User talk:173.28.156.201

February 2020

Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Stop-and-frisk in New York City seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, Oshwah. I made three edits, only one of which I think raises an issue of neutrality. This is the sentence I edited: "Stop-and-frisk became an issue in the 2016 presidential election, with Donald Trump attributing a nonexistent increase in murders in New York to the reduction of stop-and-frisk.[50]" I added the adverb "falsely" before "attributing." I can surely see how folks will argue the point, and indeed I sense that the phrase "nonexistent increase" represents the vitriol. I shall gladly let that go, for that edit is not important to me. Instead, I attended to this sentence: "In the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peters v. New York, the Supreme Court granted limited approval in 1968 to frisks conducted by officers lacking probable cause for an arrest in order to search for weapons if the officer believes the subject to be dangerous. The Court's decision made suspicion of danger to an officer grounds for a "reasonable search."[8]" First note the conflict between the phrase "if the officer believes the subject to be dangerous" and the phrase "The Court's decision made suspicion of danger to an officer ... " " ... believes a subject to be dangerous" v. "suspicion of danger ... "

I changed the word "believes" to "suspects" and added the word "presently" before "dangerous." Please note, yesterday the phrase actually stated " ... if the officer believes the subject to be armed and dangerous." Again, I added "presently" before "dangerous." As you see now, the words "armed and" have also been removed. This makes the entry seriously incorrect. Before I display several entries in the footnote [8] law review article cited as authority for the sentence – entries that indeed indicate that the very authority cited does not support the current text – I'll first establish my expertise on the Fourth Amendment and its application to stops and frisks.

First, I am a law professor teaching introductory and advanced criminal procedure courses, among others in law and sociology of law. Indeed I am teaching stop and frisks now, which is what got me to the Wikipedia entry (a student remarked about the Democratic debates engaging the NYC stop and frisk policy). I have the case of Terry v. Ohio here before me. Additionally, before me is a textbook widely used in criminal procedure courses across the U.S., and the publisher is Cengage. Also, the author Joel Samaha is a long-time instrutor of criminal procedure at University of Minnesota. The current edition is the Tenth. So first I will quote for you passages from the textbook – passages that quote from Terry v. Ohio – which again I have here before me. As for the distinction between "believe" and "suspect," reasonable belief is the standard applied when determining probable cause to execute an arrest, which is more invasive than a Terry-stop, and thus the basis for the less exacting reasonable suspicion standard rather than the probable cause standard.

Of course the essence of Terry v. Ohio is that police may seize suspects and search them without probable cause. Thus Terry v. Ohio creates the reasonable suspicion standard. It's not reasonable belief; it's reasonable suspicion. What the Court referred to is situations wherein officers reasonably suspect that crime may be afoot. That's the standard for a "stop," which while the Supreme Court ruled is a seizure, it's lesser than the more invasive seizure called "arrest." As for the "frisk," which, per the Court in Terry, is a search, again, the standard is suspect, not believe. That is, an officer need merely suspect that a suspect is armed and presently dangerous. "Presently" is part of the standard, for it's certainly possible for an officer to be aware that a person stopped is armed but not to sense such person to be presently dangerous.

Now, it is true that in Warren's majority opinion, the word "believe" is used several times. But ultimately the Warren majority made clear that, "We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom his is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ... " The sentence I edited specifically regards the frisk element of stops and frisks, and currently that Wikipedia sentence reads " ... the Supreme Court granted limited approval in 1968 to frisks conducted by officers lacking probable cause for an arrest in order to search for weapons if the officer believes the subject to be dangerous." "Believes" belies the name of the standard, which is "reasonable suspicion." That is the term used by Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion, and that's what the full Court adopted in later cases. Indeed, for many years reasonable suspicion is what I have taught as a lawyer and Ph.D. teaching not only an introductory criminal procedure course but a highly advanced course reckoning traditional Fourth Amendment analyses with the modern questions that arise regarding Fourth Amendment reasonableness in the Digital Age.

Now, to drive home this distinction, here is a quote from the very highly regarded textbook I referenced above: "In this book we'll refer to [bold] reasonable suspicion [bold] to stop as the totality of articulable facts and circumstances that would lead an officer, in the light of her training and experience, to [italics] suspect [italics] that crime [italics] may [italics] be afoot." And the author continues in a parenthetical: "(Notice the emphasis on "suspect" and "may" in contrast to the definition of arrest, which requires enough facts and circumstances to justify officers' [italics] belief [italics] that crime [italics] is [italics] afoot." So you see, the word "belief" in the sentence I edited not only does not state "suspect," which is the correct term for stops and frisks, but it further uses "believes," which is the term for arrests. This is not an academic difference: it's one that government agents must distinguish day and night. And finally, footnote 8 – the reference cited for the incorrect phrasing – leads to a law review article that contains these three quotes:

Quote 1. PART III: THE DECISION In the majority opinion in Terry, Chief Justice Warren initially framed the controversy presenting the two competing global views on stop and frisk: that “the police should be allowed to `stop' a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity,”91

Note: " ... upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity,"91 : thus the citation does not support the word "believes," and editing it to "suspects" is correct.

Quote 2. 107 See, e.g., Terry, 392 U.S. at 30. We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ....

Note: " ... that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ... " meaning my edit inserting the adverb "presently" before "dangerous" is correct AND the words "armed and" should not have been edited out. To say that a person may be frisked if they are suspected to be presently dangerous is HUGELY overbroad, for when dealing with a frisk for weapons, the present danger must be that the suspect may be armed.

