fuckyeahmarxismleninism

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said Thursday he had no intention of ending the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy.

Asked by co-host Norah O’Donnell on “CBS This Morning” if he will halt stop-and-frisk, Bratton responded, “Not at all.”

The police commissioner went on to say, as he has before, that he wants to use it appropriately and explain to people why they are being stopped.

Bratton noted that Mayor Bill de Blasio “didn’t campaign against stop-and-frisk, he campaigned on reforming it.”

NYPD must ditch discriminatory Muslim surveillance: Profiling is unconstitutional and counterproductiveNovember 3, 2013
Twice in the course of the last month, the New York City Police Department has been forced to defend its Muslim surveillance program in court. Police documents show that at least since 2003, the NYPD’s Intelligence Division intensively monitored the daily lives of law-abiding American Muslims in the city and surrounding areas. The department’s argument that there is no such program — it simply follow leads and goes where they take it — flies in the face of this publicly available evidence. And its refusal to acknowledge that Muslims may have legitimate concerns about surveillance will likely take the NYPD down the same unproductive path it followed with its stop-and-frisk program.
New York’s police force has long been criticized for its policy of stopping and searching people based on race rather than on suspicion of criminal activity. But instead of taking these complaints seriously, the police only ramped up the program. From 2002 to 2011, the number of stops by the NYPD increased some 600 percent; nearly nine of 10 people stopped were innocent of any wrongdoing. After a series of lawsuits, in August of this year a federal court found that the stop-and-frisk program amounted to an unconstitutional pattern and practice of racial profiling.
It is now well documented that the NYPD’s Demographics Unit secretly mapped Muslim communities. It created lists of bookshops, kebab houses, hookah bars and food stores frequented by Muslims, and it kept notes on the mundane conversations that officers overheard there. The NYPD also sent informants into mosques to eavesdrop on sermons and conversations among worshippers. It apparently wanted to gauge reactions to world and local events, such as the 2006 protests in parts of the Arab world about Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad and the small plane that accidentally crashed into a Manhattan building the same year. The result of this snooping: nothing. Yet all the chatter was dutifully logged.
So how does the NYPD defend these actions?
To a degree, the department has relied on the same losing strategy it deployed in the stop-and-frisk litigation. Faced with statistics showing that in the past decade 86 percent of people stopped by police were black or Latino, the NYPD argued that this proportion was only to be expected, because these groups committed the most crimes. But a federal court rejected this argument. “Rather than being a defense against the charge of racial profiling, however, this reasoning is a defense of racial profiling,” the judge wrote. In court hearings on the Muslim surveillance program, city lawyers have said that snooping on Muslims is only to be expected, because Muslims staged terrorist attacks in New York.
The NYPD simply refuses to understand that targeting all members of a religious group just because some among them have committed terrible crimes is the essence of unconstitutional profiling. In this, the department has the full backing of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
When it comes to spying inside mosques, the NYPD says it is following the Handschu Guidelines. These were part of the settlement of a lawsuit over the NYPD’s 1970s-era spying on political groups. After the 9/11 attacks, the rules were loosened to allow the police to attend First Amendment-protected gatherings, such as demonstrations and religious services. But attendance is one thing, using undercover informants masquerading as devout Muslims is another. For that sort of involvement, the NYPD concedes that it needs some indication of criminality.
Full article

NYPD must ditch discriminatory Muslim surveillance: Profiling is unconstitutional and counterproductive
November 3, 2013

Twice in the course of the last month, the New York City Police Department has been forced to defend its Muslim surveillance program in court. Police documents show that at least since 2003, the NYPD’s Intelligence Division intensively monitored the daily lives of law-abiding American Muslims in the city and surrounding areas. The department’s argument that there is no such program — it simply follow leads and goes where they take it — flies in the face of this publicly available evidence. And its refusal to acknowledge that Muslims may have legitimate concerns about surveillance will likely take the NYPD down the same unproductive path it followed with its stop-and-frisk program.

New York’s police force has long been criticized for its policy of stopping and searching people based on race rather than on suspicion of criminal activity. But instead of taking these complaints seriously, the police only ramped up the program. From 2002 to 2011, the number of stops by the NYPD increased some 600 percent; nearly nine of 10 people stopped were innocent of any wrongdoing. After a series of lawsuits, in August of this year a federal court found that the stop-and-frisk program amounted to an unconstitutional pattern and practice of racial profiling.

It is now well documented that the NYPD’s Demographics Unit secretly mapped Muslim communities. It created lists of bookshops, kebab houses, hookah bars and food stores frequented by Muslims, and it kept notes on the mundane conversations that officers overheard there. The NYPD also sent informants into mosques to eavesdrop on sermons and conversations among worshippers. It apparently wanted to gauge reactions to world and local events, such as the 2006 protests in parts of the Arab world about Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad and the small plane that accidentally crashed into a Manhattan building the same year. The result of this snooping: nothing. Yet all the chatter was dutifully logged.

So how does the NYPD defend these actions?

To a degree, the department has relied on the same losing strategy it deployed in the stop-and-frisk litigation. Faced with statistics showing that in the past decade 86 percent of people stopped by police were black or Latino, the NYPD argued that this proportion was only to be expected, because these groups committed the most crimes. But a federal court rejected this argument. “Rather than being a defense against the charge of racial profiling, however, this reasoning is a defense of racial profiling,” the judge wrote. In court hearings on the Muslim surveillance program, city lawyers have said that snooping on Muslims is only to be expected, because Muslims staged terrorist attacks in New York.

The NYPD simply refuses to understand that targeting all members of a religious group just because some among them have committed terrible crimes is the essence of unconstitutional profiling. In this, the department has the full backing of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

When it comes to spying inside mosques, the NYPD says it is following the Handschu Guidelines. These were part of the settlement of a lawsuit over the NYPD’s 1970s-era spying on political groups. After the 9/11 attacks, the rules were loosened to allow the police to attend First Amendment-protected gatherings, such as demonstrations and religious services. But attendance is one thing, using undercover informants masquerading as devout Muslims is another. For that sort of involvement, the NYPD concedes that it needs some indication of criminality.

