US Appeals Court Blocks Stop-And-Frisk Ruling

[Payday]

A federal appeals court on Thursday halted a sweeping set of changes to the New York Police Department’s policy of stopping and frisking people on the street, and, in strikingly personal terms, criticized the trial judge’s conduct in the litigation and removed her from the case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed in early 2008.

The use of police stops has been widely cited by the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as a crucial tool in helping drive the number of murders and major crimes in the city to historic lows. The police say the practice has saved the lives of thousands of young black and Hispanic men by removing thousands of guns from the streets.

The issue has been front and center of the current NYC Mayoral race between de Blasio (D) and Lhota (R).

The panel set a schedule for the appeals process that extends into 2014, after Mr. Bloomberg leaves office. Bill de Blasio, the Democratic nominee for mayor who is leading his Republican opponent, Joseph J. Lhota, by 40 points in recent polls, said he was “extremely disappointed” by the decision.

“We shouldn’t have to wait for reforms that both keep our communities safe and obey the Constitution,” Mr. de Blasio said in a statement. “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.”

Mr. Lhota applauded the ruling. “As I have said all along, Judge Scheindlin’s biased conduct corrupted the case and her decision was not based on the facts,” he said in a statement, adding that the next mayor “absolutely must continue this appeal."

Brief back story on Judge Scheindlin's ruling in August:

Judge Scheindlin’s decision, issued in August, found that the stop-and-frisk tactics violated the rights of minorities in the city. With that decision, which came at the conclusion of a lengthy trial that began in the spring, she repudiated a major element of the crime-fighting legacy of Mr. Bloomberg and his police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly.

She had installed an outside lawyer as a monitor to ensure that the Police Department was in compliance with the Constitution. She had also ordered that the department put into effect a pilot program in which officers would wear cameras on their bodies to record their interactions with the public. She also ordered a “joint remedial process” — in essence, a series of community meetings — to solicit public comments on how to reform the department’s tactics.

Those changes, and others, were put off as a result of the appeals court’s decision.

NYTimes | Reuters | FOX

[Spectral]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Many judges have given up any pretense of even trying to have coherent rulings and settled on doing whatever they personally believe would be best.

[artemishunter1]

I can't understand why people from other areas are even trying to repeal stop and frisk. It has been an effective tool. Not wasteful and bloated like say the air port security. Crime has been low level that has been seen since Juliani. So, why the hell anyone sane to want to repeal it?

[prwraith]

I, actually have no problem with this. If it quantifiably lowers crime by acting on reliable profiles then I'm all for it.

[Daerio]

I can't understand why people from other areas are even trying to repeal stop and frisk. It has been an effective tool. Not wasteful and bloated like say the air port security. Crime has been low level that has been seen since Juliani. So, why the hell anyone sane to want to repeal it?

Because it's completely contrary to our basic rights, provided by the Constitution?

I think the reason you support it is because they aren't targeting you - yet. I think you'd feel a little differently if they were. I certainly don't want the cops to legally be able to search me for walking down the street, even if I'm not the "profile" they're looking for right now.

If you're one of those people that's all "gung-ho" about catching criminals, keep in mind that what the cops are doing is in fact against the law. Maybe we should start there.

[Mukki]

I, actually have no problem with this. If it quantifiably lowers crime by acting on reliable profiles then I'm all for it.

Wait until it happens to you.

Some people seem to have no problem with peoples' rights being violated until it happens to them. That comes across as very seflish.

[GreatOak]

Wait until it happens to you.

Some people seem to have no problem with peoples' rights being violated until it happens to them. That comes across as very seflish.

I concur with this. Stop and Frisk is blatantly unconstitutional in my mind.

[JosieBisset]

The problem for me with this law is it shows the mentality of the Government. Treat the citizenry as criminals while focusing on making money short term and don't try to improve society with honest governance for the long term.

[Rukentuts]

Is today opposite day? Seriously. Between this and the Texas thread I'm confused.

[Spectral]

I concur with this. Stop and Frisk is blatantly unconstitutional in my mind.

