Pages

Monday, August 12, 2013

US judge orders monitor for New York police

A US judge has appointed a monitor to oversee the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-search policy, saying it intentionally discriminates based on race and has violated the rights of tens of thousands of people.

The judge on Monday ruled in favor of four men who said they were unfairly targeted. Police have made about 5 million stops over the past decade, mostly of black and Hispanic men.

The practice has become "a fact of daily life in some New York City neighborhoods," US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin said in a ruling.

She said she was not putting an end to the policy but was reforming it.

The mayor and police commissioner have defended the practice- known as stop, question and frisk - as a life-saving tool. City lawyers have argued the policedepartment does a good job monitoring itself.

The practice has led to protests and warnings that it is creating resentment and anger.

Scheindlin said police officials had been warned in past years of violations, but "despite this notice, they deliberately maintained and even escalated policies and practices that predictably resulted in even more widespread ... violations."

The ruling on the nation's largest police department may affect how other US police departments operate, legal experts said.

The city had no immediate response to the ruling.

The judge said she determined at least 200,000 stops were made without reasonable suspicion.

"The city and its highest officials believe that blacks and Hispanics should be stopped at the same rate as their proportion of the local criminal suspect population," Scheindlin wrote. "But this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent - not criminal."

2 comments:

  1. AMENDMENT IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Any violation of this Amendment in whole or in part is a crime and according to Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court ruled that any law that violates the Constitution is automatically void.
    And under John Bad Elk vs United States, any citizen has a right to resist with lethal force any violation of their civil rights by the application of unconstitutional laws.

    NOW WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

    ReplyDelete
  2. In case you still don’t get it, the police, the judges, the politicians and any and all people that approve/support any form of search without a warrant are breaking CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! There is ZERO excuse for this type of behavior. Not even the “Boston Bombing” was an excuse for groundless searches!

    You must be in the process of being arrested in order to be searched, meaning that you need to have already committed a crime. The judge’s decision is a misnomer. There should be no decision. Anyone with an average intelligence can read the Constitution for themselves and the attempt to interpret or make “decisions” on the meanings of the Amendments is a façade on top of a façade. You are all being deceived and the police are the ones caught in the middle.
    There is only one way to stop unconstitutional behavior. The jury must ignore the liars and vote as the founding fathers would have voted, and then compensate the victims of these crimes, regardless of what the judges or politicians or their fairy godmothers have to say.

    ReplyDelete