Tagged: illegal stop

Scheindlin Moves to Fight Removal but Her Motion Is Denied

Last Thursday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Judge Shira Scheindlin’s motion to vacate the order of the panel, which removed Judge Scheindlin from presiding on any further proceedings in Floyd v. City of New York, 12 Civ. 2274 (SAS).  

This Court of Appeals decision is the latest twist in the legal drama that ensued following the Floyd decision.

In its decision on Thursday, “the panel clarified that it had not ruled that Scheindlin violated the code of conduct, only that the ‘appearance of partiality required reassignment.”

As this issue gains widespread attention – drawing in the likes of lawyers, law professors, former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and police unions – it remains to be seen how the Second Circuit will proceed.  But one thing is certain:  the institutional reputation of this previously unusually well respected court has suffered.

 

Symposium on the Future of Stop and Frisk

The Criminal Justice Society at Pace Law School held a symposium last Tuesday (Oct. 22, 2014) on the future of stop and frisk in New York City.  Prof. David Dorfman moderated, and the panelists were Prof. Randolph McLaughlin, of Pace Law School; Mayo Bartlett, a Pace alum and private criminal defense attorney in White Plains; Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute;  and Police Officer David Rullo, a Pace student and a police officer in New Jersey.

The panelists began by debating the merits of Judge Scheindlin’s decision in Floyd, finding that the NYPD’s stop and frisk practices unconstitutional.  The disagreement was not so much over the Judge’s holding as it was over the facts upon which it rested, with Ms. MacDonald asserting that some of the fact finding was not supported by the evidence.  There was also disagreement about whether the Judge was correct in concluding that the racial breakdown of stop and frisk should reflect population demographics, as opposed to the demographics of who commits crimes.

Substantial discussion concerned the need for training police officers: Officer Rullo thought training on the constitutional dimensions of stop and frisk was inadequate and Ms. MacDonald thought the police should have training on how to treat people with respect.  Ultimately, Ms. MacDonald raised a concern that hamstringing the police in stop and frisk would lead to more crime, while Mr. Bartlett and Prof. McLaughlin focused on how many innocent people are arrested under current stop and frisk practices.  All of the panelists were concerned about the impact of stop and frisk – or of stopping the stop an d frisk policy – on the community.

The panelists also proposed solutions. Mr. Bartlett emphasized the need for incorporating police officers into the community.  A reform of the stop and frisk policy based on police presence would foster community relationships that could help police officers deter crime.

With the NYC mayoral election looming, many people worry about whether the crime rate will rise after Floyd and with a new administration.  Many people are debating whether we should reintroduce community policing and, if so, what the impact will be on the community.

NYPD Stop and Frisk Practice Held Unconstitutional

On Monday, August 12, 2013, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin held that the NYPD’s stop and frisk practice was unconstitutional.  Citing the large percentage of stops that resulted in no further legal action, Judge Scheindlin stated that police officers diluted the legal standard necessary to conduct a stop and frisk and, therefore, detained individuals illegally.

Moving Toward a Solution: Monitoring the NYPD

On two separate occasions last month it was suggested that a court-appointed entity monitor the actions of the New York Police Department. In the first instance, the U.S. Justice Department suggested a monitor to address the racial implementation of stop and frisk procedures by select NYPD officers. The U.S. Justice Department announced that

it would support a decision by the judge to appoint a monitor to ensure compliance with any reform of police practices ordered by [the judge].

In the second instance, Civil Rights Groups  suggested a monitor of the NYPD’s Muslim Surveillance Program, an intelligence program designed to foil terrorist plots. Members of the Muslim community argue that the Surveillance Program hinders their constitutional right to worship.

The New York City Council responded to the call for an NYPD monitor by

approv[ing] some of the most sweeping plans in years to impose new oversight over the NYPD.

The two bills passed recently

expand the definition of racial profiling and… establish an inspector general with subpoena power to recommend changes to the NYPD’s policies and practices.

