Government officials are used to getting rulings against them temporarily put on hold while they appeal. And appeal. And appeal. But New York City's efforts to put a hold on mandated stop-and-frisk changes were smacked down by the judge who ordered them. According to Newsday:
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan has refused New York City's request for a delay of her rulings ordering reforms in the NYPD's stop-and-frisk procedures while it pursues an appeal.
"Ordering a stay now would send precisely the wrong signal," Scheindlin wrote. "It would essentially confirm that the past practices . . . were justified and based on constitutional police practices. It would also send the message that reducing the number of stops is somehow dangerous to the residents of this City."
The judge ruled in August that police were making street stops with[out] the "reasonable suspicion" required by the Constitution and targeting minorities. She ordered the appointment of a monitor to institute reforms in training, supervision and discipline, and a pilot project to have officers wear cameras to record stops.
She also noted in her 17-page ruling that she is confident that her decision will be upheld on appeal and pointed out that the NYPD has reduced the number of stop-and-frisk stops this past year and hasn't seen a crime increase. The city has other avenues to try to stay the ruling while they appeal, and they'll no doubt pursue them.
Read Reason on stop-and-frisk here.
Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.
Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at firstname.lastname@example.org, or tweet us stories at @reason247.