Streams

Court Grants Stay and Removes Judge in Stop and Frisk Case

Thursday, October 31, 2013

A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked pending changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program. It also removed the judge from the case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the remedies ordered by Judge Shira Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city. In August, she found the police had been violating the Constitution in the way it carried out stops.

The appeals court said Judge Scheindlin needed to be removed from the case because she "ran afoul" of the code of conduct for U.S. judges. NYU Law professor Stephen Gillers, who has written extensively on judicial ethics, said removals of federal district judges from cases happens only about a half dozen times a year, nationwide.

"The court apparently believed she did more than simply passively receive the case," said Gillers. "She tried to get it because she wanted it and you're not supposed to want it."

 "The court apparently believed she did more than simply passively receive the case. She tried to get it because she wanted it and you're not supposed to want it."
Judges are allowed to take related cases. Scheindlin's first stop and frisk suit was in 1999. But in the ruling, the appeals court cites the code of conduct for district judges, writing--" they must disqualify themselves when impartiality can be reasonably questioned."
Judges are allowed to take related cases. Scheindlin's first stop and frisk suit was in 1999. But in Thursday's ruling, the appeals court wrote district judges "must disqualify themselves when impartiality can be reasonably questioned." The court also noted several media interviews Scheindlin granted, including The New Yorker and the New York Law Journal.

The appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on the city's request for a stay to block Schindlin's remedial orders, pending an appeal. The three member panel voted unanimously to grant the stay.

The New York Civil Liberties Union said it plans to appeal the decision and noted the ruling does not overturn the initial ruling that the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk violated the 4th and 14th amendments of the Constitution.

“There is overwhelming evidence that the stop-and-frisk regime is unconstitutional and out of control," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman in a statement. "Just ask any black or brown New Yorker." 

But Michael Cordozo with the city's Corporation Counsel said in a statement that the appeal's court ruling means the issue of constitutionality is far from decided.

"That question will now receive a fresh and independent both by the appeals court and then, if necessary, by a different trial court judge," said Cardozo.

The head of the police officers' union cheered Thursday's appellate court decision to remove Sheindlin from the case. In a statement, Patrick Lynch, President of the Police Benevolent Association said: “We salute the judges who made this courageous decision to remove an obviously biased judge from this case."

Oral arguments for the appeal are expected in March.

With The Associated Press.

To hear WNYC's Kathleen Horan discuss the court decision with host Amy Eddings, click the play button above.

Hosted by:

Amy Eddings

Editors:

Julianne Welby

Tags:

More in:

Comments [2]

john from office

Sanity prevailed, thank god. Judge was biased and anti cop.

Nov. 01 2013 09:54 AM
SKV from NYC

Judge Scheindlin was right, and I hope the city's appeal fails. Stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional abusive harassment based on race, age, and gender.

Oct. 31 2013 04:50 PM

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.

Sponsored

Latest Newscast

 

 

Support

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public

Feeds

Supported by