A federal court handed a big defeat to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York Police Department today, ruling that the controversial “stop and frisk” program infringed on constitutional rights. Judge Shira Scheindlin appointed a federal monitor to oversee the NYPD and “reform” the practice, although that might prove impossible:
Zitat A federal judge appointed an independent monitor Monday to oversee changes to the New York Police Department’s contentious policy known as stop, question and frisk, a significant judicial rebuke for what the mayor and police commissioner have defended as a life-saving, crime-fighting tool. …
Four men had sued saying they were unfairly targeted because of their race. There have been about 5 million stops during the past decade, mostly black and Hispanic men. Scheindlin issued her ruling after a 10-week bench trial for the class-action lawsuit that included testimony from top NYPD brass and a dozen people, 11 men and one woman, who said they were wrongly stopped because of their race.
Scheindlin’s opinion ruled that the practice violated both the Fourth and 14th Amendments. Coverage of the lawsuits have mainly focused on the 14th Amendment and the disparate attention received by minorities as a claim of racism. More than 80% of those searched have been black or Hispanic, according to NYPD’s records. However, the broader finding of a Fourth Amendment violation makes it almost impossible for New York to reconstitute “stop and frisk” in the future. The data from the police department, Scheindlin noted during the trial, shows how unreasonable the searches have been:
Zitat During the trial, Judge Scheindlin indicated her thinking when she noted that the majority of stops result in officers finding no wrong doing.
“A lot of people are being frisked or searched on suspicion of having a gun and nobody has a gun,” she said. Only 0.14 percent of stops have led to police finding guns. “So the point is suspicion turns out to be wrong in most cases.”
CBS points out that the order doesn’t end “stop and frisk,” but how likely is reform?
Zitat Instead of ordering an end to the practice, however, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin appointed an independent monitor to oversee changes to the policy.
Peter L. Zimroth, a onetime city lawyer and a former chief assistant district attorney, has been appointed as the monitor. In both roles, Zimroth worked closely with the NYPD, Scheindlin said.
The inclusion of the Fourth Amendment means that reform has to address more than the racial disparities in stops. The right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure in that part of the Bill of Rights means that police have to have either a warrant or reasonable suspicion in order to stop and search anyone — even in New York. Either police will have to drastically scale back their frisks, or the city will have to criminalize a lot more behavior for pretexts to them. With Nanny Bloomie in charge at least for the next few months, I know which way I’m betting this goes.
ZitatThe inclusion of the Fourth Amendment means that reform has to address more than the racial disparities in stops. The right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure in that part of the Bill of Rights means that police have to have either a warrant or reasonable suspicion in order to stop and search anyone — even in New York. Either police will have to drastically scale back their frisks, or the city will have to criminalize a lot more behavior for pretexts to them. With Nanny Bloomie in charge at least for the next few months, I know which way I’m betting this goes.
Thanks for the post.
Knowing Bloomie, he'll probably criminalize exhaling excess amounts of CO2 as an excuse for stop and frisk.
Quote: Just Ducky wrote in post #3Unconstitutional as it may be..it seemed to work. But I know, if I was minding my own business, I certainly wouldnt want to be subjected to it;.
This is a good example of how progressives sneakily erode your rights and freedom.
They create a problem by their interference. Then 'solve' it by assuming greater control over your life.
In the name of public safety, NYC is a large gun free zone. Additionally the courts do not enforce the law equally. The poor and disadvantaged are often treated leniently in the name of social justice.
Since people in working class and minority neighborhoods can't afford armed private security found in tonier areas, they are at higher risk to be victims of crime. 'Stop and Frisk' works because NYC has substituted it for allowing self defense as laid out in the second amendment and its justice system is enamoured by the concept of social justice.
If every citizen were allowed to exercise their second amendment rights and carry, they would be at a much lower risk of becoming a victim of crime and the need for 'Stop and Frisk' would be eliminated. It would also help if being poor or a disadvantaged minority was not accepted as an excuse for committing violent crime.
Quote: Eglman wrote in post #1A federal court handed a big defeat to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York Police Department today, ruling that the controversial “stop and frisk” program infringed on constitutional rights. Judge Shira Scheindlin appointed a federal monitor to oversee the NYPD and “reform” the practice, although that might prove impossible:
Good for them. There is no way such a broad stop and frisk can be Constitutional. Now,if a crime has just been committed and the suspect is identified as a black man wearing a green hoodie and orange sneakers just ran from a murder scene (for example) and the cops see a black man walking in a nearby area that is wearing orange sneakers and no jacket,the orange sneakers are probable cause to stop and frisk him.
Providing the cops don't stop him by slamming his face into a wall or the sidewalk,that is.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)