Full article

Court blocks NYPD Stop & Frisk reforms, removes judge who found program unconstitutionalNovember 1, 2013
A sweeping set of changes to the New York City Police Department’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” program has been put on hold. In August, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin found the program unconstitutional, saying police had relied on a “policy of indirect racial profiling” that led officers to routinely stop “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.” 
While she did not halt the use of stop-and-frisk, Scheindlin appointed a federal court monitor to oversee a series of reforms. The city appealed Scheindlin’s ruling, saying it made officers “passive and scared” to frisk suspects. On Thursday, it got what it was hoping for, and much more. 
An appeals court stayed the changes, effectively postponing the operations of the monitor, while allowing police officers to continue using stop-and-frisk tactics. 
In a striking move, the court also took the unusual step of removing Scheindlin from the case, saying she “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct and compromised the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation” by granting media interviews while the case was pending before her. 
All of this comes as stop-and-frisk has been a major issue in New York City’s mayoral election, which takes place this Tuesday. 
"The next mayor should consider withdrawing the appeal," says Sunita Patel, co-counsel on the stop-and-frisk federal class action lawsuit and a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Any fair-minded and neutral judge to look at the record … will come up with the same conclusion. There was a nine-week trial. There is 23,000 pages of evidence here, 8,000 pages of trial transcript. No one could come to a different conclusion than Judge Scheindlin."
Source

Court blocks NYPD Stop & Frisk reforms, removes judge who found program unconstitutional
November 1, 2013

A sweeping set of changes to the New York City Police Department’s controversial “stop-and-frisk” program has been put on hold. In August, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin found the program unconstitutional, saying police had relied on a “policy of indirect racial profiling” that led officers to routinely stop “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”

While she did not halt the use of stop-and-frisk, Scheindlin appointed a federal court monitor to oversee a series of reforms. The city appealed Scheindlin’s ruling, saying it made officers “passive and scared” to frisk suspects. On Thursday, it got what it was hoping for, and much more.

An appeals court stayed the changes, effectively postponing the operations of the monitor, while allowing police officers to continue using stop-and-frisk tactics.

In a striking move, the court also took the unusual step of removing Scheindlin from the case, saying she “ran afoul” of the judiciary’s code of conduct and compromised the “appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation” by granting media interviews while the case was pending before her.

All of this comes as stop-and-frisk has been a major issue in New York City’s mayoral election, which takes place this Tuesday.

"The next mayor should consider withdrawing the appeal," says Sunita Patel, co-counsel on the stop-and-frisk federal class action lawsuit and a staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Any fair-minded and neutral judge to look at the record … will come up with the same conclusion. There was a nine-week trial. There is 23,000 pages of evidence here, 8,000 pages of trial transcript. No one could come to a different conclusion than Judge Scheindlin."

Source

NYC City Council overturns Bloomberg’s veto on Stop & FriskAugust 22, 2013
The New York City Council has voted to affirm legislation previously vetoed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that seeks to ban discriminatory profiling within the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program and establishes oversight over of the department.
The Community Safety Act includes two pieces of legislation. The End Discriminatory Profiling Act, passed by a vote of 34-15, establishes an enforceable ban on profiling and discrimination by the NYPD and broadens the categories of communities protected to include age, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability, and housing status, in addition to race, ethnicity, religion, and national origin. The NYPD Oversight Act, passed by a margin of 39-10, puts department oversight responsibility on the Commissioner of the Department of Investigation. The NYPD does not currently have an inspector general. The override of the program vociferously defended by Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly comes ten days after it was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge. Judge Schira Scheindlin ruled on August 12 that the “stop, question and frisk” program instituted in by the NYPD in 2002 is unlawful, agreeing with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil liberty groups that the program has clearly and wrongfully targeted racial minorities. As a result, a federal monitor will be assigned to oversee departmental policies. 
Source

NYC City Council overturns Bloomberg’s veto on Stop & Frisk
August 22, 2013

The New York City Council has voted to affirm legislation previously vetoed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that seeks to ban discriminatory profiling within the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program and establishes oversight over of the department.

The Community Safety Act includes two pieces of legislation. The End Discriminatory Profiling Act, passed by a vote of 34-15, establishes an enforceable ban on profiling and discrimination by the NYPD and broadens the categories of communities protected to include age, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability, and housing status, in addition to race, ethnicity, religion, and national origin. 

The NYPD Oversight Act, passed by a margin of 39-10, puts department oversight responsibility on the Commissioner of the Department of Investigation. The NYPD does not currently have an inspector general. 

The override of the program vociferously defended by Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly comes ten days after it was deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge. 

Judge Schira Scheindlin ruled on August 12 that the “stop, question and frisk” program instituted in by the NYPD in 2002 is unlawful, agreeing with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil liberty groups that the program has clearly and wrongfully targeted racial minorities. As a result, a federal monitor will be assigned to oversee departmental policies. 

