Stop-and-Frisk Decision

Monday, August 12, 2013

WNYC reporter Kathleen Horan discusses this morning's decision in the stop-and-frisk case. She is joined by Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and author of several works on civil liberties and police oversight, including Presidents and Civil Liberties From Wilson to Obama, who testified during the trial about possible remedies.


The judge's ruling:


Kathleen Horan and Samuel Walker

Comments [13]

henry from nyc

Judge should have order them to setup frisk station in midtown and tell them to frisk people wearing suite. I bet they get a tone of cocaine arrests

Aug. 12 2013 12:26 PM
Amy from Manhattan

I'm really glad to hear about this decision. On "aggressive policing," like so many things, it's not either/or but a question of degree. What we've had in the stop-&-frisk program is not aggressive but *over*aggressive policing.

Aug. 12 2013 11:55 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Well said Fuva

Aug. 12 2013 11:15 AM
fuva from harlemworld

Judge Scheindlin: Say word.

Ray “Bull” Kelly:
May you and your supporters now understand that the end does not justify the means; that disproportionate black/latino male crime rates does NOT mean most black/latino males are criminals; that you cannot criminalize folk for being black/latino and male; that this rights violation is not only under effective, but it alienates communities from the NYPD, which is ultimately counterproductive.

Black/latino community:
If your legitimate concern about crime makes you ambivalent about stop and frisk, then get together at town halls, etc. to discuss ways to address it – which could include random stop and frisks that the COMMUNITY formally agrees to, instead of having them imposed by a disrespectful NYPD.

Aug. 12 2013 11:07 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Well John, then why did that shooting happen? I have no problem with stop and frisk - but the way the mayor and commissioner abused it was sickening.

Aug. 12 2013 11:06 AM
William from Manhattan

Can anyone seriously think it is a good idea for police officers to wear cameras everywhere they go? What about the privacy concerns of people who come into contact with the police? If my house were robbed, I would want the police to investigate, but I certainly wouldn't want them videotaping my bedroom.
I understand the desire to improve police behavior, but it invites a completely different set of problems to require them to wear cameras.

Aug. 12 2013 11:03 AM
Anthony from New York

Obviously Stop and Frisk is unconstitutional. It is no different than Nazi Germany and Weiner was right to make that comparison. But Bloomberg nor most politicians in this country don't let the Constitution concern them. The appeals process gets more political as it goes up the chain and therefore they will likely get the ruling they want. They just move onto another judge.

Aug. 12 2013 10:58 AM

@john: The stop-and-frisk success rate is 8%. If the police actually targeted the criminals instead of stopping and frisking everyone else, there probably wouldn't be a shooting in East Flatbush this weekend.

Aug. 12 2013 10:47 AM
SK from Brooklyn

I would think the PD is very concerned with independent oversight discovering how closely they work with the C I A, N S A, etc. on cases that are well beyond terror protection. If there is oversight, expect a huge firewall to the keep the secrets secret.

Aug. 12 2013 10:46 AM
meesh ess from queens

maybe it's a moot point now and, maybe i'm way late to the game, but does not giving consent to police to search you work in the case of stop and frisk?

"officer, i don't consent to this search. may i go now?"

Aug. 12 2013 10:39 AM
john from office

Funny how this decision comes down after the shooting of 4 black men in East Flatbush Brooklyn, after a house party. I guess the Judge, a white liberal, does not live in East Flatbush. The hell with the peaceful residents, lets protect the hoods and gangstas.

Liberals will never be happy till the underclass is eating the rich and middle class.

Aug. 12 2013 10:36 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Well said MG. This ruling is 8 years too late. The fact that citizens of this great country had their constitutional rights left to the whim of a mayor is scary.

Aug. 12 2013 10:32 AM
MG from Mahattan

If they take this to the SC they will lose. No one wants to give away these constitutional rights outside of a NY mayor projecting on a minority community. If the SC were to uphold, this would be seen as the end of liberty..

Aug. 12 2013 10:17 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.