The Appeals Court Got It Wrong on Stop-and-Frisk

I stand by my call for the abolition of Stop-and-Frisk as it has been practiced by the City of New York in recent years. I also stand by my support of Judge Scheindlin’s ruling in August to oversee and reform Stop-and-Frisk. I also believe the Appeals Court was wrong last Wednesday to remove Scheindlin from the case, Floyd et al. v. City of New York.

A glance at my statement in the Voter Guide will show that of course I understand the need for police officers to stop and search potential suspects in the ordinary course of their duties. What I object to, and what Judge Scheindlin was trying to reform, was the huge numbers of innocent people stopped under this policy–over 90 percent of those detained in stops in largely Black and Latino neighborhoods.

Judge Scheindlin, according to the Appeals Court, violated the Code of Conduct for judges in Federal court by making comments to the media. But the Appeals Court implies she commented specifically on Floyd–that is, on a case pending before a court, as the Code prohibits. But she spoke to reporters about very general matters, not specifically about Floyd. The Appeals Court doesn’t seem to have given the Code a very careful reading before they came to their supposedly “impartial” decision.

I’ll have more to say on this, here on this blog, shortly. But Election Day is just around the corner, and I wanted to go on the record about this as soon as I could. Justice wasn’t served by the Appeals Court, but justice will, no doubt, win out in the long run.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s