Source

A judge ruled Stop & Frisk to be unconstitutional & racist - but will the racial profiling practice stop?August 17, 2013
A federal judge‘s ruling has finally affirmed what activists in New York City have been saying for years: The New York City Police Department (NYPD) policy of “stop-and-frisk” is legalized racial profiling and harassment. The long-awaited decision came in response to a lawsuit by eight plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk. But more fundamentally, it was the product of an activist movement that has for years highlighted the racist implications of this policy. The longstanding campaign to stop “stop-and-frisk” gained new momentum in the aftermath of high profile cases of police brutality and murder.
In February of 2012, unarmed African American teenager Ramarley Graham was gunned down in his bathroom by NYPD officers claiming they saw a gun in the waistband of his pants. This case helped to mobilize thousands of New Yorkers to take to the streets more than a year ago to oppose the policy. The murder of Trayvon Martin just days after Ramarley’s death sparked a national discussion about the perils of racial profiling and the impact on young African-American men. All of this contributed to an atmosphere where stop-and-frisk could no longer go unchallenged.
According to a report by the Center for Constitutional Rights, between 2004 and 2012, more than 4 million people were stopped, and in less than 6 percent of those stops was an arrest made. More than 80 percent of those 4 million people were African American or Latino, raising the cry from those communities that stop-and-frisk was officially sanctioned racial profiling.
In her verdict Monday, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin concurred, zeroing in on the racial discrimination at the core of the stop-and-frisk policy. She wrote, “Blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white… Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites…[and Blacks and Latinos] were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.”
Yet even though the verdict left no question that the policy consisted of racially motivated stops, the judge did not halt the practice. Instead, she ruled that the NYPD will be subjected to federal oversight and must institute reforms such as using body cameras to monitor of officers’ engagements with the general public.
Given the attitudes of the police department, city leaders and the federal government, these measures are likely to be insufficient. For one, neither New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg nor his Police Commissioner Ray Kelly can be trusted to reform a policy that they continue to champion. The overwhelming evidence of racial profiling at the heart of stop-and-frisk did not stop Bloomberg and Kelly from angrily denouncing the ruling and declaring the city’s intent to appeal the decision. In doing so, they continued to deny the problem.
Ray Kelly claimed that charges of racial profiling were “recklessly untrue.” Yet evidence at the trial suggested that he himself thought stop-and-frisk should target communities of color. New York state Sen. Eric Adams testified that he heard Kelly say that stop-and-frisk should “instill fear in them, every time they leave their home, [that] they could be stopped by the police.” According to Adams, the “them” were Blacks and Latinos.
Kelly’s dismissal also ignores an avalanche of evidence from police themselves that race was a central factor. A high-ranking officer implied during the trial that stop-and-frisk tactics were directed at young Black and Latino men, testifying, “Well, who is doing those shootings? Well, it’s young men of color in their late teens, early 20s.”
To be sure, Judge Scheindlin has required that a federal monitor be charged with overseeing the NYPD’s compliance with her order, but why would the federal government be trusted to vigorously regulate and monitor the practices of the NYPD? Last July, Obama shocked many activists when he lavishly praised Ray Kelly as a potential head of Homeland Security. Obama’s fawning descriptions of Ray Kelly as “outstanding” and “very well qualified” raise questions about the ability or willingness of the Department of Justice to rein in the NYPD’s racist practices.
But there is a larger problem. Much of police work in the United States is based on racial profiling, whether police departments refer to it as a policy or whether it is simply everyday practice. For example, when the New York Post and New York Daily News quote hysterical claims that New York City will turn into Chicago without stop-and-frisk, they are ignoring that the Chicago Police Department already engages in stop-and-frisk tactics. In Chicago the police refer to them as “Investigatory Street Stops,” during which the police may stop any individual they believe “is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime.”
This policy also allows the police to enter the personal data of whomever they have stopped into a database for up to one year regardless of whether or not the person stopped committed a crime or was a arrested. As Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy put it, “Stop-and-frisk is a tactic that every department in the country uses because we have to stop people when we’re going to arrest them. We have to frisk them if we’re in fear of a weapon.” But in Chicago, just as in New York, the pretext for stops are just as vague and open-ended.
As cities have becoming increasingly inhospitable to poor and working class Black and Latino communities, the police have been used to reinforce the boundary between distressed neighborhoods and the gentrified and economically vibrant areas where they are perceived not to belong. It was no coincidence that Judge Scheindlin commented in her ruling that one of the effects of stop-and-frisk to make Blacks and Latinos “feel unwelcome in some parts of the city.”
In many of these economically marginalized communities, public officials have come to rely on aggressive policing as the only public policy response to the social crises that have erupted as a result of chronic unemployment and growing poverty. Meanwhile, the mass closing of public schools, public clinics and hospitals, along with a range of other budget cuts that have reduced the public sector to a hollow shadow of itself, are undoing the very public programs that were intended to mitigate or undo the effects of poverty and, presumably, the crime that often comes along with it. Instead, in cities like Chicago, more policing has become the alternative. Despite falling crime statistics across the nation, police forces have become more militarized and aggressive and “proactive policing”—a term Ray Kelly uses for stop-and-frisk—is a central component of this.
And because the communities disproportionately impacted by joblessness and poverty are communities of color, they are targeted by the police.  This targeting is evidenced, in part, by overwhelmingly disproportionate arrests and imprisonment for drug use.  Even though African Americans account for 12 percent of drug users, they account for 38 percent of drug arrests and account for 59 percent of persons serving time in state prison for drug offenses. 
We should applaud the court’s recognition that the NYPD’s policing targets Blacks and Latinos unfairly, but we should not be under the illusion that this insight (long obvious to the communities suffering from racialized policing) will somehow end the routine ways in which police target communities of color.
Source

A judge ruled Stop & Frisk to be unconstitutional & racist - but will the racial profiling practice stop?
August 17, 2013

A federal judge‘s ruling has finally affirmed what activists in New York City have been saying for years: The New York City Police Department (NYPD) policy of “stop-and-frisk” is legalized racial profiling and harassment. The long-awaited decision came in response to a lawsuit by eight plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk. But more fundamentally, it was the product of an activist movement that has for years highlighted the racist implications of this policy. The longstanding campaign to stop “stop-and-frisk” gained new momentum in the aftermath of high profile cases of police brutality and murder.

In February of 2012, unarmed African American teenager Ramarley Graham was gunned down in his bathroom by NYPD officers claiming they saw a gun in the waistband of his pants. This case helped to mobilize thousands of New Yorkers to take to the streets more than a year ago to oppose the policy. The murder of Trayvon Martin just days after Ramarley’s death sparked a national discussion about the perils of racial profiling and the impact on young African-American men. All of this contributed to an atmosphere where stop-and-frisk could no longer go unchallenged.

According to a report by the Center for Constitutional Rights, between 2004 and 2012, more than 4 million people were stopped, and in less than 6 percent of those stops was an arrest made. More than 80 percent of those 4 million people were African American or Latino, raising the cry from those communities that stop-and-frisk was officially sanctioned racial profiling.

In her verdict Monday, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin concurred, zeroing in on the racial discrimination at the core of the stop-and-frisk policy. She wrote, “Blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white… Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites…[and Blacks and Latinos] were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband.”

