A federal court halted the decision that requires reforms to the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk practice.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a stay on District Judge Shira Scheindlin’s decision, while the city is appealing the ruling. The court also removed Scheindlin from the case.
Scheindlin originally ruled the policy unconstitutional in August, appointed lawyer Peter Zimroth to monitor the NYPD and ordered that officers wear body cameras.
“I find that the city is liable for violating plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” Scheindlin wrote. “The city acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD’s practice of making unconstitutional stops and conducting unconstitutional frisks.”
The city filed to appeal Scheindlin’s ruling a few days later, and mayor Bloomberg called her decision unfair.
“Throughout the trail that just concluded the judge made it clear that she was not at all interested in the crime reductions here [in the city] or how we achieved them,” Bloomberg said.
The appeals court decision has received split reaction from the mayoral candidates.
“I’m extremely disappointed in today’s decision,” said Democratic candidate Bill de Blasio. “We shouldn’t have to wait for reforms that both keep our communities safe and obey the Constitution. 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.”
His Republican opponent, Joe Lhota, touted the court’s decision.
“Bravo! As I have said all along, Judge Scheindlin’s biased conduct corrupted the case and her decision was not based on the facts,” Lhota said. “The ruling by the nation’s second highest court was an unprecedented rejection of both the result of the case and the manner with which it was achieved.”
- Mayor Bloomberg files suit to stop law making it easier to sue city over profiling
- Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association sues over stop-and-frisk
- Fresh Meadows man recounts stop-and-frisk experience