Second Circuit denied NYC’s request to vacate stop & frisk order

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals today denied New York City’s request to throw out a federal judge’s ruling on its stop and frisk policing practices without hearing arguments on the merits of the case. 

The decision by the three-judge panel – John M. Walker, Jr., José A. Cabranes, and Barrington D. Parker – means that oral arguments in Floyd v. City of New York will be heard sometime after mid-March of next year.

Read more: NY Attorney General report questions efficacy of stop & frisk policy

“Following the appellate panel’s shocking decision to remove the district court judge from our case, the City sought to double down and ask that the entirety of the judge’s decision be vacated without further briefing on its merits. The appellate panel has correctly rejected this request and will allow full briefing on the appeal to move forward as scheduled,” according to a statement released by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a non-profit legal organization that represented the plaintiffs in the Floyd class action lawsuit.

CCR also called on incoming Democratic Mayor Bill De Blasio, who ran an anti-Bloomberg campaign, to drop the appeal and move forward with reforming NYPD’s stop and frisk practices.

“We hope Mayor De Blasio will drop the City’s desperate appeal to undo the district court’s carefully considered ruling and work with plaintiffs and the community to enforce every aspect of the remedial order. He has an extraordinary opportunity to use the expertise of a court monitor and policing experts to end discriminatory policing in NYC,” CCR stated.

In its online petition, CCR characterized the city’s appeal in the Floyd case as “an eleventh-hour attempt by the outgoing New York City Mayor and the NYPD Police Commissioner to thwart a decades-long struggle by activists, grassroots and legal organizations, and affected communities to end discriminatory policing and bring accountability to the Department.”

In August, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that New York City’s stop and frisk practice was unconstitutional because police officers were stopping individuals on the basis of race, particularly blacks and Hispanics, thereby violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Scheindlin also appointed an independent court monitor to oversee reforms of NYPD’s stop and frisk practices. Some of the immediate reforms Scheindlin ordered include changes to NYPD’s training to prevent racial profiling and improving documentations of stop and frisk encounters to include the badge numbers of the officers and explanations for why an individual was stopped.

New York City appealed Scheindlin’s decision to the Second Circuit, which ordered in late October to stay – or suspend – the remedy process pending the appeal and removed Scheindlin from the case, replacing her with Judge Analisa Torres, even though the city did not request her removal.

Both New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have insisted that stop and frisk is necessary to prevent violent crimes and maintained that NYPD does not engage in racial profiling.

A recent report by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman found that only 6% of the 2.4 million stops and frisks resulted in an arrest and less than 3% of the stops yielded a criminal conviction or violation, which raises questions about the efficacy of stop and frisk.


Learn More:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.