Feeling against the policy is especially high in the Black community
Mayor Bloomberg has always insisted there is nothing unfair about the policy at all
Expect more about this
Court Blocks Anti-Stop-And-Frisk Ruling
Trial judge removed from case.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Play
00:00 / 00:00
-
(Flickr)
- Join the Discussion [1]
-
Recommended Links
A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's order
requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk
program and removed the judge from the case.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the decisions of
Judge Shira Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal
by the city.
The judge had ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in the way it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people.
The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and the training program associated with it.
The appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on the city's request for a stay.
The New York Civil Liberties Union plans to appeal the stay and noted that the decision does not overturn the initial ruling that the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk violates the 4th and 14th amendments of the Constitution.
“There is overwhelming evidence that the stop-and-frisk regime is unconstitutional and out of control," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman in a statement. "Just ask any black or brown New Yorker."
But the city's Corporation Counsel said in a statement that Thursday's ruling reopens the question about the constitutionality of stop and frisk.
"The ruling of unconstitutional practices is no longer operative," said Michael Cardozo. "That question will now receive a fresh and independent look both by the appeals court and then, if necessary, by a different trial court judge."
The appeals court said Judge Scheindlin needed to be removed from the case because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality, in part, because of a series of media interviews and public statements responding publicly to criticism of the court.
The judge granted interviews to The New Yorker and the New York Law Journal.
The judge had ruled that police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with its stop-and-frisk program. She appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes, including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered a pilot program to test body-worn cameras in some precincts where most stops occur.
The head of the police officers' union cheered Thursday's appellate court decision to remove Judge Sheindlin from the case. In a statement, Patrick Lynch, President of the Police Benevolent Association said: “We salute the judges who made this courageous decision to remove an obviously biased judge from this case."
The next appeal in the case is expected to be heard in March.
To hear WNYC's Kathleen Horan discuss the court decision with host Amy Eddings, click the play button above.
The judge had ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in the way it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people.
The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and the training program associated with it.
The appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on the city's request for a stay.
The New York Civil Liberties Union plans to appeal the stay and noted that the decision does not overturn the initial ruling that the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk violates the 4th and 14th amendments of the Constitution.
“There is overwhelming evidence that the stop-and-frisk regime is unconstitutional and out of control," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman in a statement. "Just ask any black or brown New Yorker."
But the city's Corporation Counsel said in a statement that Thursday's ruling reopens the question about the constitutionality of stop and frisk.
"The ruling of unconstitutional practices is no longer operative," said Michael Cardozo. "That question will now receive a fresh and independent look both by the appeals court and then, if necessary, by a different trial court judge."
The appeals court said Judge Scheindlin needed to be removed from the case because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality, in part, because of a series of media interviews and public statements responding publicly to criticism of the court.
The judge granted interviews to The New Yorker and the New York Law Journal.
The judge had ruled that police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with its stop-and-frisk program. She appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes, including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered a pilot program to test body-worn cameras in some precincts where most stops occur.
The head of the police officers' union cheered Thursday's appellate court decision to remove Judge Sheindlin from the case. In a statement, Patrick Lynch, President of the Police Benevolent Association said: “We salute the judges who made this courageous decision to remove an obviously biased judge from this case."
The next appeal in the case is expected to be heard in March.
To hear WNYC's Kathleen Horan discuss the court decision with host Amy Eddings, click the play button above.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered