Stop-And-Frisk Ruling Blocked By Federal Appeals Court, Judge Scheindlin Removed From Case

Mayhem

Banned
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...appeals-court-judge-scheindlin_n_4183381.html

A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a judge's order requiring changes to the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk program and removed the judge from the case.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the decisions of Judge Shira Scheindlin will be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city.

The judge had ruled in August the city violated the Constitution in the way it carried out its program of stopping and questioning people.

The city appealed her findings and her remedial orders, including a decision to assign a monitor to help the police department changes its policy and training program associated with it.

The appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on the requested stay.

The appeals court said the judge needed to be removed from the case because she ran afoul of the code of conduct for U.S. judges by compromising the necessity for a judge to avoid the appearance of partiality in part because of a series of media interviews and public statements responding publicly to criticism of the court.

The judge had ruled that police officers violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of people by wrongly targeting black and Hispanic men with its stop-and-frisk program. She appointed an outside monitor to oversee major changes, including reforms in policies, training and supervision, and she ordered a pilot program to test body-worn cameras in some precincts where most stops occur.

The stop-and-frisk tactic has been criticized by a number of civil rights advocates.

You're up BC. Tell us what's going on.

I highlighted the one part because, regardless of the issue, I think it's a valid point. But again, I would like some learned counsel.
 
Not trying to hijack your thread, but the 5th circuit court just decided that the Texas abortion law is constitutional now. Clinics have to close their doors tomorrow and women living in poverty who have standing appointments will have to be turned away to come up with some other solution. Sure is lucky they have the republicans there to protect them from shady and unsafe abortion practices.

A proud day for US courts! Not as proud as the repeal of section 4 of the voting rights act, but a big day nonetheless. Land of the free!
 

Mayhem

Banned
Not trying to hijack your thread, but the 5th circuit court just decided that the Texas abortion law is constitutional now. Clinics have to close their doors tomorrow and women living in poverty who have standing appointments will have to be turned away to come up with some other solution. Sure is lucky they have the republicans there to protect them from shady and unsafe abortion practices.

A proud day for US courts! Not as proud as the repeal of section 4 of the voting rights act, but a big day nonetheless. Land of the free!

Y'know, I went all the way to page 4 to find the Syria thread and update it with a relevant post.

http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?736670-Judge-Rules-Texas-Abortion-Law-Unconstitutional

^^^ This wasn't even halfway down page 1. :nono:
 
Just got home and I am a little buzzed. I sweas when I first saw the judge's name I thought it was about judge Judy or her husband. lol I don't trust cops to enforce such policies properly. I understand why it was adopted but there is too much temptation for abuse. This is a 4th amendment issue and they creep up from time to time. The judge was wrong to go public with her feelings about this because there is undoubtably hundreds of individual cases where the contention will be made that 4th amendment rights have been violated. The NYPD knew challenges were going to happen but Bloomberg has never concerned himself with violating rights before so it is not surprising. Anyway, the panel had no choice but to remove the judge although I personally feel her ruling was the correct one. My feeling is that the NYPD policy will eventually be deemed unconstitutional by a higher court and rightly so. Just can't have a judge tainting the process by voicing their personal feelings in such a public manner. Ironically, her ruling may have stood had she kept her mouth shut but has now allowed the policy to continue. Don't know what she was thinking by talking to the media about it.
 
Just got home and I am a little buzzed. I sweas when I first saw the judge's name I thought it was about judge Judy or her husband. lol I don't trust cops to enforce such policies properly. I understand why it was adopted but there is too much temptation for abuse. This is a 4th amendment issue and they creep up from time to time. The judge was wrong to go public with her feelings about this because there is undoubtably hundreds of individual cases where the contention will be made that 4th amendment rights have been violated. The NYPD knew challenges were going to happen but Bloomberg has never concerned himself with violating rights before so it is not surprising. Anyway, the panel had no choice but to remove the judge although I personally feel her ruling was the correct one. My feeling is that the NYPD policy will eventually be deemed unconstitutional by a higher court and rightly so. Just can't have a judge tainting the process by voicing their personal feelings in such a public manner. Ironically, her ruling may have stood had she kept her mouth shut but has now allowed the policy to continue. Don't know what she was thinking by talking to the media about it.

I thought that same lol
 
Top