Quote 3. PART V: REASONABLE SUSPICION ... Chief Justice Warren's majority opinion never used the term “reasonable suspicion,” instead writing of “unusual conduct” which leads a police officer “reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” 255

Note: As I stated above, Warren's majority opinion did not use the term "reasonable suspicion," but Harlan's concurrence did, and that's what the Court settled on, which is why the footnote [8] author cited for the phrase I edited begins PART V. of his law review article with the title, REASONABLE SUSPICION, not reasonable belief, which, again, is the standard for arrests.

I hope this helps to substantiate the edits. This is fundamental information that does get confused. Wikipedia is a great place to have the correct logic and terminology. Please let me know if I can be of any more help. 173.28.156.201 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oshwah. It may be useful for you to know the bases upon which stops and frisks differ from arrests, for without such differences, it may be questioned whether all I've said to this point matters. Stops and frisks differ from arrests in four ways. The first and second are that stops and frisks are brief (time), on the spot (location), investigatory detentions, while arrests result in longer detentions, often seriously longer, for which people are moved from the spot, typically to a police station. The third is that stops and frisks often result in no written records (perhaps a field investigation card at most), whereas arrests result in written records with a lot of personal and inculpatory information, and it'll be kept indefinitely. Finally, the level of invasiveness regarding stops and frisk is much less than that for arrests: a stop is a brief investigatory detention that at most can result in a once-over, light pat down of the suspect's outer clothing limited to a search for weapons. Conversely, arrests result in much more extensive searches for any contraband all over the body, in pockets, in items such as backpacks in the immediate vicinity of the arrest, and perhaps leading to a strip search and/or body cavity search at the police station, depending upon what is found during the search for much more than weapons. It's these differences in invasiveness into the constitutionally protected right against unreasonable searches and seizures that provide for and indeed require different legal standards to make the separate actions reasonable at their inception as well as in their scope. 173.28.156.201 (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Will I hear from you, Oshwah?

Good day, Oshwah,

I choose not to take the time to check for typos in the following. I am grading criminal procedure papers.

I've been checking out policies and my editing history and have attempted to reset my password to no avail. I have a user account, with the username Pizzov. I created that account in 2013. Since then I have made what appears to be hundreds of edits without formally logging in. I don't feel the need to beef up my presence under a user name. But I use Wikipedia very, very often and typically make changes to reflect typos and small errors. I have, however, contributed content. If you look at my history using my IP address, you will see that I have made edits to all kinds of topics, including ones dealing with criminal law and criminal procedure. So while it may not appear as if I am a regular contributor, I am. It's all there under my IP address.

I am unhappy to see that I am locked out of editing the stop and frisk page. I've looked at the page history and see that there has been controversy on the page, including what you all call a "war" between two users. I am not involved in any of that. And no one is using my IP address. I look at the history of my IP address and recognize all the topics I see. I have been to those pages. I am a quiet contributor to Wikipedia, one whose editing skills and broad knowledge can be appreciated. I just choose not to wear my jester costume. Because I can very easily see how one edit I made to the stop and frisk page may be viewed by some as non-neutral, I said already that I don't care about it. The fact is that the fact Donald Trump claimed is false. And so I added "falsely" before the word "claimed." I suppose some argue that this attributes dishonesty to Trump. People are too sensitive. He made a claim, it was false, at minimum he negligently said something he doesn't know about; at maximum, he lied. But I don't attribute motive to him; rather, I state the neutral fact that he falsely claimed a fact that isn't a fact. I see the weaselly way around that, which is to state allow the word "nonexistent" before "increase." A nonexistent increase is no increase, and where but on Wikipedia do people make up an adjective-noun combination wherein the adjective renders the noun moot? Can I pay for my groceries with a nonexistent $20 bill? Anyway, if this is the edit for which you have also deleted separate edits that correct very incorrect information, that, in my opinion, goes overboard.

I have made a clear argument for the other edits relating to what the stop-and-frisk standard is. I am an expert on this topic, I respect Wikipedia, I respect you, I take my editing seriously, and I have a clear record of edits that I began even earlier than when I created an account 7 years ago. As for that account, I cannot log in to it. My user name is accepted; no password I use for these types of websites is accepted. I attempted to reset the password by entering my username and then looking at every email account I have ever possessed. I have three: twice I have attempted to find the message "sent" to me by Wikipedia, and twice I have received no message to any of the accounts. I've checked all folders. So, what am I supposed to do? I do not want to create another user account. I want Wikipedia to take care of the efforts I am making to use the platform. Beyond that, I understand that it's been only 2-3 days since I replied expeditiously to your message, but I wish to have this resolved, particularly now that I realize I'm locked out of the page. I know you know a policy that I wish to share that I now know: a temporary lockout is not to be used to privilege users over those using an IP address. And that seems to be happening here, for a quick check would show you that there are many, many edits under my IP address, and indeed that IP address should be connected to my user account under the user name Pizzov.

The page is incorrect about a crucial point: the standard under Terry v. Ohio, which the entry refers to extensively. Please let's work together to correct it. At least please let me know you're communicating with me. You've removed edits and locked me out of the page. I'm an upstanding user and editor with a substantial record to show for it and a user account.

Thank you, Oshwah!

---