Those in favor of the NYPD monitor contend that the monitor will regulate police procedures to prevent, or at the very least diminish, racial and religious discrimination by the NYPD. Those against the NYPD monitor, most notably Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commission Ray Kelly, argue that a monitor would prevent police officers from doing their jobs effectively because it would cause hesitation among police officers in carrying out procedures vital to fighting crime.

Whether monitoring the NYPD is the right approach remains to be seen. However, the mere suggestion of an NYPD monitor indicates that society is moving toward a solution to a problem that has hindered the NYPD and society for decades.

Stop and Frisk the Statistics

BY: Annmarie Stepancic

Between 2010 and 2012, the NYPD reported 1,624,419 stops in New York City. Of those stops, slightly over 6%, or 101,688 stops, resulted in an arrest. Another 6% resulted in a summons. So – what do these statistics mean? Well, on the one hand, these statistics seem to suggest an effort to reduce the crime rate, particularly in high crime areas. This is the interpretation we hear and read about in the news as we go about our day-to-day routines. On the other hand, these statistics suggest that the stop and frisk policy is ineffective. According to the NYPD data, stops do not yield any significant results approximately 88% of the time. We rarely, if ever, study this interpretation of the statistics. I would like to suggest that it is this interpretation – the 88% view – on which we as a society should focus our attention.

A few disclosures before I continue. I am in no way suggesting that the NYPD is wrong 88% of the time or that the entire stop and frisk policy should be eradicated. It is important to understand that not every stop and frisk will result in an arrest or summons, and I am not trying to suggest that it should. Moreover, in a post-9/11 world, it is imperative for our police officers – the men and women who vow to serve and protect us each day – to have the ability to stop and frisk any individual the officers reasonably suspect of criminal activity. However, I think and hope we can do better than futile stops 88% of the time.

I think the biggest reason stops are unsuccessful 88% of the time is because there is no clear standard for conducting a stop and frisk. In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established reasonable suspicion as the standard for a stop and frisk. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). According to the reasonable suspicion standard, a police officer may stop an individual that the police officer reasonably suspects has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. After an individual is stopped, the police officer may frisk the individual for police safety. But what exactly constitutes reasonable suspicion? The answer: your guess is as good as mine.

While recognizing the right against an unreasonable stop and frisk, the Warren Court failed to define the reasonable suspicion required, and subsequent congresses and legislatures have not done the job.  To date, scholars have helped by defining reasonable suspicion to include,  at a minimum, more than an individual’s hunch and to require specific facts that led the officer to reasonably believe that the individual has engaged will engage, or is engaging in criminal activity. These definitions, while helpful, still fall short in defining what exactly constitutes reasonable suspicion either for the courts or the police officer on the street. I understand that we live in a world of uncertainty, but that does not mean that we are to conduct our policing policies with the same uncertainty. The stakes – constitutional rights – are simply too high.

The constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans are violated on an unprecedented scale because of illegal stops and frisks. A report published by the Center for Constitutional Rights in December 2012 found that

based on the information recorded on NYPD stop-and-frisk forms by police officers themselves, more than 95,000 stops lacked reasonable articulable suspicion and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Unconstitutional stops and frisks not only violate the constitutional rights of our fellow Americans, but also undercut the legitimacy of police officers. Illegal stops and frisks strain and, in many instances, destroy the very police-community relationships that could assist in the capture of the bad guys.

Related Readings:

Report Shows Stop and Frisk rights Violations Continue (By Center for Constitutional Rights, Dec. 2012).
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
NYPD’s Stop and Frisk Practices: Unfair and Unjust (By Center for Constitutional Rights, 2012).
2011 NYPD Stop and Frisk Statistics (By Center for Constitutional Rights, 2011).
NYPD’s Stop, Question and Frisk Data (By NYPD, includes data for years 2003-2011).
Second Supplemental Report of Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D., David Floyd v. City of New York, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___ (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2012) (No.: 08 Civ. 01034 (SAS)).