http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0
QuoteIn 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 tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.
In a decision issued on Monday, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Officers often frisked these people, usually young minority men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, before letting them go, according to the 195-page decision.
These stop-and-frisk episodes, 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, according to the ruling. It also found violations with the 14th Amendment.
To fix the constitutional violations, Judge Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan said she intended to designate an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department's compliance with the Constitution.
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 ruling, in Floyd v. City of New York, follows a two-month nonjury trial 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. Numerous police officers and commanders testified as well, typically defending the legality of stops and saying they were made only when officers reasonably suspected criminality was afoot.
While the Supreme Court has long recognized the right of police officers to briefly stop and investigate people who are behaving suspiciously, Judge Scheindlin found that the New York police had overstepped that authority. She found that officers were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop.
She noted that about 88 percent of the stops result in the police letting the person go without an arrest or ticket, a percentage so high, she said, that it suggests there was not a credible suspicion to suspect the person of criminality in the first place.
is it a good thing or bad thing that big, muscular men, in police uniform won't stop and frisk you anymore?
This is NYPD, not the Village People.
How utterly corrupt. A lawyer gives her lawyer buddy a job.
In a more civilized society, they'd both be hanged.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2013, 07:16:27 PM
How utterly corrupt. A lawyer gives her lawyer buddy a job.
In a more civilized society, they'd both be hanged.
Don't worry, they'll be covered by the stop-and-hang policy.
Unfortunately, while stop-and-frisk is controversial, the NYPD still had a specific orders set regarding it, and ensured that it was well-documented.
Now, the cops will simply fashion a workaround on the street, and that's not nearly going to be as transparent.
I think transparency was an issue. Get caught traveling around black, get frisked. :D
Is it a bad thing that a group which is prone to criminal acts is targetted by police? Of course not.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 10:07:52 PM
I think transparency was an issue. Get caught traveling around black, get frisked. :D
Well it's out the window now. Be careful up there, g. Don't look all suspicious and whatnot. :console:
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2013, 10:10:00 PM
Is it a bad thing that a group which is prone to criminal acts is targetted by police? Of course not.
I'm not prone to criminal acts. Well not the kind that frisking me will prevent.
Quote from: garbon on August 12, 2013, 10:16:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2013, 10:10:00 PM
Is it a bad thing that a group which is prone to criminal acts is targetted by police? Of course not.
I'm not prone to criminal acts. Well not the kind that frisking me will prevent.
Because they foolishly decriminalized gayness, and now make bad sitcoms about it.
Still, it's a sacrifice you'll have to bear because of the behavior of your fellows.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2013, 10:53:35 PM
Still, it's a sacrifice you'll have to bear because of the behavior of your fellows.
Gays?