City Attorneys Look to Overturn Stop-and-Frisk Ruling

Attorneys say Judge Shira Scheindlin's ruling was impartial during the case.

Print Email
New York City attorneys have asked a federal appeals court to overturn a judge’s ruling on stop-and-frisk. Critics of stop-and-frisk say it unfairly targets minorities. They say only 10 percent of the stops result in arrests and summonses. Those for it say the practice is necessary in the fight against crime. In the 28 days following August’s ruling, the New York Post reported shootings increased by 13 percent, and gun seizures fell 17 percent.
The city attorneys have questioned U.S. District Judge Scheindlin’s impartiality in her ruling. They say she misapplied another case she oversaw to take the one on stop-and-frisk. The city attorneys are also not too fond of her taking media interviews during the trial.
“At a minimum, the District Court’s misconduct makes it reasonable to question the impartiality of the District Court Orders, and at a maximum represents a violation of Appellant’s Due Process rights to a neutral arbiter and to present a defense,” the filings said. “In either case, the District Court Orders must be vacated.”
Sheindlin’s attorney asked the three-judge panel to reconsider ordering her off the case and to pass the issue to the full circuit. Those against stop-and-frisk are furious over the city attorney’s attempt to overrule the decision.
“Voters overwhelmingly rejected Bloomberg’s stop-and-frisk policy by choosing a mayor committed to reforming stop-and-frisk, so fighting reform now not only adds injury to those subjected to the policy but is a waste of taxpayer money and counterproductive to public safety,” said Joo-Hyun Kang, a spokeswoman for Communities United for Police Reform, to CBS news.
Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio says he would drop the city’s appeal of Scheindlin’s ruling but is willing to work with those looking for reform. 
[Source: CBS, New York Post]