Her decision comes in a 2008 suit filed by four men claiming their fourth amendment constitutional rights were compromised by the NYPD, and allows thousands more plaintiffs to take part in the legal challenge.
The city denies the case is worthy of a class action, claiming the four plaintiffs ”fail to identify an official policy, or its equivalent.”
In today’s Daily Q we ask: Is “stop and frisk” based on an official policy?
If you have information or insight to share, write us, tweet @thenyworld or comment below.
What we found
In his letter to speaker Quinn last week Police Commissioner Ray Kelly only referred to Stop and Frisk as procedures and encounters, indicating he’s being careful with how he acknowledges it. Previously he, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have both referred to Stop and Frisk as a crime fighting tool and a police practice.
But Judge Shira Scheindlin in her Federal Court decision profiled why she specifically thinks Stop and Frisk is a program.
She said that evidence suggests Stop and Frisk is a centralized and hierarchical program that has been designed and implemented from the highest level of authority within the NYPD.
These are her reasons:
1) The quantity of stops. According to the decision, NYPD made 2.8 million stops 2003 and 2009
2) The practice of stopping and frisking has been designed, implemented and monitored by high ranking police.
3) There is a form that is filled out every time a person is stopped and frisked called the UF-250, indicating it’s a formalized procedure. Details from this form are entered into a centralized database and statistics are cited at CompStat meetings.
4) Training programs exist expressly for stop and frisk procedures.