A Federal appeals court denied a request to overturn the Judge Scheindlin ruling that New York Cities Stop and Frisk policy was unconstitutional.
We did not buy into the ‘racial profiling’ argument for this policy, rather we contend that it is unconstitutional as hell for any American to be stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime.
We say, congratulations to a court system that weighed personal liberty in higher regard than the police state desire to circumvent the Constitution in law enforcement.
This ruling should end all additional attempts to re-instate this misguided policy.
In August, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, found constitutional violations in the practices and imposed remedies, including the appointment of a monitor. Last month, the appeals panel blocked those orders and removed Judge Scheindlin from the case, saying that by steering the litigation to her courtroom in 2007 and giving press interviews this past spring while the case was pending, she had compromised “the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.”
In a more recent opinion, the panel, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said it had not found any misconduct or ethical violation by the judge. But it continued the stay on her ruling while the city appealed it.
The city had sought to have Judge Scheindlin’s ruling vacated, citing questions about the judge’s impartiality. But on Friday the appeals court declined the request, effectively saying the appeal process should run its course. The appeals court added that the city could renew its request later as part of the full appeal.
Read More – NYT