A federal judge ruled Monday that the New York Police Department’s use of stop-and-frisk violated the constitutional rights of minority residents in the five boroughs and called for a federal monitor to oversee sweeping reforms of the agency.
U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin’s 195-page decision, which lambasted a policy staunchly defended by Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly as one that has driven down crime to historic lows, was received with mixed reviews in Queens, with some praising it and others slamming the ruling. The judge’s decision does not force the city to halt its practice, but it will bring increased scrutiny.
“I find that the city is liable for violating plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” Scheindlin wrote in the decision on Floyd V. City of New York – a class action lawsuit filed in 2008 that challenges the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy. “The city acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD’s practice of making unconstitutional stops and conduction unconstitutional frisks.”
The decision follows the City Council’s approval – and Bloomberg’s veto – of the Community Safety Act, two bills that create an NYPD inspector general and allow individuals to sue for changes to the police department over perceived racial profiling by cops. Scheindlin ordered a number of things she said would help to remedy the violation of rights, including a program in which officers across the city would wear cameras to record street encounters.
Bloomberg and Kelly issued a harsh repudiation of the judge’s decision.
“Every day Commissioner Kelly and I wake up determined to keep New Yorkers safe and save lives,” Bloomberg said at a press conference on Monday. “Our crime strategies and tools, including stop-question-frisk, have made New York City the safest big city in America.”
The mayor, who has said he plans on appealing the decision, went on to say that “today we have fewer guns, fewer shootings and fewer homicides.
“In fact, murders are 50 percent below the level they were 12 years ago when we came into office – something no one thought possible back then,” Bloomberg continued.
The varied response from Queens included support from Councilman Leroy Comrie (D-St. Albans) and criticism from Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Astoria).
“Not only have the police been targeting minority and LGBT communities, ignoring the fact that more weapons and contraband are confiscated when they stop white suspects, but the way they have treated residents when they are stopped has been demeaning and abusive,” Comrie said in a prepared statement. “The public wants the police to keep them safe, and the reforms mandated by this ruling will help hold the NYPD accountable, while also forcing changes to policies that will build a stronger relationship between precincts and the communities they are trying to protect.”
Vallone, who has railed against the Community Safety Act, said the NYPD does not need an additional monitor, as the federal judge ruled. The councilman did, however, say the stop-and-frisk policy needed to be reformed – but kept in place in order to “save young lives.”
A number of the mayoral candidates weighed in on the decision, with Republican Joe Lhota also arguing an additional oversight of the NYPD is not needed and City Comptroller, and Democratic candidate, John Liu saying he would completely eliminate the program.
“The NYPD is one of the most closely scrutinized law enforcement agencies in the country with oversight from New York City’s five district attorneys, two U.S. attorneys, the New York State Attorney General and the City Council,” Lhota said. “The last thing we need is another layer of outside bureaucracy dictating our policing.”
Meanwhile, Liu said, following the ruling, “Bloomberg should not expend time and resources trying to fight the judge’s clear decision and instead should start implementing community policing to better protect all New Yorkers and truly keep crime low.”
By Anna Gustafson
