A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge’s ruling that found the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy was discriminatory and took the unusual step of removing her from the case, saying interviews she gave during the trial called her impartiality into question.
Please take our poll on stop-and-frisk at the bottom of the page.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the rulings by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city.
The judge ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in how it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people. The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and the training program associated with it.
During arguments, lawyers in the case said the police department hasn’t had to do anything except meet with a monitor since the judge’s decision. But the city said police officers are afraid to stop and frisk people now and the number of stop-and-frisks has dropped dramatically.
The three-judge appeals panel, which heard arguments on the requested stay on Tuesday, noted that the case might be affected in a major way by next week’s mayoral election.
Democratic candidate Bill de Blasio, who’s leading in polls, has sharply criticized and promised to reform the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk technique, saying it unfairly targets minorities. He said he was “extremely disappointed” in Thursday’s decision.
The appeals court said the judge needed to be removed because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges in part by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality. It noted she had given a series of media interviews and public statements responding to criticism of the court. In a footnote, it cited interviews with the New York Law Journal, The Associated Press and The New Yorker magazine.
The judge said Thursday that quotes from her written opinions gave the appearance she had commented on the case in interviews. But she said a careful reading of each interview will reveal no such comments were made.
The 2nd Circuit said cases challenging stop-and-frisk policies will be assigned to a different judge chosen randomly. It said the new presiding judge shall stay all proceedings pending further rulings by it.
After a 10-week civil trial that ended in the spring, Scheindlin ruled that police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with the stop-and-frisk program. She appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes, including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered a pilot program to test body-worn cameras.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented plaintiffs in the case, said it was dismayed that the appeals court delayed “the long-overdue process to remedy the NYPD’s unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices” and was shocked that it “cast aspersions” on the judge’s professional conduct and reassigned the case.
The city said it was pleased with the federal appeals court ruling. City lawyer Michael Cardozo said it allows for a fresh and independent look at the issue.
Stop-and-frisk, which has been criticized by civil rights advocates, has been around for decades, but recorded stops increased dramatically under Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration to an all-time high in 2011 of 684,330, mostly of black and Hispanic men. A lawsuit was filed in 2004 by four men, all minorities, and became a class action case.
About 5 million stops have been made in New York in the past decade, with frisks occurring about half the time. To make a stop, police must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur or has occurred, a standard lower than the probable cause needed to justify an arrest. Only about 10 percent of the stops result in arrests or summonses, and weapons are found about 2 percent of the time.
Supporters of changes to the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program say the changes will end unfair practices, will mold a more trusted police force and can affect how other police departments use the policy. Opponents say the changes will lower police morale but not crime.
The judge noted she wasn’t putting an end to the stop-and-frisk practice, which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented its stops.
The NAACP condemned the federal appeals court decision, with President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous calling the tactics “nothing less than the largest racial profiling program in the country.”
Jealous also defended Judge Scheindlin — while castigating NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg — saying, “Legalized racial profiling has been discredited and will ultimately be relegated to the dustbin of history.”
In August, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Bloomberg’s veto of the Community Safety Act, a bundle of legislation that bans racial and religious profiling, establishes an NYPD Inspector General Office, and provides greater protection against unlawful search and seizure.
New York NAACP and New York City NAACP President Hazel Dukes said that the fight is not over:
“Communities of color across New York City have been discriminated by law enforcement for far too long, said Dukes. “We have fought too long and too hard to stop fighting now. We will continue to demand protections for our civil and human rights.”
*The Associated Press contributed to this report