Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now!
District Judge Shira Scheindlin Ordered Off Stop n Frisk Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ordered southern district judge Scheindlin off of the stop-n-frisk case. Stop-n-frisk is a hot piece of legislation right now. NYC Mayor Bloomberg and police commissioner Kelley are proud of this crime fighting tool which has statistically been proven to help in reducing the crime rate in the 5 boroughs; the NYC public advocate Bill de Blasio however- the next possible mayor of New York City- hotly contests this as a racist and biased measure which scares residents of buildings and further destroys the trust between public servants and their constituents and city residents.
Stop-n-Frisk is deemed by judge Scheindlin (and others) to be an unconstitutional practice. Basically, if police suspect activity in an area- the law gives them the right to stop any person and frisk them- especially for drugs and or weapons. The problem with this piece of legislation, according to the newyorklawjournal, is that it disproportionately targets blacks and Hispanics.
“Judge Scheindlin issued a preliminary injunction ordering police to cease making stops. “ And because her views were perceived to be unbiased, things went merrily along. However, at this time the U.S. court of Appeals for the second circuit presented a case showing how judge Scheindlin is in fact partial to the matter she presided over. And now she has been ordered off the stop-and-frisk case. “On Tuesday, the judges were sitting as a motions panel hearing arguments on the Law Department’s application for a stay of [judge Scheindlin’s] rulings pending appeal.
A different judge who is unbiased will now take a fresh look at the actions of the police. Counsel Michael Cardozo commented, “We could not be more pleased with the court’s findings The ruling of unconstitutional practices is no longer operative and that question will now receive a fresh and independent look both by the appeals court and then if necessary, by a different trial court judge.”
Image Credit: Newyorklawjournal