Black People : Bloomberg wants more Blacks and Latinos stopped
- Thread starter Alarm Clock
- Start date
- Replies 40
- Views 7K
'Stop and frisk' police tactic violated constitutional rights, federal judge says
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News
The New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk” tactic, under which millions of mostly black and Hispanic people have been questioned by police over the past decade, has violated constitutional rights, a federal judge ruled Monday.
The judge, Shira Scheindlin of Manhattan federal court, ordered an independent monitor to oversee the program. She pointedly did not order an end to the tactic.
Four men had sued the city, saying that they were unfairly targeted by police. The judge ruled that their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights had been violated. The Fourth protects against unreasonable searches, and the 14th guarantees equal protection under the law.
Scheindlin found that the police had used the tactic 4.4 million times between 2004 and 2012, and that 80 percent of the stops were of blacks and Hispanics.
“The City’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” the judge wrote. “In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting ‘the right people’ is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution.”
Mayor Michael Bloomberg called a press conference to give a forceful defense of the tactic.
“Our police officers follow the law and follow the crime,” he said from City Hall. “They fight crime where is occurring. And they don’t worry if their work doesn’t match up to a census chart.”
Bloomberg said the program had taken 8,000 guns and 80,000 other weapons off the streets in the past decade, and he noted that the New York City murder rate is half what it was when he took office in 2002.
“We are the poster child that everybody wants to follow,” he said.
To stop someone, the judge wrote, the police need more than an “unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” And to proceed to a frisk, the officer must reasonably suspect that the person is armed and dangerous, she wrote.
The judge noted that the overwhelming majority of the stops — 88 percent — result in no arrests or tickets. But she emphasized that she was making no ruling about the effectiveness of the tactic in fighting crime, only on its constitutionality.
“Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example,” she wrote, “but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.”
The mayor took on the judge directly — saying that she had “ignored the real-world realities of crime” and showed a disregard for the good intentions of the Police Department. He said the police must be allowed to do their job without being micromanaged and second-guessed by judges or monitors.
Bloomberg has consistently defended the tactic, known officially as “stop, question, frisk.”
“There is no doubt that stops are a vitally important reason why so many fewer gun murders happen in New York than in other major cities — and why we are the safest big city in America,” he said in a speech in April.
Scheindlin stressed that she was not halting the “stop and frisk” practice, only trying to make sure that it was carried out in a way that protects the liberties and rights of New Yorkers.
She appointed an outside lawyer to study the program and report back to the court, and to issue public reports every six months.
It appeared likely that the city would appeal, and the matter could wind up before the Supreme Court.
The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling.
Pete Williams of NBC News contributed to this report
.
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News
The New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk” tactic, under which millions of mostly black and Hispanic people have been questioned by police over the past decade, has violated constitutional rights, a federal judge ruled Monday.
The judge, Shira Scheindlin of Manhattan federal court, ordered an independent monitor to oversee the program. She pointedly did not order an end to the tactic.
Four men had sued the city, saying that they were unfairly targeted by police. The judge ruled that their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights had been violated. The Fourth protects against unreasonable searches, and the 14th guarantees equal protection under the law.
Scheindlin found that the police had used the tactic 4.4 million times between 2004 and 2012, and that 80 percent of the stops were of blacks and Hispanics.
“The City’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” the judge wrote. “In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting ‘the right people’ is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution.”
Mayor Michael Bloomberg called a press conference to give a forceful defense of the tactic.
“Our police officers follow the law and follow the crime,” he said from City Hall. “They fight crime where is occurring. And they don’t worry if their work doesn’t match up to a census chart.”
Bloomberg said the program had taken 8,000 guns and 80,000 other weapons off the streets in the past decade, and he noted that the New York City murder rate is half what it was when he took office in 2002.
“We are the poster child that everybody wants to follow,” he said.
To stop someone, the judge wrote, the police need more than an “unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” And to proceed to a frisk, the officer must reasonably suspect that the person is armed and dangerous, she wrote.
The judge noted that the overwhelming majority of the stops — 88 percent — result in no arrests or tickets. But she emphasized that she was making no ruling about the effectiveness of the tactic in fighting crime, only on its constitutionality.
“Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example,” she wrote, “but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.”
The mayor took on the judge directly — saying that she had “ignored the real-world realities of crime” and showed a disregard for the good intentions of the Police Department. He said the police must be allowed to do their job without being micromanaged and second-guessed by judges or monitors.
