As to Judge Scheindlein’s decision stop and frisk, can I tell you a few things that are completely being lost in today’s chatter? 1) The Court asked for a balance between crime fighting and the assurance of constitutional compliance with the fourth amendment to the US Constitution. She indicates that the City and its police are judged here by the lack of concern that they show towards its employees. a) From page 181 of the opinion “The NYPD has repeatedly turned a blind eye to clear evidence of unconstitutional stops and frisks.” b) Id. “The City continues to argue that no plaintiff or class member was subjected to an unconstitutional stop or frisk . . . c) From page 187, “Together with Commissioner Kelly’s statement that the NYPD focuses stop and frisks on young blacks and Hispanics in order to instill in them a fear of being stopped . . . “ i) From page 192. “(2) senior officials were deliberately indifferent to those adverse effects in such a way that a reasonable inference can be drawn that those officials intended those adverse effects to occur.” 2) The Court indicates that the plaintiffs showed clearly that they were unlawfully discriminated against. a) Even in high crime communities of many races blacks and Hispanics remain the prime target for stops and frisks. b) NYPD is more likely to use force against blacks and Hispanics. c) NYPD stops blacks and Hispanics with less justification than Whites. 3) As to the City and the NYPD’s justifications for their conduct. a) From page 188 of the opinion, “Just as it would be impermissible for a public housing agency to adopt a facially race-neutral policy of disfavoring applications from any group that is disproportionately subject to tenant complaints, and then apply this policy to disfavor applications from a racially defined group, so it is impermissible for a police department to target its general enforcement practices against racially defined groups based upon crime suspect data.” 4) As to the issue that the stops are not racially based, the crime is racially based, so must then be the response. a) From page 194-5. “A police department that has a practice of targeting blacks and Hispanics for pedestrian stops cannot defend itself by showing that all stopped pedestrians were displaying suspicious behavior. Indeed, the targeting of certain races within the universe of suspicious individuals is especially insidious because it will increase the likelihood of further enforcement actions against members of those races as compared to other races, which will then increase their representation in crime statistics. Given the NYPD’s policy of basing stops on crime data, these races may then be subjected to even more stops and enforcement, resulting in a self-perpetuating cycle.” (Emphasis added). b) From page 195-6. “The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies – like stop-and-frisk, and . . . neighborhood watch - regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It’s like burning down a house to rid it of mice.” 5) As to strict scrutiny analysis. a) From page 189 “The City has not attempted to defend – nor could it defend – the proposition that the targeting of young black males or any other racially defined group for stops is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Because the use of express racial classifications in the City’s policy of indirect racial profiling cannot withstand strict scrutiny, the policy violates the Equal protection Clause.”
Posted on: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:55:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015