Judge Rules NYC's 'Stop-And-Frisk' Unconstitutional, City to Appeal
Options
Maximus Rex
Members Posts: 6,354 ✭✭✭✭✭
Aug. 12, 2013 By JOSH MARGOLIN and AARON KATERSKY
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/judge-rules-nycs-stop-frisk-unconstitutional/story?id=19936326
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city will appeal a ruling by a federal judge today that the NYPD's controversial so-called "stop-and-frisk" policy is unconstitutional.
Bloomberg said the tactic, which allows cops to search anyone regardless of whether they believe a crime has been committed, is "an important part of [the NYPD's] record of success."
During a press conference today the three-term mayor also criticized U.S. District Judge Shira Sheindlin for allegedly being biased against police, saying she has "made it clear she was not interested in the crime reductions" and that she "ignored the real world realities of crime."
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said he was disturbed that the judge found Big Apple police engaged in racial profiling, saying that is "recklessly untrue."
"We do not engage in racial profiling," Kelly said. "It is prohibited by law, it is prohibited by our own regulations."
Bloomberg's comments came hours after Sheindlin filed her ruling, spiked with dramatic flourishes, that deemed stop-and-frisk unconstitutional, saying the policy unfairly targeted blacks and Hispanics. Sheindlin ruled that the policy could continue, but only under strong new restrictions.
Bloomberg grew visibly angrier and more impatient as the press conference went on today, finally shutting down questions by saying the ruling is "a very dangerous decision made by a judge that, I think, does not understand how policing works."
In her ruling, Scheindlin acknowledged that the goal of deterring crime may be "laudable," but said, "Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example — but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective."
In a 198-page ruling, the judge said the "case is about whether the city has a policy or custom of violating the Constitution by making unlawful stops and conducting unlawful frisks… The city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner."
She also dismissed the Bloomberg administration's argument that cops simply do more stop-and-frisks in minority areas because that's where crime is highest.
"Both statistical and anecdotal evidence showed that minorities are indeed treated differently than whites," the judge said, ordering that the stop-and-frisk may continue only with the oversight of a federal monitor.
In addition to the monitor, Scheindlin said she will order "various remedies" including a trial program requiring the use of "body-worn cameras" in one precinct per borough and "community-based joint remedial process."
Two months before his remarks today, Kelly defended the program on ABC News "Nightline."
"The stark reality is that a crime happens in communities of color," Kelly told "Nightline" Anchor Bill Weir. Black and Hispanic residents "are being disproportionately victimized."
Scheindlin's ruling crashed into a summer heavy with the overheated battle to replace Bloomberg after 12 years in charge at City Hall.
City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, a longtime Bloomberg critic and Democratic candidate for mayor, was quick to declare victory in the judge's words.
"The courts have just affirmed facts that too many New Yorkers know to be true: Under the Bloomberg administration … millions of innocent New Yorkers — overwhelmingly young men of color — have been illegally stopped," de Blasio said. "The overuse and misuse of stop-and-frisk hasn't made New York a safer city, it has only served to drive police and community further apart."
City council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Bloomberg ally running against de Blasio, said, "Too many young men of color are being stopped in the streets of New York in an unconstitutional manner and that must stop…as mayor, I intend to work with the federal monitor to help ensure these stops come down dramatically so that we can build stronger relationships between our communities of color and our police force. "
Former Congressman Anthony ? , another candidate for the Democratic mayoral nomination, called the ruling a "teachable moment."
"When the police stop tens of thousands of citizens who have done nothing wrong -- the overwhelming number being young men of color -- basic civil rights are being violated," ? said.
? did, however, ask the judge to delay the process of installing a monitor to oversee the NYPD until after a new mayor – and likely a new police commissioner – are sworn in in January.
Sceindlin's ruling, coming in the final months of Bloomberg's long tenure, marks another blow to a mayoral legacy that has suffered a series of shots as the billionaire media mogul prepares to return to private life.
In the last two years, Bloomberg's administration has watched as federal prosecutors revealed a heralded high-tech city payroll system pushed by the mayor was plundered in the biggest municipal-fraud scandal in Big Apple history. And Bloomberg's beloved $2 billion overhaul of the city's antiquated 911 system has suffered a series of embarrassing failures.
Through it all, though, the mayor has insisted his legacy was still secure because New Yorkers felt safer than ever and that was largely because of stop-and-frisk.
"There is no doubt," Bloomberg said in a speech in April, "that stops are a vitally important reason why so many fewer gun murders happen in New York than in other major cities – and why we are the safest big city in America."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/judge-rules-nycs-stop-frisk-unconstitutional/story?id=19936326
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the city will appeal a ruling by a federal judge today that the NYPD's controversial so-called "stop-and-frisk" policy is unconstitutional.
