鈥楽top and frisk鈥�: why a judge ruled the New York tactic unconstitutional
The judge in the stop-and-frisk decision also appointed an independent monitor to ensure that the New York Police Department鈥檚 practices would be in line with constitutional standards in the future.
The judge in the stop-and-frisk decision also appointed an independent monitor to ensure that the New York Police Department鈥檚 practices would be in line with constitutional standards in the future.
In a blow to the administration of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a federal judge declared on Monday that the city鈥檚 long-contentious police tactic known as 鈥渟top and frisk鈥� violated the constitutional rights of perhaps millions of citizens.
The judge, Shira Scheindlin of the US District Court in Manhattan, also appointed an independent monitor to ensure that the practices of the聽New York Police Department聽(NYPD)聽would be in line with constitutional standards in the future 鈥� the remedy preferred by the Obama administration.
The decision represents two major setbacks to Mayor Bloomberg and police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the most vigorous defenders of the practice, in which officers flood high-crime neighborhoods and then stop and sometimes frisk anyone they believe may be involved in criminal activity. The mayor and Mr. Kelly had not only insisted the tactic passed constitutional muster, but they also bitterly opposed any kind of outside oversight of the city鈥檚 police.
Judge Scheindlin, appointed by President Clinton in 1994, found the city鈥檚 practices did not meet the 鈥渞easonable suspicion鈥� standard set by the US Supreme Court, which allows police to stop people if they believe criminal activity 鈥渕ay be afoot.鈥� This is a lower standard than 鈥減robable cause,鈥� the most well-known standard in the Fourth Amendment鈥檚 protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
"They have received both actual and constructive notice since at least 1999 of widespread Fourth Amendment violations occurring as a result of the NYPD's stop and frisk practices,鈥� the judge wrote in her 195-page ruling. 鈥淒espite this notice, they deliberately maintained and even escalated policies and practices that predictably resulted in even more widespread Fourth Amendment violations."
The judge also found that the city was profiling racial minorities, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment鈥檚 "equal protection" clause.
鈥淭he City and its highest officials believe that blacks and Hispanics should be stopped at the same rate as their proportion of the local criminal suspect population,鈥� the judge wrote. 鈥淏ut this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent 鈥� not criminal.鈥�
About 85 percent of those stopped and frisked are black or Latino. Among all people stopped, only 1 out of 10 stops results in an arrest or summons.
Bloomberg, who will leave office at the end of this year, has been outspoken defending the controversial police tactic, often doing so with an unusual amount of passion and scorn for its critics.
鈥淸Even] with that incredible record in reducing crime, saving lives, and making neighborhoods far safer 鈥� while at the same time reducing incarceration and reducing police shootings 鈥� it鈥檚 hard to believe, but the NYPD is under attack, probably because this is an election year,鈥� the mayor said in a speech at the end of April 鈥� the same day NYPD officers were testifying before Scheindlin.
鈥淭he attacks most often come from those who play no constructive role in keeping our city safe, but rather view their jobs as pointing fingers from the steps of City Hall,鈥� Bloomberg continued. 鈥淪ome of them scream that they know better than you how to run the department.鈥�
Scheindlin said she will appoint Peter L. Zimroth, a partner in the New York office of Arnold & Porter, to monitor the NYPD鈥檚 practices 鈥� leaving the tensions of judicial oversight over the nation鈥檚 largest police force to the newly elected mayor.