Illegal searches routine in NY
In the course of certifying a class action, a federal judge in New York has made some devastating remarks about the NYPD’s massive Stop and Frisk program, which has prompted hundreds of thousands of street searches that almost always target blacks and Hispanics. It’s an important ruling with ramifications for law enforcement across the country.
“Suspicionless stops should never occur,” Judge Shira A. Scheindlin wrote. “Defendants’ cavalier attitude toward the prospect of a `widespread practice of suspicionless stops’ displays a deeply troubling apathy toward New Yorkers’ most fundamental constitutional rights.”
In her ruling, the judge outlines how the NYPD has used its much-praised and often-copied CompStat system for tracking crime reports to set “performance goals” for the number of searches each precinct should do. Commanding officers are assailed by their superiors in police headquarters if the number of searches drops. Ultimately, police officers are evaluated in part for the number of searches they conduct on the street. Some have reported being threatened with loss of overtime or transfer to a lesser post. One officer taped his supervisor ordering wholesale illegal searches.
Police are required to document each stop but, according to the judge, in at least 170,000 cases the report failed to establish even a superficial basis for the search. In 4,000 cases, the official reason given for a search was “high crime area.” In more than half a million stops, the judge said, “officers listed no coherent suspected crime.”
That is, dehumanizing violations of the Fourth Amendment are routine in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s New York.
There have been times in New York City when thugs ruled the streets. It is the other extreme of civil rights where no one is accountable. An unwise insistence on civil rights can lead to anarchy. So there is always balance. David Dinkins was an irresponsible Mayor who let hoodlums rule the subways with their boom boxes and the streets with their window washers. Tourists came to the city in terror. Giuliani made the city safe again even to the point where NYC became one of the safest cities to visit. With the emphasis on rights or law and order there is always the danger of excess. The same happened in the church where some reformers became more despotic than traditionalists. Clown masses were just as repulsive as the seven minute ones. Unfortunately, ambitious leaders in the church or government take advantage of the trends for their own advancement and choose to polarize rather than lead. We see this in politicians flip flopping. Novak, Neuhaus, Law and Mahoney who were prominent in the left deftly switched to the right as the mood changed. Ambition triumps over right most of the time.
In general people welcome airport searches despite the discomfort because it means a more secure flight. How do we keep our cities safe while keeping a balance for rights and public safety? Few politicians seem to gain headway when they take a let’s work it out approach.
@Bill Mazzella (5/16, 3:40 pm) Having lived in NYC for most of the Koch administration, I can attest that there were plenty of boom boxes, window washers and graffiti taggers in the 1970s and 80s—well before the Dinkins administration.
I want to thank Paul Moses for this post. Even for those of us who read Bob Herbert’s column from a great distance, it’s been clear for many years that Bloomberg and Kelly were presiding over a department that routinely violated the 4th amendment rights of New Yorkers—particularly those who are young and dark-skinned.
Luke, you are right about activity before Dinkins. It all grew out of the wild sixties. Which did have many good things.
Bill, nothing you said addresses the actual point of the case, which is baseless searches of black and hispanic men.
I had no idea that there was any such animal as “an unwise insistence on civil rights.” Chalk it up to naiveté, but I had previously thought it to be most wise to insist on civil rights.
Abe,
An unwise insistence on civil rights is when you refuse to search everyone entering an airplane or other security area. It is not rocket science. Read my whole post Abe. Thing do not happen in a vacuum.
I did read your whole post, but the takeaway seems to be “search people in NYC because book boxes.” I mean, really? That’s where you went? You read about a long practice of illegal searches, and the first thing that pops into mind is the black kids who made you uncomfortable on the train? Like I said, you didn’t actually address the issue at hand, so it really seemed to me as if you’re suggesting that arguing against routinely searching people of color is such an unwise insistence on civil rights.
“the first thing that pops into mind is the black kids who made you uncomfortable on the train? ”
Abe, you’ve injected a racial element into Bill’s words. He didn’t use the word “black” or refer to racial identity anywhere in his comment. He mentioned thugs who intimidated people on the train. You jumped from there to black kids.
Citizens of any color have a right to not be intimidated by thugs of any color, on the trains, while driving, in their neighborhoods and in their schools. And people of color have a right to not be presumed guilty and subjected to groundless searches. Is it possible for law enforcement to devise a policy that respects both sets of rights? Pretty clearly, the judge suspects the current law fails that test.
Having worked in criminal justice in New York in thise eras, I think the discussion of the past here is oversimplified.
It needs to be remembered that “the wild sixties” was the time when drug usage and crime therefrom – into the 70′s -heavily burdened police/cjsytem and their looking for answers (including methadone mills.)
The 70′s was also a time of fiscal crisis (that took the city time to get back on its feet.)
I think Dinkins was a weak mayor and Koch and Guiliani both tended to promote their roles as the city recovered and I might add police leadership played a critical role in improving things.
Better targeting of resources (actually begun in the Dinkins ) helped immensely.
The current issue is police power and is it being used excessively for community protection.
I do agree with Bill this far that there is a need for balance between rights of individuals and community protection.
The current scene there now from a distance looks out of balance though and (as usual, though we hate to admit it) race is a factor.
Bob – if you don’t mind my asking – were you a NYC cop?
Jim, no -but I knew and dealt with a number of the finest (and as you might expect on any organization, some were terrific and some not so much.)
I just want to add that about the old history we didn’t mention John V. Lindsay and the famous phrase then of New York as a”slow motion riot.”
The Lindsay world had a hard time coping with that.And as for justice, one should remmeber the courts, corrections, community programs and the scholars (especially at John Jay.) The outbreak of the drug culture needs to be taken seriously in understanding the history and how various pieces dealt with it.