The only hope we can associate with Judge Shira Schindleins stop-and-frisk decision is that like so many of her other major decisions, it will be reversed on appeal. Her pedigree of notable bench bungles include granting a new trial for Judith Clark who was serving 75 years to life for the murder of two police officers and a Brinks guard in 2006 and another in 2002, when she dismissed a perjury charge against Osama Awadallah who admitted meeting with two of the September 11 hijackers but could not remember their names. She found that his prolonged detention without actual criminal charges could not be justified under the law.
Passed by one of the most liberal judges on the federal bench, Monday’s decision represents what we see as a devastating blow to the NYPD and to every citizen in this city.
Scheindlins declaration that the “stop-and-frisk policy” is unconstitutional, serves up to our city another dose of the judiciary that signals the critical need to police the judges, not the police. This is not the first time we have used this space to call for—plead for—some type of intervention to set straight those practices ruled on by individuals obviously devoid of any notion of sense, practicality and reason perched on the judicial platform and untouched by reasonable demands of the people.
How many more blows can the NYPD sustain? The already compromised state of our police force, down by damaging numbers on the streets and in neighborhood patrols, is further decimated because the police that we do have are expected to do their jobs wearing blindfolds and with their hands tied behind their backs.
In a 195 page decision, Scheindlin found the city to have been “deliberately indifferent” to police officers that illegally detained and/or frisked minority residents. In what can be seen as nothing less than an accusation against Mayor Bloomberg and likely Commissioner Kelly, the judge pointed fingers of discrimination. “The City’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” the document read. “In their zeal to defend a policy they believe to be effective they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of singling out ‘the right people’ is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution.”
In addition to crippling the NYPD’s capability to investigate suspicious activity based on their observations and training, we see the decision as overwhelmingly divisive in its insistence that the NYPD engages in racial profiling.
We should remember, your honor, that we are talking about a law enforcement agency that has performed nothing less than a miracle by drastically reducing crime on our streets. Your preposterous conclusions will escort that lifesaving accomplishment right out the door–which is more likely a better solution to deal with you and your self-righteous brand of justice.
