In a long-anticipated and awaited ruling, a federal judge – Shira Scheindlin – ruled that the New York Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” policies violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city.
Judge Scheindlin ruled that the city had “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling by targeting racially defined groups for stops based on local crime suspect data. This has resulted in the disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”
“Both statistical and anecdotal evidence showed that minorities are indeed treated differently than whites,” she wrote. In contrast to prevailing viewpoints, she found “[o]nce a stop is made, blacks and Hispanics are 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” (emphasis added).
This differential in treatment, the judge ruled, has led to officers routinely stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”
Judge Scheindlin, however, stopped short of “ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk.” Instead, she argued, “The purpose of the remedies addressed in this Opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.”
Thus, she called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms. Included in these are the use of body-worn cameras for some patrol officers. She wrote, “The use of body-worn cameras by NYPD officers would address a number of the issues raised in the Liability Opinion.”
In so doing, she noted that “the difficulty of judging in hindsight what happened during an encounter between a civilian and the police” where “the only contemporaneous records of the stops in this case were UF-250s and short memo book entries – which were sometimes not prepared directly after a stop, and which are inherently one-sided. Thus, I was forced to analyze the constitutionality of the stops based on testimony given years after the encounter, at a time when the participants’ memories were likely colored by their interest in the outcome of the case and the passage of time.”
The judge noted that the city is liable for violating the Fourth and Fourteen Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in this case.
She wrote, “The City acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD’s practice of making unconstitutional stops and conducting unconstitutional frisks. Even if the City had not been deliberately indifferent, the NYPD’s unconstitutional practices were sufficiently widespread as to have the force of law.”
The judge noted that “the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop.” She continued, “Race alone is not an objective basis for suspicion by the police.”
She wrote, “I reject the testimony of the City’s experts that the race of crime suspects is the appropriate benchmark for measuring racial bias in stops. The 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.”
Judge Scheindlin argued this reasoning is flawed “because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent – not criminal.” She continued, “There is no basis for assuming that an innocent population shares the same characteristics as the criminal suspect population in the same area.”
The stops were not the only problem. Even after stopping residents, officers would conduct frisks for weapons or other contraband without any legal grounds to do so. As noted above, she found that during police stops, 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.”
Patrol officers, she ruled, stopped innocent people without any objective basis for suspicion of wrongdoing. But she also went further, pointing her finger at public officials like the mayor and the police commission. She wrote, “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.”
“Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites,” she wrote, noting that the police were too quick to find suspicion in behavior that was perfectly innocent, which watered down the legal standard established in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio Supreme Court ruling on a stop.
She noted, ” ‘Furtive Movements,’ ‘High Crime Area,’ and ‘Suspicious Bulge’ are vague and subjective terms. Without an accompanying narrative explanation for the stop, these checkmarks cannot reliably demonstrate individualized reasonable suspicion.”
The judge wrote, “Because there is no evidence that law-abiding blacks or Hispanics are more likely to behave objectively more suspiciously than law-abiding whites, Dr. Smith’s – and the City’s – refuge in this unsupported notion is no refuge at all.”
Civil Rights groups like the ACLU had been part of the coalition fighting the stop and frisk policies in the court.
Ezekiel Edwards, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Criminal Law Reform Project, said, “The ACLU celebrates today’s decision by Federal Justice Shira Scheindlin declaring the NYPD’s longstanding and widespread stop and frisk practices unconstitutional.”
He continued, “As the decision exhaustively documents, the NYPD’s stop and frisk policy clearly violated the 4th and 14th Amendments, subjecting millions of innocent New Yorkers – overwhelmingly Black and Latino – to unlawful searches through systemic racial profiling. We hope that today’s decision, and the robust remedies the court has put in place, will mark the end to this dark chapter in the NYPD’s history.”
Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP added, “This is a groundbreaking victory….We hope that Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly will heed this decision and end their crude and abusive policy. We will continue to stand up with the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who marched with us last June and fight for the protections of the Community Safety Act.”
Congressman Jose Serrano, who represents the Bronx, said, “I believe that with the federal monitor in place, the NYPD can continue to carry out its effective crime fighting – which must be praised for its success in recent years – but without using this tactic. In fact, they may experience improved community relations because they are alienating fewer people, which leads to better crime fighting through tips and cooperation .. . this is a big step forward for our city.”
