NYPD Accused of Targeting TG Folks Who Carry Condoms

[Carolyn Marie]

This same issue has been a problem in Los Angeles, as well. It has been a struggle to get the LAPD to stop using condom possession as prima facie evidence of criminal activity.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/2013/10/transgender-peoplesaycarryingcondomsleadstonypdharassmentpart2.html

Carolyn Marie

[Guest Mia J]

If there are not condom laws in the books then how can they use them of evidence of intent to commit a crime.

This is nothing but harassment and it discriminates.

Mia

[Ravin]

If there are not condom laws in the books then how can they use them of evidence of intent to commit a crime.

This is nothing but harassment and it discriminates.

Mia

When police decide to arrest someone, they are required to back up the decision by establishing "probable cause" to do so. Some crimes, such as solicitation, can be hard to catch someone in the act of doing, so the officer has to be able to back it up with what he or she observed. Apparently in New York, they use condoms as part of the allowed "probable cause." Often the real, unspoken reason is that the person is trans, or of color, etc., but those aren't allowed reasons to suspect someone of something (with good reason). Hopefully by shedding light on what's going on, pressure can be brought to bear on police not to use condoms as part of their "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" reasoning.

The most effective deterrent would be for the judiciary to send the message loud and clear by roundly rejecting "she had condoms" as part of probable cause for anything. The problem is, they look at totality of circumstances, and in sex crimes, just as in drug crimes, often possession of something innocuous in another context can go toward likelihood that they were engaging in illegal activity. An analogy in drug crimes is drug paraphenalia. In that context, items such as an empty baggie, a pipe (that theoretically could be used to smoke legal substances such as tobacco), a key or straw, etc., that of themselves are innocuous, if linked to drug possession/use become illegal. Apparently police in New York see condoms as paraphenalia of the sex trade. Which, given the importance to public safety of condom use (perhaps ESPECIALLY by sex workers), is idiotic if their broader job of public safety is given more than lip service while they pursue criminal investigation.

[Guest Mia J]

I understand what you are saying but here in Colorado there are laws against possession of drug paraphernalia to validate what a police officer can do. Does anyone know if there is something similar with condoms in New York?

There are even laws in some city that a person can be arrested for having burglary tools on them or in their vehicle. Virtually any tool can be considered a burglary tool so anyone that uses tools on their job is technically breaking the law.

Mia

[Ravin]

I understand what you are saying but here in Colorado there are laws against possession of drug paraphernalia to validate what a police officer can do. Does anyone know if there is something similar with condoms in New York?

There are even laws in some city that a person can be arrested for having burglary tools on them or in their vehicle. Virtually any tool can be considered a burglary tool so anyone that uses tools on their job is technically breaking the law.

Mia

The issues with paraphenalia and burglary tools is that there has to be some context around them to assert that they are illegal items. The condoms are being used as part of the totality of circumstances surrounding the context in which police officers suspect individuals of sex-related crimes such as prostitution or inappropriate public behaviors. So it's never JUST the condoms, but "this person was on that corner at this time and dressed like such and such and talking to so and so and so and so and oh, yeah, had condoms in her purse when she let me look in there."

Honestly, I've heard enough of the BS police pull that there is just no way I would consent to a police search of anything during a street stop--my bag, my car, my person. Even if I had nothing on me that could be considered illegal by any stretch of the imagination, I just wouldn't agree. Ever.

Of course, cops lie about getting consent for searches from time to time, too.

What it comes down to is that it's a BS thing to include in the totality of circumstances surrounding an arrest as some legitimate contribution to any sort of crime, for public health reasons. But unless the higher courts in the states where it's happening expressly exclude it from consideration, or, ideally, a statute barring its consideration would be passed.