Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional

[Voltaire2]

Landmark Decision: Judge Rules NYPD Stop and Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

August 12, 2013, New York – In a landmark decision today, a federal court found the New York City Police Department’s highly controversial stop-and-frisk practices unconstitutional. In her thorough, 198-page ruling, Judge Shira Scheindlin found the NYPD’s practices to violate New Yorkers’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and also found that the practices were racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To remedy the widespread constitutional violations, the judge ordered a court-appointed monitor to oversee a series of reforms to NYPD policing practices and also ordered a Joint Remedial Process which will solicit input from a variety of stakeholders, including New York communities most directly affected by policing. The court’s ruling follows a 10-week trial that concluded on May 20. The class action lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York, was brought by the Center of Constitutional Rights (CCR), and the law firms of Beldock, Levine, and Hoffman and Covington & Burling, LLP.

Said CCR Senior Staff Attorney Darius Charney, “This historic victory is the result not only of our 14 years of litigation, but of decades’ worth of efforts by activists, grassroots and legal organizations, and affected communities. The NYPD is finally being held to account for its longstanding illegal and discriminatory policing practices. The City must now stop denying the problem and partner with the community to create a police department that protects the safety and respects the rights of all New Yorkers.”

In 2011, the NYPD reported a record 685,724 stops -- a 600 percent increase since Raymond Kelly took over as NYPD Commissioner in 2002. Eighty-four percent of those stopped were Black or Latino, and 88 percent of the people stopped were neither arrested nor received summonses. Despite the stated purpose of the policy, weapons and contraband were recovered less than 2 percent of the time.

In concluding that the City is liable for a widespread pattern and practice of stops and frisks in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of all New Yorkers, the Court explained:

“[The City has] received both actual and constructive notice since at least 1999 of widespread Fourth Amendment violations occurring as a result of the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices. Despite this notice, they deliberately maintained and even escalated policies and practices that predictably resulted in even more widespread Fourth Amendment violations. . . . The NYPD has repeatedly turned a blind eye to clear evidence of unconstitutional stops and frisks.”
The court found the NYPD guilty of violating both the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits racially discriminatory policing, and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/landmark-decision-judge-rules-nypd-stop-and-frisk-practices

Posted here as it is entirely relevant to the Bloomberg campaign, and their surrogates, attempts to whitewash what happened in NYC.

[SoCalNative]

1. I'm sorry, but

constantly dredging up this crap from the past makes you no better than the republicans.

We get it. You're a Bernie fanatic and don't like Bloomberg.

[Voltaire2]

4. so are you ok with his racist stop and frisk policies?

[SoCalNative]

11. No. But it's in the past

I'm sure we could find lots of things on Bernie too if we dig into his past.

[Voltaire2]

13. I'm sure everything at all negative in Sanders' past has been posted here repeatedly

And exactly how are we supposed to evaluate candidates if their past, even their recent past, even their record for the last office they held, is off limits?

[left-of-center2012]

2. Another attack on Bloomberg

Mike's got someone scared.

[George II]

5. Yep. Imagine the hue and cry if we dug up every bad thing about Sanders.

[Voltaire2]

7. done

[George II]

12. Nope.

[George II]

3. August 12, 2013

August 12, 2013
August 12, 2013
August 12, 2013
August 12, 2013
August 12, 2013
August 12, 2013
August 12, 2013
August 12, 2013

[Voltaire2]

6. So 6 years, let me guess: 'everyone involved is probably dead by now'

is that your point?

[George II]

8. How do you conclude that, reading my mind?

[Voltaire2]

10. from some other post in this forum that claimed that after 9 years everyone was probably dead.

It wasn't you. Still what was your point with "2013"?

[brooklynite]

9. 22% of African Americans support Bloomberg (per Quinnipiac)

Maybe they see something else in him?