By Christopher Matthews
A federal appeals court blocked a lower court ruling that curtailed the New York Police Department’s controversial stop-and-frisk tactic on Thursday, in a ruling that could rattle the New York City political landscape.
AP
U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, who ordered a monitor to oversee the stop-and-frisk program pending an appeal by the city. In an unusual move, the court also removed Judge Scheindlin from the case, saying she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges.
The appeals court wrote that Judge Scheindlin didn’t avoid an “appearance of partiality.” In a 2007 lawsuit on the stop-and-frisk tactic, Judge Scheindlin asked lawyers suing the city “f you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don’t you bring a lawsuit?,” according to the appeals court ruling.
In Thursday’s ruling, the appeals court didn’t weigh in on the city’s appeal but said it would hear the merits of the case in “due course.”
The stop-and-frisk tactic has featured prominently in the New York City mayoral race. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has credited the program with helping drive crime in New York City to record lows. But current Democratic mayoral nominee Bill de Blasio repeatedly attacked the Bloomberg administration for using stop-and-frisk too often against minorities in high-crime neighborhoods, and said he would reduce the police department’s use of it. His Republican opponent Joe Lhota has also promised to ensure that stops are conducted constitutionally.
A federal appeals court blocked a lower court ruling that curtailed the New York Police Department’s controversial stop-and-frisk tactic on Thursday, in a ruling that could rattle the New York City political landscape.
AP
U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, who ordered a monitor to oversee the stop-and-frisk program pending an appeal by the city. In an unusual move, the court also removed Judge Scheindlin from the case, saying she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges.
The appeals court wrote that Judge Scheindlin didn’t avoid an “appearance of partiality.” In a 2007 lawsuit on the stop-and-frisk tactic, Judge Scheindlin asked lawyers suing the city “f you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don’t you bring a lawsuit?,” according to the appeals court ruling.
In Thursday’s ruling, the appeals court didn’t weigh in on the city’s appeal but said it would hear the merits of the case in “due course.”
The stop-and-frisk tactic has featured prominently in the New York City mayoral race. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has credited the program with helping drive crime in New York City to record lows. But current Democratic mayoral nominee Bill de Blasio repeatedly attacked the Bloomberg administration for using stop-and-frisk too often against minorities in high-crime neighborhoods, and said he would reduce the police department’s use of it. His Republican opponent Joe Lhota has also promised to ensure that stops are conducted constitutionally.