Bloomberg said the tactic, which allows cops to search anyone regardless of whether they believe a crime has been committed, is "an important part of [the NYPD's] record of success."
During a press conference today the three-term mayor also criticized U.S. District Judge Shira Sheindlin for allegedly being biased against police, saying she has "made it clear she was not interested in the crime reductions" and that she "ignored the real world realities of crime."
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said he was disturbed that the judge found Big Apple police engaged in racial profiling, saying that is "recklessly untrue."
"We do not engage in racial profiling," Kelly said. "It is prohibited by law, it is prohibited by our own regulations."
Bloomberg's comments came hours after Sheindlin filed her ruling, spiked with dramatic flourishes, that deemed stop-and-frisk unconstitutional, saying the policy unfairly targeted blacks and Hispanics. Sheindlin ruled that the policy could continue, but only under strong new restrictions.
Bloomberg grew visibly angrier and more impatient as the press conference went on today, finally shutting down questions by saying the ruling is "a very dangerous decision made by a judge that, I think, does not understand how policing works."
In her ruling, Scheindlin acknowledged that the goal of deterring crime may be "laudable," but said, "Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example — but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective."
In a 198-page ruling, the judge said the "case is about whether the city has a policy or custom of violating the Constitution by making unlawful stops and conducting unlawful frisks… The city's highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner."
She also dismissed the Bloomberg administration's argument that cops simply do more stop-and-frisks in minority areas because that's where crime is highest.
"Both statistical and anecdotal evidence showed that minorities are indeed treated differently than whites," the judge said, ordering that the stop-and-frisk may continue only with the oversight of a federal monitor.
In addition to the monitor, Scheindlin said she will order "various remedies" including a trial program requiring the use of "body-worn cameras" in one precinct per borough and "community-based joint remedial process."
Two months before his remarks today, Kelly defended the program on ABC News "Nightline."
"The stark reality is that a crime happens in communities of color," Kelly told "Nightline" Anchor Bill Weir. Black and Hispanic residents "are being disproportionately victimized."
Scheindlin's ruling crashed into a summer heavy with the overheated battle to replace Bloomberg after 12 years in charge at City Hall.
City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, a longtime Bloomberg critic and Democratic candidate for mayor, was quick to declare victory in the judge's words.
"The courts have just affirmed facts that too many New Yorkers know to be true: Under the Bloomberg administration … millions of innocent New Yorkers — overwhelmingly young men of color — have been illegally stopped," de Blasio said. "The overuse and misuse of stop-and-frisk hasn't made New York a safer city, it has only served to drive police and community further apart."
City council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Bloomberg ally running against de Blasio, said, "Too many young men of color are being stopped in the streets of New York in an unconstitutional manner and that must stop…as mayor, I intend to work with the federal monitor to help ensure these stops come down dramatically so that we can build stronger relationships between our communities of color and our police force. "
Former Congressman Anthony ? , another candidate for the Democratic mayoral nomination, called the ruling a "teachable moment."
"When the police stop tens of thousands of citizens who have done nothing wrong -- the overwhelming number being young men of color -- basic civil rights are being violated," ? said.
? did, however, ask the judge to delay the process of installing a monitor to oversee the NYPD until after a new mayor – and likely a new police commissioner – are sworn in in January.
Sceindlin's ruling, coming in the final months of Bloomberg's long tenure, marks another blow to a mayoral legacy that has suffered a series of shots as the billionaire media mogul prepares to return to private life.
In the last two years, Bloomberg's administration has watched as federal prosecutors revealed a heralded high-tech city payroll system pushed by the mayor was plundered in the biggest municipal-fraud scandal in Big Apple history. And Bloomberg's beloved $2 billion overhaul of the city's antiquated 911 system has suffered a series of embarrassing failures.
Through it all, though, the mayor has insisted his legacy was still secure because New Yorkers felt safer than ever and that was largely because of stop-and-frisk.
"There is no doubt," Bloomberg said in a speech in April, "that stops are a vitally important reason why so many fewer gun murders happen in New York than in other major cities – and why we are the safest big city in America."
