Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Stop-and-Frisk is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

  1. #1
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,424

    Default Stop-and-Frisk is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

    Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

    In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy, a federal judge has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in New York, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.


    In a blistering decision issued on Monday, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department had “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling” that targeted young minority men for stops. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said the city would appeal the ruling, angrily accusing the judge of deliberately not giving the city “a fair trial.”


    The mayor cited the benefits of stop-and-frisk, crediting the tactic for making the city safer and for ridding the streets of thousands of illegal guns.


    But in her ruling, Judge Scheindlin found that in doing so, the police systematically stopped innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.


    The stops, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, according to the 195-page decision.


    Judge Scheindlin’s criticism extended beyond the conduct of police officers; in holding the city liable for a battery of constitutional violations, the judge found that top police officials acted with deliberate indifference. She said that police commanders were content to dismiss allegations of racial profiling as “a myth created by the media.”


    Citing statements by the mayor and Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, Judge Scheindlin accused the city of using stop-and-frisk as a checkpoint-style policing tactic, with the intent of deterring minorities from carrying guns on the street.


    “I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” she wrote.


    The judge designated an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution.


    Judge Scheindlin also ordered a number of other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear body-worn cameras in an effort to record street encounters. She also ordered a “joint remedial process” — in essence, a series of community meetings — to solicit public input on how to reform stop-and-frisk.


    The decision to install Mr. Zimroth, 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, will leave the department under a degree of judicial control that is certain to shape the policing strategies under the next mayor.


    The Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, and Judge Scheindlin stressed that she was “not ordering an end to the practice.” But she said that changes were needed to ensure that the street stops were carried out in a manner that “protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.”


    The judge found that the New York police were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop.


    “Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites,” she wrote.


    She found that in their zeal to identify concealed weapons, officers sometimes stopped people on the grounds that the officer observed a bulge in the person’s pocket; often it turned out that the bulge was caused not by a gun but by a wallet.


    “The outline of a commonly carried object such as a wallet or cellphone does not justify a stop or frisk, nor does feeling such an object during a frisk justify a search,” she ruled.


    She emphasized what she called the “human toll of unconstitutional stops,” noting that some of the plaintiffs testified that their encounters with the police left them feeling that they did not belong in certain areas of the cities. She characterized each stop as “a demeaning and humiliating experience.”


    “No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” the judge wrote. During police stops, she found, blacks and Hispanics “were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.”


    The ruling, in Floyd v. City of New York, follows a two-month nonjury trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan earlier this year over the department’s stop-and-frisk practices.


    Judge Scheindlin heard testimony from about a dozen black or biracial men and a woman who described being stopped, and she heard from statistical experts who offered their conclusions based on police paperwork describing some 4.43 million stops between 2004 and mid-2012.


    But the stops were not the end of the problem, Judge Scheindlin found. Officers often frisked these people, overwhelmingly young black and Hispanic men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, according to the decision. Those encounters typically ended with the police letting the person go for lack of evidence of criminality.


    Blacks and Hispanics were stopped about 88 percent of the time, a disparity that the Police Department has sought to explain by saying that it mirrored the disproportionate percentage of crimes committed by young minority men. In severe language, Judge Scheindlin dismissed the Police Department’s rationale.


    “This might be a valid comparison if the people stopped were criminals,” Judge Scheindlin wrote, explaining that there was significant evidence that the people being stopped were not criminals. “To the contrary, nearly 90 percent of the people stopped are released without the officer finding any basis for a summons or arrest.”


    Rather, Judge Scheindlin found, the city had a “policy of targeting expressly identified racial groups for stops in general.”


    “Targeting young black and Hispanic men for stops based on the alleged criminal conduct of other young black or Hispanic men violates bedrock principles of equality,” Judge Scheindlin ruled, finding that the Police Department’s practices violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/ny...anted=all&_r=0
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  2. #2
    Elite Member greysfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Burning Down Your Windmill
    Posts
    48,616

    Default

    Finally some damn sense.
    FUCK YOU AND GIVE ME MY GODDAMN VENTI TWO PUMP LIGHT WHIP MOCHA YOU COCKSUCKING WHORE BEFORE I PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH. I just get unpleasant in my car. - Deej

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic4098_9.gif Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

  3. #3
    Elite Member CornFlakegrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hanging with the raisin girls
    Posts
    11,966

    Default

    I like how completely and firmly Judge Scheindlin just gave a smack down.

  4. #4
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    "
    Blacks and Hispanics were stopped about 88 percent of the time, a disparity that the Police Department has sought to explain by saying that it mirrored the disproportionate percentage of crimes committed by young minority men. In severe language, Judge Scheindlin dismissed the Police Department’s rationale.


    “This might be a valid comparison if the people stopped were criminals,” Judge Scheindlin wrote, explaining that there was significant evidence that the people being stopped were not criminals. “To the contrary, nearly 90 percent of the people stopped are released without the officer finding any basis for a summons or arrest.”


    Rather, Judge Scheindlin found, the city had a “policy of targeting expressly identified racial groups for stops in general.”


    “Targeting young black and Hispanic men for stops based on the alleged criminal conduct of other young black or Hispanic men violates bedrock principles of equality,” Judge Scheindlin ruled, finding that the Police Department’s practices violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause."


    Quoting this for the beauty of it. It's really not that complicated. You can't hold innocent people responsible for the criminal behavior of others. That this policy was instituted at all, given what our country (supposedly) stands for, is very scary.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  5. #5
    Elite Member Quazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,107

    Default

    It's a nice surprise when someone in power actually does the right thing.
    The more people I encounter, the more I like my animals.

  6. #6
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    915

    Default

    Wow, what a judicial smackdown Bloomberg and the NYC police got.

  7. #7
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,424

    Default

    Court Blocks Stop-and-Frisk Changes

    1

    New York City's stop-and-frisk case hit another snag today when a federal appeals court blocked a previous ruling that the policy be changed. The previous judge was also taken from the case.


    Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled back in August that the city's current stop-and-frisk policy, which is widely criticized for encouraging racial profiling, was in violation of the Constitution. Although she didn't halt stop-and-frisk altogether, she did issue changes to the policy, including the appointment of an unaffiliated monitor to oversee training and policy reform. The city appealed both the ruling and the changes, bringing the case to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.


    It was there that Scheindlin was removed from the case on charges that she compromised the appearance of impartiality by commenting publicly on criticism she received after the initial ruling. She is also accused of bias for ruling on most of the stop-and-frisk cases that have appeared before the court. Although her changes have been blocked for now, nothing more will be determined until a decision has been reached on the city's appeal.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  8. #8
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    50,856

    Default

    for fuck's sake. i'm hoping if it doesn't get resolved in the courts, de blasio will have the good sense to put a stop to this bullshit policy. and i hope that asshole lhota loses by as wide a margin as is being predicted.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Federal Judge Rules Morning-After Pill Must Be Available OTC, For All Ages
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 7th, 2013, 06:14 AM
  2. A Judge Finally Rules Against New York's ‘Stop and Frisk’
    By witchcurlgirl in forum Crime and Punishment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 9th, 2013, 01:08 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 11th, 2010, 06:15 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 28th, 2007, 08:24 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 17th, 2006, 02:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •