Judge Finds NYPD Stop and Frisk Unconstitutional

, New York Law Journal

   |3 Comments

In rulings New York City immediately vowed to appeal, Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin issued a preliminary injunction against stop-and-frisk encounters that violate the U.S. Constitution, ordered reforms of NYPD policies and practices, and appointed Peter Zimroth as monitor to oversee changes in the 35,000-officer department.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Avon

    Gordon Hirabayashi was convicted in 1942 of refusing a curfew and years of internment camp. He was guilty because, although a citizen born in Seattle, his ancestry was Japanese, and the US Supreme Court affirmed. He served years in federal prison, and only 40 years later was his conviction vacated on a writ of coram nobis, once the false factual excuse for the internments was unearthed.

    In upholding the writ in 1986, Judge Mary Schroeder of the 9th Circuit said:

    "A United States citizen who is convicted of a crime on account of race is lastingly aggrieved."

    That must be even more true of an innocent person who suffers unwillingly an unfounded, sudden stop-and-frisk on account of demographics alone.

    All three branches of the federal government have repented of the wartime precedent and have made amends. The Solicitor General's office confessed error, formally renouncing the Supreme Court result. Modest cash awards were given every surviving internee. Hirabayashi was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom last year.

    We owe a debt - or at least an abject Mayoral apology - to hundreds of thousands of wrongfully frisked New Yorkers. Even the Federal government favors instituting an independent monitor.

    Yet our mayor claims the trial was "unfair" - and, one must ask, is there any such thing in his book as a trial that he would ever consider "fair" if its conclusion disagreed with his view of the Constitution? At least his predecessor mayor graciously accepted the many court opinions finding that his policies were illegal. Our Mayor and police chief owe that kind of deference to the rule of law in America.

  • Ravi Batra

    Stop, Question and Frisk is Constitutional, when supported by "reasonable suspicion." American Exceptionalism is rooted in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Innocuous behavior cannot be a basis for "reasonable suspicion," and its presence also destroys the potential of "qualified immunity." Monell liability is the rub that burns.



    Personally attacking a judge is unbecoming for even those who serve New York City, for it does violence to our cherished separation of powers - and without which we would be a dictatorship and not a beacon in human history. Appeal away, as is every loser's right, but with a lower decibel and a non-contemptuous stance. After all, young kids are watching and find reality at odds with a civics class lesson that teaches them that a judge, any judge, in the right case must have the right to say "no" to "power" and the "power" doesn't get to "tar and feather" the judge.



    Dated: 8/12/13

    /s/

    Ravi Batra

  • dregstudios

    “Stop and Frisk” is a breach of civil rights for anyone stopped, regardless of their race. The actions and abuse by the NYPD are filling the very definition of a “Police State” where citizens are under never ending scrutiny in order for cops meet a quota designed to turn profits. You can read much more about our Justice System running amuck and how they’ve violated civil liberties across the country in the name of the almighty dollar at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-privatized-police-state.html

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202614859678

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.