Bloomberg has consistently defended the tactic, known officially as “stop, question, frisk.”
“There is no doubt that stops are a vitally important reason why so many fewer gun murders happen in New York than in other major cities — and why we are the safest big city in America,” he said in a speech in April.
Scheindlin stressed that she was not halting the “stop and frisk” practice, only trying to make sure that it was carried out in a way that protects the liberties and rights of New Yorkers.
She appointed an outside lawyer to study the program and report back to the court, and to issue public reports every six months.
It appeared likely that the city would appeal, and the matter could wind up before the Supreme Court.
The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling.
Pete Williams of NBC News contributed to this report
.
Your link is broken bruh.. But I don't need that to ask, what world is he living in? He should just look at the jail numbers to see reality.
Peace!
Another Major Victory In The Fight Against Stop And Frisk
The Huffington Post | By Inae Oh
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A New York state judge has upheld a law making it easier for citizens to sue police officers performing unlawful stop and frisks based on race.
"This law provides an important opportunity for New Yorkers who are subject to racial profiling or other discriminatory behavior the opportunity to vindicate their rights," State Supreme Court Justice Anil Singh wrote in her decision Wednesday.
“The law only seeks to deter the use of attributes such as race as the sole basis for an investigatory stop which is antithetical to our constitution and our values,” Singh added.
The Community Safety Act was passed shortly after a federal judge ruled in August that police in New York City had violated the rights of residents and illegally stopped a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos.
Since the law's passage, city unions and police groups have attempted to block its implementation on the grounds it could jeopardize officers' abilities to perform their duties.
"We strongly disagree with the judge’s decision and we intend to appeal it," Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, wrote in a statement Wednesday. "This law sends an extremely bad message to our police officers who will see themselves in legal crosshairs with every arrest they make. Potentially, this bad law can have a very serious impact on public safety."
New York Civil Liberties Union executive director Donna Lieberman dismissed that notion on Wednesday, saying the law will help mend community relations soured by the unprecedented rise of stop and frisks seen under previous New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"This decision is a victory for all New Yorkers, including the police because it builds trust and respect between officers and the communities they serve," Lieberman said.
The latest development also marks the continued unraveling of the controversial policing tactic, staunchly supported by Bloomberg. Following Judge Shira Scheindlin's ruling last August, Bloomberg lead a city appeal to reverse the decision, arguing stop and frisk was a necessary crime-fighting program to keep New Yorkers safe.
In February, Mayor Bill de Blasio dropped the appeal, as he pledged to do last year while campaigning for office.
.
The Huffington Post | By Inae Oh
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A New York state judge has upheld a law making it easier for citizens to sue police officers performing unlawful stop and frisks based on race.
"This law provides an important opportunity for New Yorkers who are subject to racial profiling or other discriminatory behavior the opportunity to vindicate their rights," State Supreme Court Justice Anil Singh wrote in her decision Wednesday.
“The law only seeks to deter the use of attributes such as race as the sole basis for an investigatory stop which is antithetical to our constitution and our values,” Singh added.
The Community Safety Act was passed shortly after a federal judge ruled in August that police in New York City had violated the rights of residents and illegally stopped a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos.
Since the law's passage, city unions and police groups have attempted to block its implementation on the grounds it could jeopardize officers' abilities to perform their duties.
"We strongly disagree with the judge’s decision and we intend to appeal it," Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, wrote in a statement Wednesday. "This law sends an extremely bad message to our police officers who will see themselves in legal crosshairs with every arrest they make. Potentially, this bad law can have a very serious impact on public safety."
New York Civil Liberties Union executive director Donna Lieberman dismissed that notion on Wednesday, saying the law will help mend community relations soured by the unprecedented rise of stop and frisks seen under previous New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
"This decision is a victory for all New Yorkers, including the police because it builds trust and respect between officers and the communities they serve," Lieberman said.
The latest development also marks the continued unraveling of the controversial policing tactic, staunchly supported by Bloomberg. Following Judge Shira Scheindlin's ruling last August, Bloomberg lead a city appeal to reverse the decision, arguing stop and frisk was a necessary crime-fighting program to keep New Yorkers safe.
In February, Mayor Bill de Blasio dropped the appeal, as he pledged to do last year while campaigning for office.
.
Similar threads
Black People :
Who Wants to Bounce?
Black People :
Who Wants to Dance? (Kids Video)