Comments
-
There's nothing with "stop-and-frisk," per se in the landmark court decision of Terry v Ohio (google it ? ,) the police can stop, question, and pat you down if you appear to suspicious, (e.g. casing a place for a possibly burglary or you match the description of somebody in a robbery.) I haven't read the decision yet, but where NYC got into trouble is they were using stop-and-frisk as 1) Revenue generation 2) As a mechanism to gauge an officer's productivity. The end result was a lot of people that were going about daily routine who unfortunately live in these ? up neighborhoods getting ? with. Plus there was the problem that "stop-and-frisk," wasn't doing what was designed to do, which was get guns off of the street.
I don't know what the answer to this particular problem is. There needs to be a heavy police presence in these neighborhoods because this is where the dumb ? ? is taking place, however, ending "stop-and-frisk," might not be the answer, unless they come up with some thing more effective. At the end this is on us and not the NYPD, if we stopped acting like gang violence, drug dealing, and other dumb ? ? was something that is simply "par for the course," in our neighborhoods, then this wouldn't be an issue; however until we collectively decide it's in our best interest to work with law enforcement and stop tolerating dumb ? , then local politicians are going to dictate how their going to police our neighborhoods with no ? given. -
NY's S&F was unconstitutional. The ends doesn't justify the means because thats a huge invasion of privacy. Everyone looks at crime declined there but it also declined everywhere else. They just need better policing and community cooperation wouldn't hurt
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »There's nothing with "stop-and-frisk," per se in the landmark court decision of Terry v Ohio (google it ? ,) the police can stop, question, and pat you down if you appear to suspicious, (e.g. casing a place for a possibly burglary or you match the description of somebody in a robbery.) I haven't read the decision yet, but where NYC got into trouble is they were using stop-and-frisk as 1) Revenue generation 2) As a mechanism to gauge an officer's productivity. The end result was a lot of people that were going about daily routine who unfortunately live in these ? up neighborhoods getting ? with. Plus there was the problem that "stop-and-frisk," wasn't doing what was designed to do, which was get guns off of the street.
I don't know what the answer to this particular problem is. There needs to be a heavy police presence in these neighborhoods because this is where the dumb ? ? is taking place, however, ending "stop-and-frisk," might not be the answer, unless they come up with some thing more effective. At the end this is on us and not the NYPD, if we stopped acting like gang violence, drug dealing, and other dumb ? ? was something that is simply "par for the course," in our neighborhoods, then this wouldn't be an issue; however until we collectively decide it's in our best interest to work with law enforcement and stop tolerating dumb ? , then local politicians are going to dictate how their going to police our neighborhoods with no ? given.
Smh...
Until the local pds and law agencies learn that over policing a community only breeds distrust and begin to provide real protection to the witnesses who do come forward there isnt goin to be a lot of cooperation from the folk who have to live amongst the criminals, drugs and gangs. -
It was unconstitutional then, it's unconstitutional now, and regardless of the appeal its still unconstitutional.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
It was unconstitutional then, it's unconstitutional now, and regardless of the appeal its still unconstitutional.
That's a specious argument at best. You have to be familiar Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, along with court precedents such as Terry v Ohio. After you do that you have to go an read Judge Scheindlin's 198 page ruling to make sure she wasn't on some "judicial activism," ? . This ? has can to lead into DUI and seat belt check points being deemed unconstitutional too. Hopefully, I'll find the time to read the decision.
-
There is a small difference there because driving is a privilege than can be revoked. They also don't search your car or person at a checkpoint.Maximus Rex wrote: »It was unconstitutional then, it's unconstitutional now, and regardless of the appeal its still unconstitutional.
That's a specious argument at best. You have to be familiar Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, along with court precedents such as Terry v Ohio. After you do that you have to go an read Judge Scheindlin's 198 page ruling to make sure she wasn't on some "judicial activism," ? . This ? has can to lead into DUI and seat belt check points being deemed unconstitutional too. Hopefully, I'll find the time to read the decision.
-
They can use this ruling as a "test case."
-
Maximus Rex wrote: »It was unconstitutional then, it's unconstitutional now, and regardless of the appeal its still unconstitutional.
That's a specious argument at best. You have to be familiar Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, along with court precedents such as Terry v Ohio. After you do that you have to go an read Judge Scheindlin's 198 page ruling to make sure she wasn't on some "judicial activism," ? . This ? has can to lead into DUI and seat belt check points being deemed unconstitutional too. Hopefully, I'll find the time to read the decision.
I've read Terry and the NY law does not fit. I have no interest in googling so this is off memory:
The court decided in Terry that a police officer can use the totality of circumstances and his instincts (that comes with experience) to stop and question suspects.
Upon questioning suspects they can frisk (which is a quick sweep outside the clothing) if they have reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect is carrying something illegal or dangerous.
