(Page 2 of 2)
“In these cases, we try to figure out whether an officer conducted a proper stop or had probable cause to frisk or search someone,” said Andrew Case, a board spokesman. “We try to stay out of the political discussion and just determine whether the officer did something that was either proper or improper and just draw the line there.”
But that line may already have been crossed, given the figures from the NYPD’s report, says Pace University Law Professor Randolph McLaughlin. “They’re stopping half a million people, which is a dramatic increase from previous years,” McLaughlin said. “And when you look at the numbers, it isn’t clear what their criteria [are] for stopping people. This form of aggressive policing is a potentially dangerous situation both for the officers and people who have been stopped.”
For its part, the Center for Constitutional Rights vows that it may have to take more aggressive means not only to ensure consistent reporting of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk figures, but to get compliance with other terms of the 2003 settlement, which remains under the supervision of Federal District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin through Dec. 31. Among the stipulations, the NYPD was mandated to conduct joint public workshops with the center on stop-and-frisk procedures, plus dozens of similar sessions at public high schools. But the center charges that the NYPD has failed to hold those workshops.
“We’ll write another letter, but we may just have to take steps that could find us all back in court very soon,” said Goodman. “Commissioner Kelly has been adamant that there’s no racial profiling, but it’s virtually impossible to say that it isn’t happening.”
