NYPD Can 'Stop and Frisk' for a Few More Months
Judge rules that practice can continue during appeal
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Jan 23, 2013 2:10 PM CST
In this Sunday, June 17, 2012 photo, Rev. Al Sharpton, center, walks with thousands along Fifth Avenue, during a silent march to end the "stop-and-frisk" program in New York.   (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

(Newser) – A US district judge ruled earlier this month that a portion of New York City's controversial "stop and frisk" policy may be unconstitutional, but today she said the NYPD can continue the practice while her decision is appealed. Specifically, Judge Shira Scheindlin had ordered a halt to "trespass" stops outside private Bronx apartment buildings, in which police stopped people simply because the buildings were located in high-crime neighborhoods. Instead, police were to act only on "reasonable suspicion." The city asked Scheindlin to halt enforcement of her ruling because its inconsistence with NYPD training practices would make it confusing and difficult to implement, Bloomberg reports.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
NYPD Can 'Stop and Frisk' for a Few More Months is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 33 comments
Jan 26, 2013 12:04 PM CST
"Instead, police were to act only on "reasonable suspicion." This latest act or judge's ruling is also facially void and unconstitutional. The facially unconstitutional and void NYS Criminal Procedure Law Section 140.50's language must not lend itself to arbitrary enforcement at an officer's discretion. Furthermore, Any doubts raised in a challenge asserting that a law is in violation of the due process clause should be resolved in the citizen's favor and against the State. Reaves v. State, U.S.C.A. Constitutional Amendment 14.
Jan 24, 2013 11:28 AM CST
Any newly created State or City Law enacted or enforced by the City or any newly created Case law created by a judge or justice shall not preempt the US Constitution, including but not limited to, NYS Criminal Procedure Law Section 140.50, and the United States Supreme Court case law, Terry v. Ohio. The US Constitution, Amendment XIV (1868) requires, in pertinent parts, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." NYS and the NYC Police Department are in direct violation of the US Constitution on its face. NYS Stop, Frisk, Search and Arrest Program is an unconstitutional police practice on its face. Each and every stop, frisk, search and arrest by the cops deliberately departs from the essential requirements of the State and federal constitutions, and the City is liable to its citizens for any damages suffered.
Jan 24, 2013 7:49 AM CST
It's not "racial profiling". It's criminal profiling and you go where there are the most criminals. If these minorities are so outraged, then the police should pull out of these areas and protect decent, productive, law-abiding areas. If the minorities want this to stop then do something to correct the situation: learn values, get educated, be decent.