NY law has become racially motivated and has people being stopped for "fitting the description" of any suspect ever. Terry was about specific circumstances in which police see suspicious behavior not an institutionalized program of harassment. -
Maximus Rex wrote: »It was unconstitutional then, it's unconstitutional now, and regardless of the appeal its still unconstitutional.
That's a specious argument at best. You have to be familiar Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, along with court precedents such as Terry v Ohio. After you do that you have to go an read Judge Scheindlin's 198 page ruling to make sure she wasn't on some "judicial activism," ? . This ? has can to lead into DUI and seat belt check points being deemed unconstitutional too. Hopefully, I'll find the time to read the decision.
I've read Terry and the NY law does not fit. I have no interest in googling so this is off memory:
The court decided in Terry that a police officer can use the totality of circumstances and his instincts (that comes with experience) to stop and question suspects.
Upon questioning suspects they can frisk (which is a quick sweep outside the clothing) if they have reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect is carrying something illegal or dangerous.
NY law has become racially motivated and has people being stopped for "fitting the description" of any suspect ever. Terry was about specific circumstances in which police see suspicious behavior not an institutionalized program of harassment.
That's what I was saying, if NYPD was using "stop-and-frisk," strictly within the confines Terry, they would have been cool, but these mutafuckas were surreptitiously using "stop-and-risk," as revenue generation, an instrument to gauge a cop's productivity, and a mean's of giving ? 's warrant's. There were other means of combating crime such as enforcing loitering and vagrancy ordinances, along with posting a mobile command post in high crime areas such as this one:
The Hasidic Jews has one of these that stay posted in front of their headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway, but six blocks away at the Albany projects, there's no police to be found. I realize that the Jews carry move power and influence that blacks and therefore, but the mobile command post permanently stationed at the corner of Eastern Parkway and Kingston Aves, but where would the mobile command center serve a greater good? I would think by the Albany houses. Like i said earlier, ultimately this one us, either we start to proactively work with the police to make our neighborhoods safer, or these white folks are dictate to us what they're going to do and patrol our neighborhoods and implement the policies they see fit.
-
Excellent! I found some note on the subject and I'm fairly correct from memory but for more clarification:
Terry stops have 3 steps:
#1: informational encounters
This isn't covered by te 4th amendment, it's not a seizure or a search and a reasonable person would believe they are free to end the encounter.
#2: investigative detentions
These are covered by the 4th amendment. Police can stop someone if they feel a crime HAS occurred or WILL occur, they can frisk (outer garments) only for weapons (I'm not sure if drugs have been allowed in or not). Police need reasonable suspicion for each step. This means reasonable suspicion for the stop and a separate reasonable suspicion for the frisk.
#3: full arrests and full searches
Covered by the 4th amendment. It is a search or seizure. Police must have probable cause. -
i don't think the above article gets into it, but take a look at the tantrum Bloomberg throws over the concept of body-worn cameras.
and people wonder why i say that ? is not to be trusted on anything -
i don't think the above article gets into it, but take a look at the tantrum Bloomberg throws over the concept of body-worn cameras.
and people wonder why i say that ? is not to be trusted on anything
Bloomberg always pitches a ? when he doesn't get his way. -
this is true; one suspects it's got something to do with being a billionaire white dude who always gets his way. but i suppose i'd say it illustrates why he shows himself to ALWAYS be a lying ? regardless of what issue he's flipping out about and how you feel about it.Maximus Rex wrote: »Bloomberg always pitches a ? when he doesn't get his way.
-
What's really interesting is that seems to only be a NYC issue in New York State. That ain't a big problem anywhere else in the state. ? .... Cops in Buffalo don't give a ? if you walking down the street with a rocket launcher. Lol
-
All this ? from the mayor and commish about how it helps minorities. ? outta here. ? them, ? that policy, ? these mommas of murder victims they trot out there to co-sign this ? .
-
this is a mayor that literally argued the law restricting the mayor to two terms was a great law BUT it should be changed to not apply to him BUT then it could apply to anyone else. if you're enough of a ? to seriously make that argument, you're just a ? to the extent that i have to expect you to say things like, "but, but, a policy that's easily abused in ways that clearly appear racist is great for minorities!"Swiffness! wrote: »All this ? from the mayor and commish about how it helps minorities. ? outta here. ? them, ? that policy, ? these mommas of murder victims they trot out there to co-sign this ? .
-
My personal view of Stop And Frisk being judged this way is beautiful to me cause this will stop a lot of police officers from committing robberies on those whom they feel that "fit the description" and body cams yep cause this will stop cops from doing something wrong along with those whom would say that the officer did something wrong.
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
