At least it violates rights according to Judge Shira A. Scheindlinof the
Federal District Court in Manhattan. Joseph
Goldstein wrote it up in the New York
Times. Judge Scheindlin found that stop-and-frisky tactics of the NYPD has
violated the constitutional rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and she
has called for a federal monitor to oversee reforms. Briefly, stop-and-frisk is
a policy where the NYPD stop and search people without suspicion of wrongdoing.
It is largely based on racial profiling, which of course proponents deny.
These stop-and-frisks demonstrate a complete disregard for the Fourth
Amendment, which protects from unreasonable search and seizures by the
government. Additionally, according to the ruling they violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Judge Scheindlin said to fix the constitutional violations she planned to
designate an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the NYPD’s compliance
with the Constitution. This decision will shape policing policies under the
next mayor. Zimroth is a partner in the New York office of Arnold & Porter,
LLP, and a former corporation counsel and prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s
office.
The ruling, in Floyd v. City of New York, followed a two-month nonjury trial over stop-and-frisk. Judge Scheindlin heard testimony from a dozen black or biracial men and a woman who all described being stopped and frisked, then she heard from statistical experts who shared their findings that police paperwork describes some 4.43 million stops between 2004 and mid-2012. Then police officers and commanders testified in defense of the stops claiming the stops were made when there was reasonable suspicion.
Judge Scheindlin found the NYPD has overstepped their authority when
using stop-and-frisk. She claims the officers are too quick to stop people, and
they have watered down what is required for a legal stop. That’s pretty serious
in addition to the straight up racism of stop-and-frisk. Judge Scheindlin noted
that 88% of those stopped are let go without an arrest or ticket, which implies
it wasn’t credible suspicion in the first place.
Goldstein’s article fell a little short for me. It didn’t call out
stop-and-frisk as racial profiling, which it is. Bloomberg addressed the ruling
on Monday, but I only read El Bloombito on Twitter so I don’t actually know what was said.
I’m sure it was some asinine defense of racism with some paternalism thrown in. While I don't vote in NYC, I think those who do might want to think long and hard about which candidate they are going to support. It would suck to be rid of Bloomberg only to elect someone who shares his polices. Also, bye-bye Ray Kelly.
