Just when you thought it was over. Last week we posted that new New York City Mayor de Blasio dropped the stop and frisk appeal, as he had promised in his mayoral campaign. If you thought that would be the end of the saga surrounding the former New York City Mayor Bloomberg's administration's stop and frisk policy, then you thought wrong.
Last Friday, five police association's filed two memoranda of law in opposition to the City's motion for remand with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, reports The Associated Press. So what does it all mean for stop and frisk?
Stop and Frisk Review
Over the past year we've been on a roller coaster ride we like to call the stop and frisk litigation, a/k/a Floyd v. The City of New York. First Judge Scheindlin wrote a 237-page liability opinion where she held that New York City violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by engaging in racial profiling through its stop and frisk policy. Among other things, she ordered a third-party monitor to review -- and that's when the s**t hit the fan. As you may recall, Judge Scheindlin was removed from the case, she challenged the removal, the City challenged everything, and then Bill de Blasio was elected mayor.
Memos in Opposition to Motion for Remand
As promised during his mayoral campaign, de Blasio dropped the stop and frisk appeal. For a few days all was quiet until last Friday, when five police unions asked the Second Circuit to determine whether Judge Scheindlin's order changing the stop and frisk program were proper, even if the City doesn't want to appeal her rulings, reports the AP.
In the papers, the unions argued: "The court entered findings that unfairly besmirch the reputations of the men and women of the NYPD, imposed facially overbroad remedies, and exposed the NYPD to an unwarranted and indefinite period of federal supervision." They added: "The contemplated injunction would directly burden the officers' daily work and would impair the police unions' collective bargaining and other rights."
The Second Circuit has not yet decided, but Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights Baher Azmy stated: "Mere disagreement doesn't give [the police unions] the right to intervene in a legal case," reports the AP. We'll see if the Second Circuit agrees.
Related Resources:
- PBA on Stop, Question and Frisk Withdrawal (New York City Patrolmen'a Benevolent Association Press Release)
- De Blasio Agrees To Settle City Appeal In Stop-and-Frisk Case (The Chief -- Civil Service Leader The Civil Employees' Weekly)
- NYC Stop-and-Frisk Ruling Leaves City Potentially Liable (FindLaw's U.S. Second Circuit Blog)
- Starbucks Tips and More on Stop and Frisk (FindLaw's U.S. Second Circuit Blog)
