Federal Appeals Court Tosses Stop-and-Frisk Ruling, Removes Judge From Case

View Comments (
)
|
Email
|
Print

    NEWSLETTERS

    A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's order requiring changes to the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program and removed the judge from the case, saying she had violated the code of conduct for judges. Brynn Gingras reports. (Published Friday, Nov 1, 2013)

    A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's order requiring changes to the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program and removed the judge from the case, saying she had violated the code of conduct for judges.

    The city applauded the appeals court's decision. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who was shouted down over the tactic by students during a speech at Brown University this week, said he was pleased by it.

    Judge Rules NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Violates Rights, Appoints Monitor

    [NY] Judge Rules NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Violates Rights, Appoints Monitor
    A federal judge ruled that the contentious NYPD tactic known as stop-and-frisk violates constitutional rights, appointing a monitor to oversee reforms and ordering the department to test body cameras for officers. Ida Siegal reports. (Published Monday, Aug 12, 2013)

    "This is indeed an important decision for all New Yorkers and for the men and women of the New York City police department who work very hard day in and day out to keep this city safe," he said.

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ruling by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin will be on hold pending the outcome of an appeal by the city. But it may be a nonissue after next week's mayoral election: Democrat Bill de Blasio, who's leading in polls, has said he would drop objections to the ruling, which calls for major changes to the police tactic.

    The judge decided in August the city violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics by disproportionately stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking them. She assigned a monitor to help the police department change its policy and training programs on the tactic.

    The three-judge panel heard arguments Tuesday on whether to put the ruling on temporary hold while the city appeals the judge's decision. It did not change the deadline for the appeal and said it expected arguments in March, well after the new mayor takes office.

    The panel said Scheindlin needed to be removed because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges by misapplying a ruling that allowed her to take the case and by giving media interviews during the trial.

    Scheindlin said in a statement later Thursday she consented to the interviews under the condition she wouldn't comment on the ongoing case.

    "And I did not," she said.

    She said some reporters used quotes from written opinions that gave the appearance she had commented on the case but "a careful reading of each interview will reveal that no such comments were made."

    She defended her decision to direct the plaintiffs to bring the case to her, saying she took the most recent case because it was related to a previous case she heard.

    The 2nd Circuit said a new judge would be assigned randomly and will deal with any further rulings. It's possible the new judge could order a fresh set of reforms or review the trial testimony and decide the city didn't violate people's civil rights, but it would be highly unusual.

    Stop-and-frisk has been around for decades, but recorded stops increased dramatically under Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration to an all-time high in 2011 of 684,330, mostly of black and Hispanic men. A lawsuit was filed in 2004 by four minority men, who said they were targeted because of their races, and it became a class action case.

    To make a stop, police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur or has occurred, a standard lower than the probable cause needed to justify an arrest. Only about 10 percent of the stops result in arrests or summonses, and weapons are found about 2 percent of the time.

    Scheindlin heard a bench trial that ended in the spring and coincided with a groundswell of backlash against the stop-and-frisk tactic, which became a mayoral race flashpoint. She noted in her ruling this summer that she wasn't putting an end to the practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its stops.

    The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the four men who sued, said it was dismayed that the appeals court delayed "the long-overdue process to remedy" the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practices and was shocked that it "cast aspersions" on the judge's professional conduct and reassigned the case.

    De Blasio, the city's public advocate, said he was "extremely disappointed" with Thursday's decision.

    "We have to end the overuse of stop and frisk — and any delay only means a continued and unnecessary rift between our police and the people they protect," he said in a statement.

    His Republican challenger, Joe Lhota, a deputy under former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, praised it.

    "The next mayor absolutely must continue this appeal," he said.

    Get the latest from NBC 4 New York anywhere, anytimeiPhone/iPad App | Twitter | Facebook | Email Newsletters Send Us News Tips | Google+ | Instagram | RSS