to trick criminals into things. Come on guys do you really think police work would work if they had to be perfectly honest with people they suspected of crimes?

Yes, if not lied to and coerced by the police, while suspiciously um, walking down the street, these young people might [gasp] do small amounts of drugs!

Instead they become victims of the criminal justice system.

So instead of having to actually do their job and pat someone down, they instead just trick them into pulling whatever they have out. Brilliant display of top notch detective work here.

ACW is right though, it's an institutional problem from top to bottom. This isn't just the police.

It's trickery, it involves profiling, and it's a deceiving tactic used simply to spend tax dollars on busting people with simple possession. AKA, a waste of time and money. The lack of character displayed by the police and the powers that be runs a lot deeper with me than the need to bust someone who wants to smoke a little weed with his buddies, or heaven forbid, someone who actually uses it to relieve a serious illness.

I thought pot was a misdemeanor in NYC?

There are two separate arguements being made in the replies; one about pot laws and the other about police search protocol.

This seems to be a discussion of the latter, so leave the former out of your reply.

If you look carefully at the quoted article you'll see that the author throws a stat at you about how many frisks there were in NYC in 2008, then goes on to suggest a large number of unrecorded incidents exists. Immediately you think, "wow, that's a lot of people getting frisked for marijuana."

Well... that's not really true. Those 500,000 stops and frisks could have come from any number of incidents, and as a friend of a NYPD officer I can tell you not many cops would take the time and effort to look for marijuana. A lot of stuff is happening in NYC and harassing someone over the possibility of pot is pretty low on the to-do list.

Chances are most of those 500,000 stops and frisks stemmed from other suspicious activity. If you drive drunk, you are stopped and frisked before the arrest. If you steal a car, they will stop you while you drive the stolen car, frisk you, then shove you into the back of the squad car.

Even if the qualifier in the statistic was that no arrest was being made during these stops and frisks, which I don't see anywhere, I doubt that the goal was to find a single joint. If there is suspicious activity or someone emerges from a known drug dealer's building, chances are a stop and frisk is in the hopes that much harder and even more severely illegal stuff is inside his pocket.

All-in-all, this is a pretty weak attempt to shock readers into thinking pot heads are under assault. Fail.

However, in regards to the honesty of cops... when you deal with guys who lie to you on a daily basis it's hard to follow the handbook. The qualifier word used was "maybe". "maybe we can let you go". Some people just aren't bright enough to see through the wording. But then again, I don't give a rats ass about those who break the law and feel its "unfair".

no law against lying to people in the course of an "investigation"- however you must read miranda under certain circumstances.

State case law here some years ago in regard to searches- more specifically to houses/vehicles (& except incident to arrest if person search)- said officers have to advise the person being searched that they had the right to refuse such search, as well as limit the scope of the search. Then a couple years after that, another case law added the specific wording allowing the person to end the search at any time (in cases of initial agreement to search).

Now- as far as a "pat down for my safety and yours"- those are not subject to "suspect" refusal. There are circumstances in which you can and cannot do this. I do admit, it isn't too hard to "prove" the "for safety" argument. A cops work is always dangerous. And there are packages of drugs that can be located during a pat down. So yes, it is normal to advise the person of what could happen during that pat down or search.

examples-night, patrolling alone and detain a kid, known gang member. I pat him down for safety and feel something about the size of a small gun in his pocket. Turns out to be a half z of weed. He got charged. But I have also found many weapons by pat searches.

Ridiculous to skirt the laws like this, yes.

Ridiculous that the people of America want to keep marijuana illegal and punishable by jail time is even worse. I don't blame the cops, I blame the people.

I thought pot was a misdemeanor in NYC?

When police say this, the young people usually take out their small amount of marijuana and hand it over. Their marijuana is now "open to public view." And that - having a bit of pot out and open to be seen - technically makes it a crime, a fingerprintable offense. And for cooperating with the police, the young people are handcuffed and jailed.

I call BS. Cops don't go up to completely random people and say, "we're going to search you." These people must be doing something somewhat suspicious to begin with. Just because they *can* doesn't mean they do. Also, it's not all that inaccurate that they say the sentence is light for "just a little weed". You almost never go to jail for just having it. Sometimes I think people try too hard to be victims.

