Judge Shira Scheindlin also ordered the NYPD to pilot a body
camera program for officers
Monday, Aug 12, 2013 | Updated 2:22 PM EDT
A federal judge ruled that the contentious NYPD tactic known as stop-and-frisk violates constitutional rights, appointing a monitor to oversee reforms and ordering the department to test body cameras for officers.
U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin wrote in the opinion released Monday that she was not ordering an end to the practice, but was seeking to provide remedies "to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much-needed police protection."
She said the practice violates the Fourth Amendment, the
right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and the 14th
Amendment, which forbids the denial of life, liberty or property, without due
process.
Mayor Bloomberg said the city would appeal, and accused the
judge of ignoring "the real-world realities of crime." He said the
judge's orders, if implemented, would make New York "a more dangerous
place."
"This is a very dangerous decision made by a judge that
I think just does not understand how policing works," he said.
The judge said she was not imposing any immediate changes to
stop-and-frisk because it would be "unwise and impractical" to do so
without input from the monitor. Instead, change will come gradually, after the
monitor begins work.One short-term order she did issue was to require the NYPD to test "body-worn cameras" for officers. She said the practice has potential, and said the department must begin a pilot program with cameras on patrol officers in one precinct per borough. The city must fund the project, she said.
Bloomberg said cameras on officers "is not a solution
to the problem."
In addressing the NYPD's reasons for stops, Scheindlin said
an officer must have reasonable suspicion "that the person stopped has
committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime." "Furtive movements," a reason cited in some NYPD stops, is not sufficient, nor is simply being present in a "high crime area," the judge wrote.
She also said a person cannot be stopped just for matching a
vague description "such as young black male 18 to 24."
Further, she said, people can't be targeted for stops
because their racial group may have higher instances of crime. Race, she said,
can only be considered when the stop is based on a specific description."Officers must cease the targeting of young black and Hispanic males for stops based on the appearance of these groups in crime complaints," she said.
The NAACP said Monday that the ruling was "a
groundbreaking victory."
"This is a great day for justice and equality in this
city," said New York NAACP President Hazel Dukes.The judge also addressed what would justify proceeding from a stop to a frisk, declaring that the officer has to suspect the person may be "armed and dangerous." A frisk, she said, is not to discover evidence of a crime, but to uncover potential weapons that could injure police.
Scheindlin said the monitor, former city corporation counsel
Peter Zimroth, will primarily be charged with reforming the NYPD's use of the
tactic, which "will inevitably touch on issues of training, supervision,
monitoring and discipline."
The judge said she was not calling for the NYPD to abandon
"proactive policing and return to an earlier era of less effective police
practices," but was instead aiming for a fair approach to police stops
that would foster trust in the department and promote its mission of fighting
crime.The monitor will develop reforms "as soon as practicable," and will report to the court for approval. He will then be responsible, the judge said, to conduct compliance and progress reviews, and will issue public reports every six months. The city will be responsible for the costs of the monitor, his staff and any experts he uses.
In the meantime, a yet-to-be-appointed facilitator will
gather community input, including from town hall meetings in each borough, to
hear from "those who are most affected by the NYPD's use of
stop-and-frisk," the judge said.
Scheindlin said she would have preferred to work with the
city to develop remedies, but that the Bloomberg administration had declined to
participate in such a conversation.
The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association said in a statement
that the ruling was unnecessarily complex and failed to address the problem.
"Monitors, facilitators and public hearings, which will
cost this city millions of dollars, will do nothing more than make the toughest
policing job in the world even more difficult and dangerous," said PBA
President Patrick Lynch.The ruling came after more than nine weeks of testimony from men who said they were wrongly stopped because of their race, and police officials who believe the nation's largest force operates with integrity.
More than 5 million stops have been made in New York in the
past decade, mostly of black and Hispanic men. Police must have reasonable
suspicion to stop someone, a standard lower than probable cause needed to
justify an arrest. Only about 10 percent result in arrests.
Original Article, where you can see comments & leave
your own: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Stop-and-Frisk-Ruling-Judge-Violates-Rights-219252171.html
In my opinion, having body camera's which are checked at the
beginning of every shift and are in working order at all times, on ALL Police,
& Any Other Powerful State And Or Other Federal Player that has ANY contact
with the public, who is in any kind of life altering position in their dealing
with that person of the public, needs to become mandatory; because of incidents
like this and other more corrupt incidents where families are being denied their
constitutional rights because the corruption ‘The New World Order; has brought
with it, and the turning of a blind eye which is going along with these egregious
violations of ‘The Peoples’ Constitutional Rights has far surpassed violations
of the Peoples 14th amendment rights!
So much so, that those with the police and or political
power behind them, have gone beyond disrespecting or just about spatting on ‘The
Constitutional Rights’ given to the People by the blood, sweat, tears &
deaths of our forefathers up until as recently as the ex- Senator Nancy Schafer
& her Husband, for this very reason, so that the people are free to live
& say what every they wanted to say, as long as they are following the law,
as it was also written back then, before those in power amended the
Constitution* (*Changed it to work toward a specifically corrupt
end, in which [they] the political players would be the only ones to
come out surviving, thriving & able to make it under ‘The New World Order’ with
all the changes slowly being put in place- that knocked out your average Joe or
Jane), But C’mon, who gave a shit, the
first things they started controlling were the things that most would be
willing to jump on the bandwagon to support, with their noses help high in the
air claiming, “Oh no, we don’t want any of those sleazy smokers sharing our
airplanes, or our theaters, then when that went over really well, they took it
a step further, and banned smoking from in front of outside certain facilities
within a certain amount of feet from the front door. Hell, that didn’t bother
you either, you were only too happy to watch those slimy cigarette smokers,
stand out in the rain or freezing cold, as long as it didn’t interfere with
what you were doing, all was good, wasn’t it?
Well, how about when they decided to.. nah wait, I’ll just link
you directly to the link, so you can read it all yourself straight from the horse’s
mouth.. and see what you decide for yourself! Take a peek and always remember
this little tidbit… where the government was intended to work for the good
people of the world, not that the good people of the world would have to hide
in fear of our government, for fighting for what our forefathers won for us...
'Our Constitutional Rights' which were put in place to keep checks &
balances on both the people & the government so neither would over power
the other, and we would live in harmony!
Instead, it appears from keeping track of what is happening
to families in family courts as an advocate, since my own family was destroyed
by my ex's political connections to the Panepinto's which include acting
supreme court judge barbara irola panepinto & her husband Jospeh Panepinto,
whom my ex-husband answered to for more than 20 years in the catholic charities
CYO basketball league (which I found out is a large part of our Government has
found a way, mainly through Title IV
Federal Funding to make a multi-million dollar business out of destroying
innocent families, tearing them apart & making psychopaths out of each
& every one of them. And some want to know why they are building more poison
systems than they are building schools? Re-read this paragraph over & over
until you figure it out!
No comments:
Post a Comment