|
| FILE - In this Aug. 13, 2013 file photo, police officers take a report from a woman who had her phone stolen in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York. A federal appeals court on Thursday, Oct. 31, 2013, blocked a judge's order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed the judge from the case. |
NEW YORK (AP)
-- A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's ruling that
found the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy was
discriminatory and took the unusual step of removing her from the case,
saying interviews she gave during the trial called her impartiality into
question.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Manhattan said the rulings by U.S. District Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city.
The
judge had ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in how it
carried out its program of stopping and questioning people. The city
appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to
assign a monitor to help the police department change its policy and the
training program associated with it.
During
arguments, lawyers in the case said the police department hasn't had to
do anything except meet with a monitor since the judge's decision. But
the city said police officers are afraid to stop and frisk people now
and the number of stop-and-frisks has dropped dramatically.
The
three-judge appeals panel, which heard arguments on the requested stay
on Tuesday, noted that the case might be affected in a major way by next
week's mayoral election.
Democratic candidate
Bill de Blasio, who's leading in polls, has sharply criticized and
promised to reform the NYPD's stop-and-frisk technique, saying it
unfairly targets minorities. He said he was "extremely disappointed" in
Thursday's decision.
"We have to end the
overuse of stop and frisk - and any delay only means a continued and
unnecessary rift between our police and the people they protect," he
said in a statement.
The appeals court said
the judge needed to be removed because she ran afoul of the code of
conduct for U.S. judges in part by compromising the necessity for a
judge to avoid the appearance of partiality. It noted she had given a
series of media interviews and public statements responding to criticism
of the court. In a footnote, it cited interviews with the New York Law
Journal, The Associated Press and The New Yorker magazine.
In
the AP interview, Scheindlin labeled as a "below-the-belt attack" on
judicial independence reports that Mayor Michael Bloomberg had reviewed
her record to show that most of her 15 written "search and seizure"
rulings since she took the bench in 1994 had gone against law
enforcement. She said it was "quite disgraceful" if the mayor's office
was behind the study.
The 2nd Circuit said the
cases challenging stop-and-frisk policies will be assigned to a
different judge chosen randomly. It said the new presiding judge shall
stay all proceedings pending further rulings by it.
After
a 10-week civil trial that ended in the spring, Scheindlin ruled that
police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people
by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with the stop-and-frisk
program. She appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes,
including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered
a pilot program to test body-worn cameras.
The
Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented plaintiffs in the
case, said it was dismayed that the appeals court delayed "the
long-overdue process to remedy the NYPD's unconstitutional
stop-and-frisk practices" and was shocked that it "cast aspersions" on
the judge's professional conduct and reassigned the case.
The
city said it was pleased with the federal appeals court ruling. City
lawyer Michael Cardozo said it allows for a fresh and independent look
at the issue.
Stop-and-frisk, which has been
criticized by civil rights advocates, has been around for decades, but
recorded stops increased dramatically under Bloomberg's administration
to an all-time high in 2011 of 684,330, mostly of black and Hispanic
men. A lawsuit was filed in 2004 by four men, all minorities, and became
a class action case.
About 5 million stops
have been made in New York in the past decade, with frisks occurring
about half the time. To make a stop, police must have reasonable
suspicion that a crime is about to occur or has occurred, a standard
lower than the probable cause needed to justify an arrest. Only about 10
percent of the stops result in arrests or summonses, and weapons are
found about 2 percent of the time.
Supporters
of changes to the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program say the changes will end
unfair practices, will mold a more trusted police force and can affect
how other police departments use the policy. Opponents say the changes
will lower police morale but not crime.
The
judge noted she wasn't putting an end to the stop-and-frisk practice,
which is constitutional, but was reforming the way the NYPD implemented
its stops.