Congressman Jerrold Nadler added, “It’s unfortunate that it took a lawsuit and a federal court order to safeguard the fundamental, and constitutionally protected, right to be free from unwarranted police harassment. Racial profiling and other discriminatory policies have no place in our great city or our great country.”
Attorney General Eric Holder with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez filed a last-minute brief which suggested a federal monitor of the NYPD if the stop-and-frisk program were found unconstitutional.
Ultimately, Judge Scheindlin decided to accept the DOJ’s offer, which apparently has some teeth to it.
While the brief did not go over well with Mayor Blomberg, civil rights advocates note that the Justice Department under Eric Holder and his Rights Division, led by Thomas Perez, has not hesitated to investigate police departments for misconduct, and it has forced reforms in cities like in New Orleans.
Mr. Perez back in March launched an investigation of Cleveland police, focusing on excessive force.
For his part, Mayor Bloomberg on Monday pledged to appeal the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and would argue that the judge was biased against the police.
According to the NY Times, “He cited the fact that the judge, who has overseen numerous stop-and-frisk cases over the last decade, had encouraged the plaintiffs to steer the Floyd case into her courtroom by marking it as related to an earlier case she had overseen.
The mayor, according to the Times, said the judge did “not understand how policing works” and “had misinterpreted what the Constitution allowed.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Disgusting.
Take a white judge living in the privilege of a gated community and/or secure condo building, surrounded by armed guards, and she delivers an opinion that effectively means more poor law-abiding minorities will die from gun violence, and what we have is epitome of classism and racism on display. Because the impulse to do away with stop-and-frisk is only to eliminate the impact to the sense of fairness, we are basically saying that it is more important that elites feel better about their sense of fairness even while it means more poor minorities will die.
This fight is not over yet. But while we are working to repeal the misguided decision of this elite, wealthy, white, liberal, activist judge, those that pushed and supported banning the practice will be responsible for every additional gun death that occurs as a result.
The other disgusting consideration here are those that are so obsessed with banning guns that they support this ruling because it will add to the carnage that they then can use in their anti-gun political propaganda campaigns. For these people, the end is justified by the means of a few more dead minorities.
Again, disgusting.
The judge didn’t say ‘do away with stop-and-frisk’.
[quote]Judge Scheindlin, however, stopped short of “ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk.” Instead, she argued, “The purpose of the remedies addressed in this Opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.”[/quote]
She said, do it in a way that doesn’t discriminate. Cameras on officers are a great idea. That would help protect the police from lawsuits. It seems this would be a pretty easy ruling to comply with and resume the practice.
frankly,
i find your comment to be deeply disturbing. now you complain that everyone else turns everything into race and what you do?
“Take a white judge living in the privilege of a gated community and/or secure condo building, surrounded by armed guards, and she delivers an opinion that effectively means more poor law-abiding minorities will die from gun violence, and what we have is epitome of classism and racism on display. “
you offer no counters to her arguments, only an emotionally based tirade that as don shor demonstrates actually ignores what her actual decision entails.
there are two core rulings here.
first, that blacks and Hispanics are stopped disproportionately “despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband” which completely undermines the arguments that conservatives always make in favor of racial profiling.
second, she argues that searches occur that are in violation of terry.
what does that mean? it means that they can continue stop and frisk, but the policy doesn’t give them the right to avoid terry. well gee, how do you do stop and frisk while following terry? you don’t. so she in fact, de facto banned the practice.
[i]how do you do stop and frisk while following terry? you don’t. so she in fact, de facto banned the practice. [/i]
Correct.
[i]”despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband”[/I]
Not correct. “more likely” is based on a percentage of population in these neighborhoods with high gun crime. Certainly if there are whites living in these primarily minority neighborhoods, there is a great likelihood that they are living below an economic and moral line (are in fact, more desperate). But there are far fewer of them. Hence the cops encounter them at a much lower rate.
So, this “fact” is completely disingenuous.
If you take the entire population of New York City, and compare the percentage of whites and blacks carrying guns as percentage of their representative populations, blacks are FAR more likely to be carrying a gun. That fact is not in dispute. And when you take it to these neighborhoods where there is a lot of gun violence, there are a lot more blacks involved in this gun violence. In these neighborhoods there are generally a much lower percentage of whites. Making a case that the practice is unfair because blacks that are stopped-and-frisked have a slightly lower occurrence of being caught carrying a gun (and you do NOT get to use drug possession in this argument, because that is not the issue and it is not the justification for supporting stop-and-frisk), gets back to my assertion that it is a form of classism and racism… because more blacks will die of gun violence as a result of the practical elimination of the practice of stop-and-frisk.