Yet even though the verdict left no question that the policy consisted of racially motivated stops, the judge did not halt the practice. Instead, she ruled that the NYPD will be subjected to federal oversight and must institute reforms such as using body cameras to monitor of officers’ engagements with the general public.

Given the attitudes of the police department, city leaders and the federal government, these measures are likely to be insufficient. For one, neither New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg nor his Police Commissioner Ray Kelly can be trusted to reform a policy that they continue to champion. The overwhelming evidence of racial profiling at the heart of stop-and-frisk did not stop Bloomberg and Kelly from angrily denouncing the ruling and declaring the city’s intent to appeal the decision. In doing so, they continued to deny the problem.

Ray Kelly claimed that charges of racial profiling were “recklessly untrue.” Yet evidence at the trial suggested that he himself thought stop-and-frisk should target communities of color. New York state Sen. Eric Adams testified that he heard Kelly say that stop-and-frisk should “instill fear in them, every time they leave their home, [that] they could be stopped by the police.” According to Adams, the “them” were Blacks and Latinos.

Kelly’s dismissal also ignores an avalanche of evidence from police themselves that race was a central factor. A high-ranking officer implied during the trial that stop-and-frisk tactics were directed at young Black and Latino men, testifying, “Well, who is doing those shootings? Well, it’s young men of color in their late teens, early 20s.”

To be sure, Judge Scheindlin has required that a federal monitor be charged with overseeing the NYPD’s compliance with her order, but why would the federal government be trusted to vigorously regulate and monitor the practices of the NYPD? Last July, Obama shocked many activists when he lavishly praised Ray Kelly as a potential head of Homeland Security. Obama’s fawning descriptions of Ray Kelly as “outstanding” and “very well qualified” raise questions about the ability or willingness of the Department of Justice to rein in the NYPD’s racist practices.

But there is a larger problem. Much of police work in the United States is based on racial profiling, whether police departments refer to it as a policy or whether it is simply everyday practice. For example, when the New York Post and New York Daily News quote hysterical claims that New York City will turn into Chicago without stop-and-frisk, they are ignoring that the Chicago Police Department already engages in stop-and-frisk tactics. In Chicago the police refer to them as “Investigatory Street Stops,” during which the police may stop any individual they believe “is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime.”

This policy also allows the police to enter the personal data of whomever they have stopped into a database for up to one year regardless of whether or not the person stopped committed a crime or was a arrested. As Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy put it, “Stop-and-frisk is a tactic that every department in the country uses because we have to stop people when we’re going to arrest them. We have to frisk them if we’re in fear of a weapon.” But in Chicago, just as in New York, the pretext for stops are just as vague and open-ended.

As cities have becoming increasingly inhospitable to poor and working class Black and Latino communities, the police have been used to reinforce the boundary between distressed neighborhoods and the gentrified and economically vibrant areas where they are perceived not to belong. It was no coincidence that Judge Scheindlin commented in her ruling that one of the effects of stop-and-frisk to make Blacks and Latinos “feel unwelcome in some parts of the city.”

In many of these economically marginalized communities, public officials have come to rely on aggressive policing as the only public policy response to the social crises that have erupted as a result of chronic unemployment and growing poverty. Meanwhile, the mass closing of public schools, public clinics and hospitals, along with a range of other budget cuts that have reduced the public sector to a hollow shadow of itself, are undoing the very public programs that were intended to mitigate or undo the effects of poverty and, presumably, the crime that often comes along with it. Instead, in cities like Chicago, more policing has become the alternative. Despite falling crime statistics across the nation, police forces have become more militarized and aggressive and “proactive policing”—a term Ray Kelly uses for stop-and-frisk—is a central component of this.

And because the communities disproportionately impacted by joblessness and poverty are communities of color, they are targeted by the police.  This targeting is evidenced, in part, by overwhelmingly disproportionate arrests and imprisonment for drug use.  Even though African Americans account for 12 percent of drug users, they account for 38 percent of drug arrests and account for 59 percent of persons serving time in state prison for drug offenses. 

We should applaud the court’s recognition that the NYPD’s policing targets Blacks and Latinos unfairly, but we should not be under the illusion that this insight (long obvious to the communities suffering from racialized policing) will somehow end the routine ways in which police target communities of color.

Source

Judge rules NYPD Stop & Frisk unconstitutional, appoints federal monitorAugust 12, 2013
A federal judge in New York City ruled today that the police department’s policy of stopping, frisking and questioning people on the street is unconstitutional. Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) tactic known as stop and frisk has violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Scheindlin’s ruling said that NYPD employees have systematically stopped innocent people on the street. Scheindlin has also announced that an outside lawyer will be designated to oversee reforms aimed at making sure the police comply with the Constitution. The judge said that the city had adopted a policy of racial profiling, and that officers had deemed innocent behavior as suspicious too often.
The ruling is the conclusion of a two-month long federal trial on the city’s stop and frisk policy, which disproportionately impacts young Black and Latino men. The lawsuit, known as Floyd v. City of New York, was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Stop and frisk has become a hot-button issue in New York City, and is a major point of debate in the city’s mayoral race. The Bloomberg administration has overseen a rise in the number of stop and frisks to much criticism. 90 percent of those stopped and frisked are minorities, while nearly 9 out of ten of those stopped are innocent.
Source
This is also just a reminder that President Obama thinks Ray Kelly, the mastermind behind Stop & Frisk & NYPD commissioner, is “well-qualified” to run the Department of Homeland Security. 
Kelly had this to say about the NYPD & the judge’s ruling today: “What I find most disturbing and offensive about this decision is the notion that the NYPD engages in racial profiling. That simply is recklessly untrue. We do not engage in racial profiling, it is prohibited by law, it is prohibited by our own regulations. We train our officers that they need reasonable suspicion to make a stop, and I can assure you that race is never a reason to conduct a stop. The NYPD is the most racially and ethnically diverse police department in the world.”
According to the NYCLU: 
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times.
473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).
284,229 were black (55 percent).
165,140 were Latino (32 percent).
50,366 were white (10 percent).

Judge rules NYPD Stop & Frisk unconstitutional, appoints federal monitor
August 12, 2013

A federal judge in New York City ruled today that the police department’s policy of stopping, frisking and questioning people on the street is unconstitutional. Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) tactic known as stop and frisk has violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Scheindlin’s ruling said that NYPD employees have systematically stopped innocent people on the street. Scheindlin has also announced that an outside lawyer will be designated to oversee reforms aimed at making sure the police comply with the Constitution. The judge said that the city had adopted a policy of racial profiling, and that officers had deemed innocent behavior as suspicious too often.

The ruling is the conclusion of a two-month long federal trial on the city’s stop and frisk policy, which disproportionately impacts young Black and Latino men. The lawsuit, known as Floyd v. City of New York, was brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Stop and frisk has become a hot-button issue in New York City, and is a major point of debate in the city’s mayoral race. The Bloomberg administration has overseen a rise in the number of stop and frisks to much criticism. 90 percent of those stopped and frisked are minorities, while nearly 9 out of ten of those stopped are innocent.

Source

This is also just a reminder that President Obama thinks Ray Kelly, the mastermind behind Stop & Frisk & NYPD commissioner, is “well-qualified” to run the Department of Homeland Security. 

Kelly had this to say about the NYPD & the judge’s ruling today: “What I find most disturbing and offensive about this decision is the notion that the NYPD engages in racial profiling. That simply is recklessly untrue. We do not engage in racial profiling, it is prohibited by law, it is prohibited by our own regulations. We train our officers that they need reasonable suspicion to make a stop, and I can assure you that race is never a reason to conduct a stop. The NYPD is the most racially and ethnically diverse police department in the world.”


According to the NYCLU

  • In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times.
  • 473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).
  • 284,229 were black (55 percent).
  • 165,140 were Latino (32 percent).
  • 50,366 were white (10 percent).
Hey, New York City friends: You’re going to want to download NYCLU’s Stop & Frisk app
Stop and Frisk Watch” is a free and innovative smart phone application that empowers New Yorkers to monitor police activity and hold the NYPD accountable for unlawful stop-and-frisk encounters and other police misconduct.
The app is available in English on both Android andiPhone devices and Spanish in the Android version, thanks to a translation by Make the Road New York. Stop and Frisk Watch allows bystanders to fully document stop-and-frisk encounters and alert community members when a street stop is in progress.
It has three primary functions:
RECORD: This allows the user to film an incident with audio by simply pushing a trigger on the phone’s frame. Shaking the phone stops the filming. When filming stops, the user immediately receives a brief survey allowing them to provide details about the incident. The video and survey will go to the NYCLU, which will use the information to shed light on the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices and hold the Department accountable for its actions.
LISTEN: This function alerts the user when people in their vicinity are being stopped by the police. When other app users in the area trigger Stop and Frisk Watch, the user receives a message reporting where the police stop is happening. This feature is especially useful for community groups who monitor police activity.
REPORT: This prompts the survey, allowing users to report a police interaction they saw or experienced, even if they didn’t film it.
The app includes a “Know Your Rights” section that instructs people about their rights when confronted by police and their right to film police activity in public. Stop and Frisk Watch is intended for use by people witnessing a police encounter, not by individuals who are the subject of a police stop.
To uninstall be sure to uncheck “Lock Screen on Trigger” under the app’s “My Settings” tab. You will then be able to uninstall by accessing your phone’s application settings.
The NYCLU developed Stop and Frisk Watch with Jason Van Anden, a Brooklyn-based visual artist and software developer who previously developed the Occupy Wall Street app, “I’m Getting Arrested.”
You can download it for your iPhone or Android here.

Hey, New York City friends: You’re going to want to download NYCLU’s Stop & Frisk app

Stop and Frisk Watch” is a free and innovative smart phone application that empowers New Yorkers to monitor police activity and hold the NYPD accountable for unlawful stop-and-frisk encounters and other police misconduct.

The app is available in English on both Android andiPhone devices and Spanish in the Android version, thanks to a translation by Make the Road New York. Stop and Frisk Watch allows bystanders to fully document stop-and-frisk encounters and alert community members when a street stop is in progress.

It has three primary functions:

  • RECORD: This allows the user to film an incident with audio by simply pushing a trigger on the phone’s frame. Shaking the phone stops the filming. When filming stops, the user immediately receives a brief survey allowing them to provide details about the incident. The video and survey will go to the NYCLU, which will use the information to shed light on the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices and hold the Department accountable for its actions.
  • LISTEN: This function alerts the user when people in their vicinity are being stopped by the police. When other app users in the area trigger Stop and Frisk Watch, the user receives a message reporting where the police stop is happening. This feature is especially useful for community groups who monitor police activity.
  • REPORT: This prompts the survey, allowing users to report a police interaction they saw or experienced, even if they didn’t film it.

The app includes a “Know Your Rights” section that instructs people about their rights when confronted by police and their right to film police activity in public. Stop and Frisk Watch is intended for use by people witnessing a police encounter, not by individuals who are the subject of a police stop.

To uninstall be sure to uncheck “Lock Screen on Trigger” under the app’s “My Settings” tab. You will then be able to uninstall by accessing your phone’s application settings.

The NYCLU developed Stop and Frisk Watch with Jason Van Anden, a Brooklyn-based visual artist and software developer who previously developed the Occupy Wall Street app, “I’m Getting Arrested.”

You can download it for your iPhone or Android here.

I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they’re saying. I don’t know where they went to school, but they certainly didn’t take a math course. Or a logic course.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg on NYPD’s Stop & Frisk program.