My problem with it isn't really the racial profiling aspect, it's the idea that police should be able to search anyone they feel like on nothing more than a gut feeling. No matter what sort of mental gymnastics judges are able to run through to make that legal, it's pretty obvious that it's not actually constitutionally acceptable.

[GreatOak]

My problem with it isn't really the racial profiling aspect, it's the idea that police should be able to search anyone they feel like on nothing more than a gut feeling. No matter what sort of mental gymnastics judges are able to run through to make that legal, it's pretty obvious that it's not actually constitutionally acceptable.

Exactly. Everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise so police don't need any real reason to stop you

[Masark]

I can't understand why people from other areas are even trying to repeal stop and frisk. It has been an effective tool. Not wasteful and bloated like say the air port security. Crime has been low level that has been seen since Juliani. So, why the hell anyone sane to want to repeal it?

Available statistics suggest that the crime rate reductions have basically nothing to do with the drop in crime rates. You don't even have correlation, much less causation.

[prwraith]

Exactly. Everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise so police don't need any real reason to stop you

Yea I have no problem with profiling. Shit works a lot. We subconsciously profile people all the time and actively avoid the ones with giant red flags associated.

Not allowing cops to do that is silly if you're already doing it one way or the other.

But I'll agree some evidence should be required before searching their person. Or at least prior convictions of misdemeanors / felonies.

I'd be completely ok with prior convicts having reduced rights for a length of time until they become a functioning member of society again.

[Payday]

Yea I have no problem with profiling. Shit works a lot. We subconsciously profile people all the time and actively avoid the ones with giant red flags associated.

Not allowing cops to do that is silly if you're already doing it one way or the other.

But I'll agree some evidence should be required before searching their person. Or at least prior convictions of misdemeanors / felonies.

I'd be completely ok with prior convicts having reduced rights for a length of time until they become a functioning member of society again.

While I consider myself impartial to this because crime in NYC is absurdly down lately so whatever maybe it is helping, the 'misconviction' rates were like 90% IIRC.. could use a little work on that. And I think the lapel cameras would have done a lot more to protect the department than hurt it.

[lockedout]

I concur with this. Stop and Frisk is blatantly unconstitutional in my mind.

Anyone who thinks this isn't unconstitutional I would love an explanation as to how it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

And I think the lapel cameras would have done a lot more to protect the department than hurt it.

I think the cameras are a great idea, but then cops would actually have to obey the law.

[Rucati]

So we have people here saying that it's completely unconstitutional to stop suspicious people and try to make the city safer, but over in the Texas thread we have people saying that abortion is horrible and they want that constitutional right taken away.

Yup. America really is a weird place.


As for my personal opinion on this matter, I see nothing wrong with it. If it noticeably lowers the amount of crime then it's working, and trying to appeal it would be idiotic. That's basically saying "Well, we can do this and stop crime and make the city safer, but a few people are complaining so we'll just let the criminals continue doing whatever they like." makes no sense.

[lockedout]

So we have people here saying that it's completely unconstitutional to stop suspicious people

Yes it is, unless they are committing a crime.

[Spectral]

Anyone who thinks this isn't unconstitutional I would love an explanation as to how it isn't.

Seriously? A plain reading of the 4th Amendment makes it pretty obvious:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If a police officer can stop individuals and search them with absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever, this Amendment is effectively invalid. I realize that between prior rulings and the NSA's actions, that's exactly where we're at, but it's pretty clearly a decision to simply ignore the 4th rather than any sort of valid reading of it that gets us to where we are.

[lockedout]

Seriously? A plain reading of the 4th Amendment makes it pretty obvious:



If a police officer can stop individuals and search them with absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever, this Amendment is effectively invalid. I realize that between prior rulings and the NSA's actions, that's exactly where we're at, but it's pretty clearly a decision to simply ignore the 4th rather than any sort of valid reading of it that gets us to where we are.

You need to read what I wrote a little closer.

[Spectral]

You need to read what I wrote a little closer.

It's too many negatives! Gotcha, my bad.