Police Unions Back Appeal of Stop-and-Frisk Ruling
Police unions seeking to step into the city's shoes and continue the Bloomberg administration's fight against Judge Shira Scheindlin's stop-and-frisk rulings filed briefs Friday saying the rulings "impugned the character of NYPD officers."
Echoing arguments they made in September when they attempted to intervene in the case of Floyd v. City of New York, 13-3088, and a companion case, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and four other police unions said Scheindlin's findings that NYPD policies violated the Fourth Amendment and unfairly targeted minorities were wrong, harmed their reputations and made it more difficult to do their jobs.
Mayor Bill de Blasio announced Jan. 30 the city and plaintiffs' attorneys had reached agreement on a path to settling the cases that would include a court-appointed police department monitor for three years. De Blasio and Corporation Counsel Zachary Carter said they would accept a Nov. 25 invitation from the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to seek a remand to pursue settlement.
Also on Jan. 30, the circuit panel that stayed Scheindlin's orders on Oct. 31 and removed her from the case for the appearance of partiality, invited the proposed intervenor police unions to submit papers responding to the motion to remand filed by the new administration (NYLJ, Jan. 31.)
In one of two briefs the unions filed Friday, the Sergeants Benevolent Association said it had "direct protectable interests" in the case and "to the extent that the City ever adequately represented the SBA's interests, it certainly does not now that it has decided to abandon the appeal." In the alternative, they ask the circuit to vacate Scheindlin's rulings.
The plaintiffs' reply papers are due Feb. 14.