LOL, okay. Some stats:

  • From 2002 to 2011, black and Latino residents made up close to 90 percent of people stopped.
  • About 88 percent of stops – more than 3.8 million – were of innocent New Yorkers.
  • Even in neighborhoods that are predominantly white, black and Latino New Yorkers face the disproportionate brunt. For example, in 2011, Black and Latino New Yorkers made up 24 percent of the population in Park Slope, but 79 percent of stops.
  • In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
    - 473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent). 
    - 284,229 were black (55 percent).
    - 165,140 were Latino (32 percent). 
    - 50,366 were white (10 percent).

via NYCLU

93% of detained youth are black: New Orleans police chief says curfew enforcement isn’t racially biasedMarch 29, 2013
New Orleans Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas says his city’s curfew policies are put in place because children “are less likely to get hurt or hurt someone else” if they are at home during the nighttime. But youth advocates are arguing curfew enforcement disproportionately targets poor, African-American youth.
Serpas denies his officers engage in profiling youths when they enforce curfew laws but data analyzed by The Times-Picayune found that in 2011, 93 percent of youths detained at the city’s curfew center were black. (New Orleans is 33 percent white & 60 percent black.)
A 2000 study of New Orleans’ curfew law concluded that it did not deter crime. The Times-Picayune summarizes the report:

[The study called] “Do Juvenile Curfew Laws Work? A Time-Series Analysis of the New Orleans Law” found that the city’s ordinance was ineffective because it didn’t cover older adolescents and young adults, who often perpetrate crime; and it excluded what are called the “afterschool hours,” when minors are most likely to commit offenses.

Source
In other news about cops targeting black youth, Floyd v. City of New York began this week, a landmark class action suit over NYPD’s Stop & Frisk tactic run on a racially-based arrest quota system. 
5 million people have been stopped by NYPD’s Stop & Frisk. 4.3 million were black or Latino. 

93% of detained youth are black: New Orleans police chief says curfew enforcement isn’t racially biased
March 29, 2013

New Orleans Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas says his city’s curfew policies are put in place because children “are less likely to get hurt or hurt someone else” if they are at home during the nighttime. But youth advocates are arguing curfew enforcement disproportionately targets poor, African-American youth.

Serpas denies his officers engage in profiling youths when they enforce curfew laws but data analyzed by The Times-Picayune found that in 2011, 93 percent of youths detained at the city’s curfew center were black. (New Orleans is 33 percent white & 60 percent black.)

A 2000 study of New Orleans’ curfew law concluded that it did not deter crime. The Times-Picayune summarizes the report:

[The study called] “Do Juvenile Curfew Laws Work? A Time-Series Analysis of the New Orleans Law” found that the city’s ordinance was ineffective because it didn’t cover older adolescents and young adults, who often perpetrate crime; and it excluded what are called the “afterschool hours,” when minors are most likely to commit offenses.

Source

In other news about cops targeting black youth, Floyd v. City of New York began this week, a landmark class action suit over NYPD’s Stop & Frisk tactic run on a racially-based arrest quota system. 

5 million people have been stopped by NYPD’s Stop & Frisk. 4.3 million were black or Latino. 

A year after Ramarley Graham’s murder, a movement against police brutality grows
February 6, 2013

On February 1, 2012, 18-year-old Ramarley Graham was gunned down in his own home by New York City police in front of his grandmother and 6-year-old brother. The unarmed black teenager was killed with a bullet to the chest by officer Richard Haste after police broke into his family’s apartment claiming Graham had a gun.

On Friday, the one year anniversary of Graham’s murder, his family filed a suit against Haste, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and other officers for use of the discriminatory stop-and-frisk tactic and for allegedly covering up evidence from the day their son was murdered.

Unlike many other cases surrounding police violence, Haste faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison on first and second degree murder charges; he is the first NYPD officer to face criminal charges for a fatal shooting since 2007 when three officers were indicted for the murder of Sean Bell, another black victim who was shot 50 times.

Police violence hits communities of color

Graham’s murder is a familiar nightmare to many communities across the United States terrorized by police violence. From Harlem to Oakland, youth are subjected to legalized racial profiling, known as stop-and-frisk, which disproportionately targets 87 percent black and Latino people. Harassment and violence from area police forces have been a reality for communities of color for decades.

But families rarely see justice for their slain loved ones; officers typically receive what amounts to a slap on the wrist with paid leave. One such instance was the murder of black Oakland teenager Alan Blueford, who was shot three times by Oakland police and left dead in the street for four hours in May 2012, weeks before Blueford was set to graduate from high school.

Another was the shooting of Anaheim resident Manuel Diaz in July 2012. During a chase, police shot Diaz once in the leg and another time in the back of his head. Two days later, Anaheim police shot and killed Joel Acevedo during a car chase. Community members were outraged at the killings and demanded justice. According to Orange County DA records, there were 40 shootings by Anaheim police from 2003 to February 2011. Not one officer has been charged.

In New York City, incidents like these without reprimand occur all too often. Last June, NYPD narcotics detective Phillip Atkins shot 23-year-old Shantel Davis in the chest as the unarmed woman held her arms up crying out, “Don’t shoot me.” In September, NYPD officers opened fire and killed 20-year-old Reynaldo Cuevas as his Bronx bodega was being robbed. A month later, Noel Polanco was shot point blank after he was pulled over in his neighborhood in Queens.

The NYPD has led the way in police violence, paying a staggering $550 million to settle 8,882 lawsuits in 2011 alone. At the beginning of this year, a Manhattan Federal Court judge ruled that the tactic of stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional outside private residential buildings. However, shortly after, another judge lifted the ban on stops and searches of “suspicious looking people,” allowing stop-and-frisk to continue until the case goes to trial in March.

Families organize for justice

Families afflicted by police violence have responded by brewing up a social justice movement to put an end to unwarranted searches, frisks and shootings. Communities are organizing, storming courtrooms and police precincts to demand accountability and justice for the brutal acts. Organizations like All Things Harlem, Stop Police Brutality and NYCresistance are developing tactics to counter and prevent these attacks in their neighborhoods.

Activist Joseph “Jazz” Hayden of All Things Harlem has created a network of resistance by documenting police interactions and has been a strong voice against NYPD racial profiling and violence. Although he has directly been targeted by police for filming arrests and harassment in his neighborhood, Hayden continues to share incriminating videos of officers in an attempt to hold police responsible for civil liberties violations.

“Police violence in our black and brown communities isn’t anything new. They have tried to incriminate our youth, but we aren’t backing down,” Hayden said. “We have to continue to fight for our futures.”