No, you don't get taken off to jail for a "little weed." This is thrown in to make the point of the blog sound better to the audience. The only way you get handcuffed is if you act like a d-bag and represent yourself as a threat...that or they find out you have a warrant for something else. In that case you are a huge dumbass for walking around with pot.

Like I said before, grow up a little. Take some responsibility. The speed limits are artificially low, and I regularly break them. But I do it knowing that I may get caught, and I use a little common sense like not gunning it over the crest of a hill or places I frequently see speed traps. A law is a law. There's nothing magical about pot that makes you some kind of MLK for flaunting it. If you feel the situation is unjust, treat it like speeding. Minimize the exposure, take it like a damn man if you're caught. Read up on your rights so you don't sell yourself down the river if you get searched. This is really basic stuff if you're planning to live that kind of lifestyle. Or maybe it's just more fun to be unprepared and whiny, so you can appear more put upon when you're caught.

I agree with ACW on this in a way, even though I think the cops probably know they have it in the first place and they are just trying to save time.

I know my rights and I know I should have more of them.

For the record- I could care less if MJ was legalized-as a matter of fact, I know a lot of cops who rather use that time to solve/prevent major crime. There is even a cop in this state who was repremanded for supporting legalization (he later sued and won).

However- when I dealt with the gang members who are shooting up things, burglarizing houses- I never hesitated to charge for a small amount. I knew damn well they were doing a ton more and getting away with it. Then for the juvies, a drug charge meant more supervision from probation. Just doin what we could to help the community.

Obviously that's a messed up situation if it's true, but how about not carrying around contraband in your pockets while in public? Just leave it at home.

Don't mean to hijack, but I've noticed there have been alot of weed-related documenteries on TV for the last year or so. Just a few days ago I watched one called Should I smoke Pot? on BBC. It was outstanding. There was another on last night that was also very good.

Makes me think things are beginning to turn for the better in terms of tolerance and maybe -gasp- legalization.

See the whole problem here is probable cause. Even if these people knew their rights and refused the search, that is probably cause to search them. Otherwise, why would they refuse the search right?

Just because someone is a police officer doesn’t make them right.

The purpose of police is to "protect and serve", who are they protecting and serving here?

Instead they become victims of the criminal justice system.

Its called social order policing.

They are not vicitims, they are ciminals who were to stupid to know their rights. Doesn't change the fact that MJ possesion is illegal.

See the whole problem here is probable cause. Even if these people knew their rights and refused the search, that is probably cause to search them. Otherwise, why would they refuse the search right?

no, you can not search me, unless you arrest me first. if i'm doing nothing wrong, mind your own business.

Its called social order policing.

They are not vicitims, they are ciminals who were to stupid to know their rights. Doesn't change the fact that MJ possesion is illegal.

Pot messes with the social order now?

There are such things as unjust laws, were enforcing them makes the system itself a criminal and the so called criminal a victim.

In China people are arrested for criticizing the government. The police of China are the goons who enforce it. They are, of course, to blame for their actions. Without the police force to enforce their tyranny, China can not jail people for simple criticism.

If someone thinks that doing small amounts of drugs is no business of the government, then the police are just like those in China, enforcing unjust laws, the foot soldiers of tyranny.

For the record- I could care less if MJ was legalized-as a matter of fact, I know a lot of cops who rather use that time to solve/prevent major crime. There is even a cop in this state who was repremanded for supporting legalization (he later sued and won).

However- when I dealt with the gang members who are shooting up things, burglarizing houses- I never hesitated to charge for a small amount. I knew damn well they were doing a ton more and getting away with it. Then for the juvies, a drug charge meant more supervision from probation. Just doin what we could to help the community.

A good friend who is in law enforcement once said this to me, a broken tail-light is reason to pull over someone someplace they should not be. Alittle weed is something to arrest someone someplace they should not be.

He also said, "I've never gone to a pot head's house for a domestic, though at a domestic, there sometimes is pot, but there is always alcohol".

And if Pot leads to other things, what lead to pot? BEER.

Its called social order policing.

They are not vicitims, they are ciminals who were to stupid to know their rights. Doesn't change the fact that MJ possesion is illegal.

Yeah, because preying on the ignorance of citizens is a good way to police, right? No sir, no potential for abuse in that sort of law enforcement tactic.