In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy, a federal judge has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.
In a decision issued on Monday, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Officers often frisked these people, usually young minority men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, before letting them go, according to the 195-page decision.

These stop-and-frisk episodes, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, according to the ruling. It also found violations with the 14th Amendment.

To fix the constitutional violations, Judge Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan said she intended to designate an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution.

The decision to install Mr. Zimroth, a partner in the New York office of Arnold & Porter, LLP, and a former corporation counsel and prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, will leave the department under a degree of judicial control that is certain to shape the policing strategies under the next mayor.

The ruling, in Floyd v. City of New York, follows a two-month nonjury trial earlier this year over the department’s stop-and-frisk practices.

Judge Scheindlin heard testimony from about a dozen black or biracial men and a woman who described being stopped, and she heard from statistical experts who offered their conclusions based on police paperwork describing some 4.43 million stops between 2004 and mid-2012. Numerous police officers and commanders testified as well, typically defending the legality of stops and saying they were made only when officers reasonably suspected criminality was afoot.

While the Supreme Court has long recognized the right of police officers to briefly stop and investigate people who are behaving suspiciously, Judge Scheindlin found that the New York police had overstepped that authority. She found that officers were too quick to deem as suspicious behavior that was perfectly innocent, in effect watering down the legal standard required for a stop.

She noted that about 88 percent of the stops result in the police letting the person go without an arrest or ticket, a percentage so high, she said, that it suggests there was not a credible suspicion to suspect the person of criminality in the first place.

 Frazzled wrote:
Hey hey ho ho stop and firsk has got to go...

Finally, someone remembered we have the 4th Amendment.

 Crablezworth wrote:
It often wasn't even about individuals fitting a description, looking at police or making eye contact was enough to be deemed worth of a search.

NSFW for language

Spoiler:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
It often wasn't even about individuals fitting a description, looking at police or making eye contact was enough to be deemed worth of a search.

That's bollocks and you well know it.

NSFW for language

Spoiler:

Because filming in shadow, a police officer wanting to be anonymous totally would wear a patrolman's uniform.

Totally.

 Frazzled wrote:
Hey its only a problem if you don't like being groped by burly men in uniform Ahtman.

 Crablezworth wrote:

Yeah I'm sure it'd be really easy to figuer out which officer it was, I mean after all new york only has 34,000 of them in uniform...

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If you have nothing to hide, surely you should do your civic duty and assume the position?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you know how many cops are bald or have shaved heads?

 Kanluwen wrote:

If someone is concerned enough about retaliation from speaking out, why would they wear their uniform?