No, just stop and frisk more whites. Simple. And wear a camera.
There’s a lot of talk about folks carrying guns in New York. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe it – it’s illegal to possess a gun in New York City, so that’s simply not possible. Everyone follows the law, don’t they?
Great – how will they find these whites? How fair and how practical would that be to have the cops go to extra lengths to locate enough whites so that “the statistics” “prove” there is no racial bias?
I understand that the NYPD will have to stop the practice because it is in violation of Terry. The ruling was that it was unconstitutional because of the lack of reasonableness in suspicion and probable cause.
After writing the above, I’ve had an epiphany.
ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOLLOW THE LAW! That means, if you ban the possession of guns, only criminals have guns!
The above epiphany might explain New York City’s gun homicide rate, despite guns being illegal.
[quote]Great – how will they find these whites?[/quote]
I don’t know. How do they find the blacks and Hispanics to stop and frisk?
[quote]How fair and how practical would that be to have the cops go to extra lengths to locate enough whites so that “the statistics” “prove” there is no racial bias? [/quote]
Change their profiling tactics. I’m guessing this can be done, if they want to do it. The DOJ can probably give some guidance.
“
I understand that the NYPD will have to stop the practice because it is in violation of Terry. The ruling was that it was unconstitutional because of the lack of reasonableness in suspicion and probable cause.”
so if you understand that, what is your complaint about the judge’s ruling?
I’ve just spoken with a senior NYPD officer, who says that his orders are to continue the current practice until the appeals court says Bloomberg is saying, “You’re not going to see any change in tactics overnight. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for a lot of people dying.”
Judge Scheindlin ordered a number of remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in at least five precincts across the city will wear cameras on their bodies to record street encounters. She also ordered a series of community meetings — to solicit public comments on how to reform the department’s tactics and named Peter L. Zimroth, a former corporation counsel and prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance .
Biddlin ;>)/
should read: until the appeals court says otherwise.
Put in an edit button, already.
[i]so if you understand that, what is your complaint about the judge’s ruling?[/i]
I understand what the judge ruled on, I just don’t agree that there is a lack of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. That is a subjective measure that requires context. The context is a high level of gun crime and a high percentage of young males wearing baggy clothing committing these gun crimes. So it is reasonable to stop and frisk young males wearing baggy clothing.
[quote]In the 11 years before Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office, there were 13,212 murders in New York City. During the 11 years of his administration, there have been 5,849. That’s 7,383 lives saved — and if history is a guide, they are largely the lives of young men of color.”[/quote]
it remains to be seen if the NYPD will continue with stop-and-frisk. The court-appointed independent monitor who will oversee the city’s compliance with constitutional guidelines will have authority to change the policy in ways that will render it a less useful tactic of law enforcement. Also, officers now will be concerned about their own liability after this ruling, and will likely ignore many stops that they would otherwise act on.
” The context is a high level of gun crime and a high percentage of young males wearing baggy clothing committing these gun crimes. So it is reasonable to stop and frisk young males wearing baggy clothing. “
the judge disagreed and argued that since most people wearing those clothes are not criminals, the search is not reasonable. i agree.
[i]the judge disagreed and argued that since most people wearing those clothes are not criminals, the search is not reasonable. i agree.[/i]
There you go. And with your disagreement and the judge’s ruling, more people wearing baggy clothes will die of gun violence. But, I guess a few hundred or thousand more dead baggy-clothes-wearing people is worth it to prevent the impact to your and the judge’s sensibilities of fairness.
you really don’t believe in the constitution, that pesky fourth amendment, that says that the government actually has to have a reason to get into people’s stuff, it can’t just be because YOU think that someone fitting that profile might be a criminal, when 99% of then probably aren’t.
in fact, i question whether the program was effective, afterall, if you pull over the wrong person, that means the actual criminal has gotten away.
criminals aren’t as dumb as you think. when police started targeting gang members, they quickly learned not to wear their colors, not to put on tattoos, and not to post their pictures on myspace. so if police pull over people with baggy clothes, the actual criminals won’t be the ones wearing in the baggy clothes.
Since when did ‘Results’ become the litmus test for constitutionality?
Crime, geographics, & demographics…
[i]YOU think that someone fitting that profile might be a criminal, when 99% of then probably aren’t.[/i]
6% are arrested, and another 6% are given summons.
In 2011 there were a total of 685,724 stopped and 381,704 of them were frisked. Out of these stopped, 51% were black and 33% were Latino. 9% were white.
Now here is what is lacking in the “statistics”. What is the population mix in the neighborhoods where these stop-and-frisk transactions took place? The answer is that they largely took place in neighborhoods with a low percentage of whites, and a high percentage of blacks and Latinos. And, the blacks and Latinos were much more often wearing the type of baggy clothing that could easily conceal a gun or contraband.
Blacks and Latinos make up 52% of the total New York population. That’s right folks, combined these two demographics exceed all others. 35% are non-Hispanic whites.
Considering this, and considering the demographic differences in the neighborhoods where most of the stop-and-frisk transactions took place, the “racial profiling” argument is much, much weaker than the race-baiting media and politicos would have us believe. In fact, it might very well be statistically insignificant controlling for these factual criteria.
I guess what we need is for the NYPD to hang in the Wall Street area and stop and frisk more people wearing suits. Then everything will be fair.
“Since when did ‘Results’ become the litmus test for constitutionality?”
they didn’t. the results were used to show that the process was random and not based on the articulable suspicion test on terry.
“I guess what we need is for the NYPD to hang in the Wall Street area and stop and frisk more people wearing suits. Then everything will be fair. “
Weapon,Cocaine and prescription sedative arrests would spike briefly, and criminal defense attorneys would have a mini-boom . Bankers and traders don’t leave their townhouses unstrapped these days. There are more than a few people in town who are still butthurt from the crash and know who to blame.
biddlin – you are so funny.
Those guys in suits are certainly carrying all sorts of dangerous weapons and contraband on their way to and from their 50 hour per week jobs and three-martini lunches.
The butthurter is your government… CRA, Frannie and Freddie, the repeal of Glass Steagall and way too low fed-controlled interest rates. Guess what… things have not changed. Still doing the same. Still allowing under-prime mortgages to be securitized and then purchased by your Democrat-union over-extended pension funds so that when they crash next time there will be some new butthurt.
you worry about that stuff, but not about getting shaken down every time you leave the house.
[i]criminals aren’t as dumb as you think. [/i]
Most criminals are not dumb (because the dumb ones get caught or killed early in their career). What criminals are is lazy.
So, how does the thug gets his gun to the scene where he wants to pop-off to demonstrate his manhood? Stop-and-frisk makes it problematic. A real pain if he gets caught. Makes for a bunch more work. Interrupts his meth-habit routine. Makes him feel bad and sick. Causes a lot of hassle and extra work.
Lazy wins and he leaves his piece at home more often.
But hey, his enemies are doing the same, so its all good.
But now… since there will be much less stop-and-frisk, there is much less risk he will get caught. Better to start carrying again. After all, his enemies will more likely be carrying, and it would be a real pain to end up in a confrontation where they were packing and he was not.
“So, how does the thug gets his gun to the scene where he wants to pop-off to demonstrate his manhood? Stop-and-frisk makes it problematic.”
it doesn’t make it problematic. you just don’t wear the clothes that get you pulled over.
Re: As noted above, she found that during police stops, 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.”
Does this mean that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to put up physical resistance to stop & frisk; or that the police are using less force on an equal proportion of uncooperative whites? This needs to be sorted out before claims of unfair racist treatment by police can be substantiated.
Also, does this mean that all weapons and contraband are illegal to carry; or are some legal (e.g. a folding jack-knive like boy scouts use). If a higher proportion of whites stopped are carrying illegally; I would agree that the police should increase their scrutiny and stopping of white folk; until the % caught carrying illegally when stopped is roughly the same among the different races.
Re: “The 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.”
Judge Scheindlin argued this reasoning is flawed “because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent – not criminal.” She continued, “There is no basis for assuming that an innocent population shares the same characteristics as the criminal suspect population in the same area.”
I find the judges reasoning to be completely inane here; and agree with the city “The 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.”–sounds reasonable to me.
Hopefully the decision will be appealed to a higher court.
Personally I have some serious reservations about stop & frisk policies; but not those of the judge mentioned in the article above.
cameras!!!! excellent idea. and make it a law that all footage must be saved, and accessibly to the citizens who are subjects of the interactions with police, so that all parties’ interests are protected.