42.6 F
New York
Friday, March 29, 2024

Federal Judge Says NYPD “Stop and Frisk” Policy is Illegal

Related Articles

-Advertisement-

Must read

Federal District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the “stop and frisk” policy implemented by the NYPD was illegal
Federal District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the “stop and frisk” policy implemented by the NYPD was illegal
violated the rights of tens of thousands of people by intentionally discriminating against racial minorities with its controversial “stop-and-search” policy.

But New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the city will appeal the decision. He says the possibility of being stopped by police acts as a vital deterrent to crime.

Police say they have made about five million stops during the past decade, mostly of black and Hispanic men.

Judge Shira Scheindlin said the practice has become “a fact of daily life in some New York City neighborhoods,” but is flawed because “the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent, not criminal.” She said she is not putting an end to the policy, but is reforming it and ordered a court monitor to oversee its use.

To fix the constitutional violations, the judge said she intended to designate an outside lawyer, Peter L. Zimroth, to monitor the Police Department’s compliance with the Constitution

City lawyers argued the police department does a good job of monitoring itself.

NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly defended the policy by saying the notion the police department engages in racial profiling is “recklessly untrue.”

Legal experts say the ruling on the nation’s largest police department may affect how other police departments operate.

Critics of the judicial ruling point to what they perceive as the “left-wing” record of the presiding judge. In a column by Daniel Greenfield, a New York writer who focuses on radical Islam, he offers his opinion by saying, “Judge Shira Scheindlin, a woman who loves criminals more than Popeye loves spinach, is predictable.” The column, that appeared on the Front Page Magazine web site, also examined Judge Scheindlin’s previous rulings to make their point.

Concerning such criminal/terrorist elements as the Weather Underground of the 1960s and those who met and collaborated with the 9/11 hijackers, Greenfield points to her decisions in matters pertaining to these groups.

Greenfield states:

“In September 2006 Scheindlin ruled that Judith Clark, a Weather Underground radical serving 75 years to life for the murder of a Brinks guard and two police officers during a robbery, was entitled to a new trial because her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. Scheindlin found Clark’s right to counsel was violated even though the then-self-proclaimed revolutionary insisted on representing herself at trial, turned down legal counsel, boycotted much of the trial and refused to recognize the court’s authority. In January 2008 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed Scheindlin’s ruling and held that Clark was not denied her right to counsel because Clark “knowingly and intelligently exercised her constitutional right to make those choices.”

In April 2002, in the case United States v. Osama Awadallah, after Awadallah testified before a grand jury that he had met with two of the September 11, 2001 hijackers, but could not remember their names, Scheindlin dismissed a perjury charge against him and found that Awadallah’s prolonged detention without actual criminal charges was based on misrepresentations and omissions by the government and could not be justified under existing law. Her decision was later reversed on appeal.”

He adds that, “Judge Shira Scheindlin has a history of being overruled by actual qualified judges who aren’t just left-wing hacks in robes. “

 

balance of natureDonate

Latest article

- Advertisement -