.

City Loses Appeal Challenging Stop-and-Frisk Policy

The class action lawsuit against the controversial policy will move forward

A federal appellate court Wednesday denied the City's request to appeal a lawsuit challenging the racial discrimination of the New York City Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisks policy.

Floyd v. City of New York, is a federal class action lawsuit, led by the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed against the New York City Police Department and the City of New York challenging NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. The Center calls the practice unconstitutional and racial profiling against black and Latino males.

On October 26, 2010, CCR released an expert report (PDF) for Floyd. The report showed that although they account for only 4.7 percent of the city’s population, black and Latino males between the ages of 14-24 accounted for 41.6 percent of the stops in 2011. The number of stops of young black men exceeded the entire city population of young black men.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has defended the policy, blasting community leaders for what he believes is a lack of response to the recent spate of gun violence.

“Many of them will speak out about stop-and-frisk” but are “shockingly silent when it comes to the level of violence right in their own communities,” said Kelly at a press conference in July.

On May 16, 2012, a Judge issued an order granting the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion. The City appealed the order and today, the Court of Appeals denied the City's motion.

“The NYPD’s own numbers show that communities of color and Black & Latino youth have been the victims of this stop & frisk policy. No citizen deserves this treatment and we can’t stand for it,” said City Councilmember Al Vann.

Other New York City politicians, including City Council speaker Christine Quinn, have called for more dramatic reforms of the policy.

“The City’s last-ditch effort at delaying the trial – the appeal of our class certification – was resolved today," CCR Senior Attorney Darius Charney told Patch, "There's nothing standing in the way of our proceeding to trial now.”

The trial for the law suit is scheduled for March 18, 2013.

Forrest Lorenston October 11, 2012 at 08:52 PM
The data they have released suggests no change, but that doesn't stop them from lauding their own program. If you stop more people, based on race, than there exist people of that race, AND only yield results LESS THAN 2% of the time, you're doing it wrong. Meanwhile, we're normalizing stops and searches without probable cause, and alienating an entire generation of minority youths. The idea that "sacrificing" everyone's fourth amendment rights, in their own neighborhoods, for any reason, is laughable. Especially for a program that does much more harm than good.
dorkofwindsor October 11, 2012 at 09:40 PM
LOL. @ Brandt Hardin, rant about "police state" for big business, spams his blog where he sells paintings about police state. Who says there is no irony in Art!
Ken October 11, 2012 at 10:15 PM
...and what is the alternative to "stop and frisk"? If the parents did a better job of parenting...making sure their children showed respect to everyone, went to school, did their homework, didn't hang around in the streets all hours of the night, did an honest days work...maybe programs like "stop and frisk" wouldn't be necessary. And "stop and frisk" isn't "racial profiling" (Can you please stop using tired, old expressions). If there is a crime committed and witnesses claim that the person who did it was a male, under 30, of color, etc., who should the police stop...all whites, regardless of age or gender or stature, all Hispanics, too? Maybe some Orientals, too. While we're on "witnesses", instead of the term "snitching" when you see something be grownup and come forward with the information and stop complaining about crime going up in your neighborhood. And lastly, stop with the nonsense that when a "perp" is stopped, we all know that "he was just getting his life together and was going to be a professional rapper".
Matthew Swaye October 12, 2012 at 02:53 AM
30th Precinct Pigotry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIGu2u6pz0U officers criminalizing school children in the 145th street subway station
Dudley Escobar October 12, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Others have said it, but I'll say it again. S&F is not racial profiling. It happens in high-crime areas. That those areas happen to be where blacks and latinos are living does not necessarily mean that cops are targeting blacks and latinos. The article we're commenting on claims that "although they account for only 4.7 percent of the city’s population, black and Latino males between the ages of 14-24 accounted for 41.6 percent of the stops in 2011" and I believe it. However, considering that 66% of all violent crime in the city is committed by that same demographic, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me that that is who would be stopped most often. If you want to voice your opposition to S&F, as I do, then point out the fact that it's a massive violation of our Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. The NYPD I know and am friends with claim that there's probable cause for every one of these searches, but obviously this isn't true. Someone walking down the street looking suspicious is not probable cause. I am concerned about crime and support our police in their efforts to keep us safe. But as Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »