STOP and Frisk Decreed a Violation of Civil Liberties

By Stephfon Guidry

Federal Lawsuit Challenges NYC "Stop And Frisk" Policy“Stop and Frisk” met its legislative end last week after the Supreme Court settlement, with U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruling. The NYPD is ordered to clear its criminal databases within 90 days of all of the ‘Stop and Frisk’ names and addresses of individuals, put through the process. Many of those New Yorkers stopped by police were minorities—this initiative meant to protect came across as racially discriminatory. According to, “New York’s finest stopped and interrogated people 684,330 times in 2011, according to The Wall Street Journal. 92 percent of those stopped were males, and 87 percent of those stopped were black or Hispanic.”

Mayor Bloomberg plans to appeal the ruling on the grounds that ‘Stop and Frisk’ led to lowering the crime rate exponentially. Judge Scheindlin told Associated Press, “In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting `the right people’ is racially discriminatory.”

In opposition Mayor Bloomberg spoke out about the 195-page ruling, “It’s a dangerous decision made by a judge who doesn’t understand how policing works.” While it is clear that both sides wish to protect and serve the people of New York the Stop and Frisk policy’s results present a narrow minded view of the usual suspects. The City Council attempted to pass two bills to better ensure the individual freedoms of the people. One bill would make it easier for the wrongfully accused to sue the NYPD and the other would place the office of the inspector general to monitor the NYPD. Bloomberg did veto both bills the City Council is looking to overturn his decision. At this juncture the Courts rule that Stop and Frisk outdated thinking and NYPD needs to #KeepItCurrent!