Baltimore civil rights activist Reverend Annie Chambers has been a leading anti-police brutality advocate, organizing community members and families ever since her great grandson was murdered near her home in a case of mistaken identity.

“You look outside my window and see police cars at any time of the day,” Chambers said. “I have seen them with their brutality over and over again. Young people are now at the part where they won’t take it anymore.”

And now, family members of the slain are increasingly taking the justice system into their own hands. Ramarley Graham’s parents continue, one year on, to lead marches to police precincts reminiscent of the Civil Rights era, not only in remembrance of their son but for all those who have died at the hands of uniformed officers.

Alan Blueford’s parents have created Justice 4 Alan Blueford and hold weekly meetings to end racial profiling and police violence in the Bay Area.

Their case, and similar ones, are now pushing law enforcement officers into the national discussion about gun control and violence, spurring a new form of resistance by communities and neighborhoods long terrorized by unaccountable police brutality.

- Graciela
for Occupy.com

NYPD to restart ‘stop and frisk’
January 25, 2013

A Manhattan judge said she will allow the NYPD’s “stop-and-frisk” program to go on in the Bronx until she comes up with a solution to prevent police officers from violating the rights of their subjects.

Manhattan federal Judge Shira Sheindlin on Tuesday lifted an order to stop the program after agreeing with city lawyers who argued that ending the stop-and-frisk program would be a burden on the New York Police Department. The lawyers said that if the program were brought to an end in the Bronx, thousands of NYPD officers and their supervisors would have to be retrained to figure out how to halt trespassers outside the borough’s “Clean Halls” buildings without acting unconstitutionally.

The case will go to trial on March 18, but until then, the NYPD will be able to continue using the stop-and-frisk program in the Bronx to prevent suspicious-looking people from trespassing onto the grounds of public housing.

The judge said that if she were to stop the program immediately, then “a certain number of unconstitutional stops are likely to take place that would not have taken place in the absence of a stay,” which could lead to further lawsuits against the NYPD.

“On the other hand, allowing a longstanding unconstitutional practice to persist for a few months while the parties present arguments regarding the appropriate scope of a remedy is quite distinct from allowing such a practice to persist until the competition of a trial,” she said.

The judge initially ordered a halt to the trespass stops outside the Bronx “Clean Halls” on Jan. 8, but will once again allow them until she decides on the measures required to prevent unconstitutional human rights violations ahead of the upcoming trial.

The stop-and-frisk program allows officers of the NYPD to stop and search any person they suspect of criminal activity. Most of the people who were stopped and frisked under the program have been African-American or Hispanic, prompting concerns over racial profiling.

The stop-and-frisk program came under intense scrutiny in mid-2012, when thousands of people marched in opposition to the policy on June 17. Protesters also released a number of videos of police stopping minorities for their activism. Even some NYPD officers have expressed opposition to the program, which they believe encourages their fellow officers to exercise too much power and create heated tensions between them and their subjects.

In 2011, 684,330 people were stopped and questioned by the NYPD, which is a 600 percent increase from the year 2002. Of those stopped in 2011, 87 percent were African American or Latino.

The NYPD has argued that their program reduces crime, but only 12 percent of those stopped in 2011 were found violating the law and received  summons.

Allowing the stop-and-frisk program to continue in the Bronx will subject more New Yorkers to police stops and interrogations, nearly 90 percent of which involve innocent people and 87 percent of which involve African-Americans or Latinos.

Source

WANT TO STOP BEING STOP-AND-FRISKED? STOP BEING BLACK
January 22, 2013 

For the past five months, an anonymous group called “Racism Still Exists” has been posting powerful billboards in bus shelters around Bed-Stuy, with the stated aim of “[illuminating] some of the ways in which racism operates in this country.” Their latest, spotted by photographer Stephanie Keith, is a poster that takes refreshingly direct aim at the NYPD for its racially-biased stop-and-frisk policy.

The tagline, “Don’t want to get stopped by the NYPD? Stop being black,” is both as striking and as true as it could possibly be, and is underscored by a series of statistics: in 2010, 52 percent of the 601,285 stops were of black people (according to the 2000 census, black people make up 26 percent of the city’s population), 98 percent of stops against black people did not yield any contraband, and of the 32,375 black people stopped for having a “suspicious bulge,” only one was found to have a pistol.

In the past, Racism Still Exists (RISE) has used billboards to document the racial disparities surrounding education, the fast food and tobacco industries, home ownership and wealth, and the film industry. Each poster is backed by a smart, thoroughly sourced argument on RISE’s Tumblr.

ColorLines did some looking into the ads, and though they weren’t able to find out who’s behind RISE, they did get some commentary from local activists, many of whom support the project. “Bed-Stuy, and Brooklyn in general, is going through a very profound transformation and we gotta put that in context,” said Kali Akuno of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. “For many of the young yuppies and buppies, they see the police playing a positive role and trying to engage in a race neutral dialouge.

“What the billboard is doing is kinda opening up and exploding this myth that [stop-and-frisk] is taking place in a race neutral light — it’s making people confront it in a very real way.”

Source

Also, please note the upcoming ‘STOP THE COPS’ unity march from Bronx to Harlem event. Please think about attending. It’s going to be huge. 

NYPD Deputy Inspector handcuffs photojournalist & deletes video footage of Stop-and-Frisk detainment
January 18, 2013 

A New York City police officer handcuffed a photojournalist before deleting his footage Wednesday, forcing the photographer to view the NYPD in a new light.

“I’ve always been very pro-cop, never been anti-cop,” Shimon Gifter said in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime Thursday night.

“But if they can do this to a guy who is known to the community and to the cops as being very pro-cop, I would love to see what they would do a guy who is anti-NYPD.”

Gifter, who is based in Brooklyn and shoots for Jewish websites, said he was going about his day when he heard officers calling for back up to an area not far from him.

He quickly arrived on the scene expecting to find chaos, but everything was under control with several cops standing on the corner conversing and one suspect handcuffed in a police van.

So he started talking to people in the neighborhood, trying to figure out what had happened, discovering there was some type of altercation but several suspects had run off.

Meanwhile, four young men came upon the scene and were detained by police, although he didn’t believe they were involved in what had taken place.

But he started shooting video of police talking to them just in case. He was standing about 100 feet away.

“A cop walked up to me and told me not to film them because they are juveniles and I said OK,” he said.

“I usually don’t put stuff out there of juveniles unless they shot or stabbed somebody.”

So Gifter continued recording other parts of the scene, including the man in the police van as well as a police car driving the wrong way down the street.

Then out of nowhere, a sergeant from the 70th Precinct grabbed him from behind, snatched his camera and handcuffed him, forcing him to face a wall while he began scrolling through the camera, deleting all the clips he had recorded.

“He said, ‘you’re under arrest, didn’t the officers tell you to stop filming?’

“I said, yeah, but so what, it’s not illegal and I wasn’t filming the juveniles anyway.’”

Gifter kept trying to look back at what they were doing but the cop kept ordering him to turn away.

However, several witnesses were observing the situation, including when the cop dropped the camera, appearing to have done it on purpose.

After about ten minutes, they removed the handcuffs, returned his camera and sent him on his way.

It wasn’t until later that he realized they probably didn’t want him video recording them making a stop-and-frisk stop, a controversial policy in which a New York judge recently ruled a portion of it unconstitutional.

“I didn’t even know about the ruling, I knew there was some debate.”

He said the stop didn’t appear to be very interesting at the time. It was just some cops jotting down information from the youths.

Gifter, 38, has contacted the precinct’s internal affairs division and was assured the incident would be investigated, but he is not buying it.

“I think they’re lying. I don’t think they’re investigating at all,” he said.

“They didn’t ask for any of the names of the witnesses or anything.”

He said he has at least four witnesses but there were at least 75 people in the area when it took place.

He has somebody who is trying to recover the video. I hope they’re using PhotoRec.

Source

NYPD’s controversial ‘Stop & Frisk’ policy ruled unconstitutionalJanuary 8, 2013
A key part of the NYPD’s controversial “stop and frisk” tactic has been ruled unconstitutional.
Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered police to refrain from making trespass stops outside private residential buildings — even though the landlord has given officers permission to do so as part of the NYPD’s “Clean Halls” program.
"While it may be difficult to say when precisely to draw the line between constitutional and unconstitutional police encounters such a line exists, and the NYPD has systematically crossed it when making trespass stops outside buildings," Scheindlin wrote in a 157-page ruling.
The New York Civil Liberties Union argued in an eight-day hearing in October that “Clean Halls,” which exists only in the Bronx, leads to people being hassled by cops and sometimes cuffed near their own abode for no legitimate reason.
The NYCLU’s legal challenge centers on the case of Jaenean Ligon.
In August 2011 the mother of three sent her 17-year-old son to buy ketchup for the family’s dinner.
Two plaintclothes cops stopped the teen outside the family’s building on E. 163rd St. in the Bronx. Two uniformed officers also arrived on the scene.
After frisking the youngster, one of the cops buzzed Ligon’s apartment and asked she come downstairs to identify her son. Ligon testified the request sent her into a panic because she feared the worst — that her son had been seriously hurt or killed.
NYCLU lawyers argued that Ligon’s experience was all too common in high-crime neighborhoods in the Bronx where the “Clean Halls” program is in place.
At least one Bronx prosecutor, Jeannette Rucker, expressed skepticism about the legality of the practice, as well.
Rucker notified the NYPD in July of last year that her office would no longer rubber-stamp trespassing arrests made outside Clean Halls buildings and public housing projects unless the arresting officer was interviewed.
In addition to immediately halting such trespass stops in the Bronx, Scheindlin ordered a Jan. 31 hearing to determine what other relief should be granted.
"For those of us who do not fear being stopped as we approach or leave our own homes or those of our friend and family, it is difficult to believe that residents of one of our boroughs live under such a threat,” she wrote.
Two other stop and frisk cases are pending.
Source

NYPD’s controversial ‘Stop & Frisk’ policy ruled unconstitutional
January 8, 2013

A key part of the NYPD’s controversial “stop and frisk” tactic has been ruled unconstitutional.

Manhattan Federal Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered police to refrain from making trespass stops outside private residential buildings — even though the landlord has given officers permission to do so as part of the NYPD’s “Clean Halls” program.

"While it may be difficult to say when precisely to draw the line between constitutional and unconstitutional police encounters such a line exists, and the NYPD has systematically crossed it when making trespass stops outside buildings," Scheindlin wrote in a 157-page ruling.

The New York Civil Liberties Union argued in an eight-day hearing in October that “Clean Halls,” which exists only in the Bronx, leads to people being hassled by cops and sometimes cuffed near their own abode for no legitimate reason.

The NYCLU’s legal challenge centers on the case of Jaenean Ligon.

In August 2011 the mother of three sent her 17-year-old son to buy ketchup for the family’s dinner.

Two plaintclothes cops stopped the teen outside the family’s building on E. 163rd St. in the Bronx. Two uniformed officers also arrived on the scene.

After frisking the youngster, one of the cops buzzed Ligon’s apartment and asked she come downstairs to identify her son. Ligon testified the request sent her into a panic because she feared the worst — that her son had been seriously hurt or killed.

NYCLU lawyers argued that Ligon’s experience was all too common in high-crime neighborhoods in the Bronx where the “Clean Halls” program is in place.

At least one Bronx prosecutor, Jeannette Rucker, expressed skepticism about the legality of the practice, as well.

Rucker notified the NYPD in July of last year that her office would no longer rubber-stamp trespassing arrests made outside Clean Halls buildings and public housing projects unless the arresting officer was interviewed.

In addition to immediately halting such trespass stops in the Bronx, Scheindlin ordered a Jan. 31 hearing to determine what other relief should be granted.

"For those of us who do not fear being stopped as we approach or leave our own homes or those of our friend and family, it is difficult to believe that residents of one of our boroughs live under such a threat,” she wrote.

Two other stop and frisk cases are pending.

Source