In May of 2013, Bill de Blasio, the Public Advocate for the City of New York, filed a report demanding Urgent and Meaningful Reforms in response to Stop-and-Frisk practices.
On 12 June 2013, the United States Department of Justice submitted litigation in US District Court of New York regarding the constitutionality of the Stop-and-Frisk practices used by New York City Police.
According to court documents filed on Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice stated:
“Unlawfully aggressive police tactics are not only unnecessary for effective policing, but are in fact detrimental to the mission of crime reduction. Officers can only police safely and effectively if they maintain the trust and cooperation of the communities within which they work, but the public’s trust and willingness to cooperate with the police are damaged when officers routinely fail to respect the rule of law.”Those representing New York City have claimed that adding any government or public oversight of their policing practices would make it more difficult for police officers to do their jobs. In summary, they would like to answer to nobody and not be held accountable.
The Justice Department responded with this statement:
“Reform through a court-ordered process improves public confidence, makes officers’ jobs safer, and increases the ability of the department to fight crime.”
Further Reading. Below are resources for further reading about this topic.
- “A Loud Message to the N.Y.P.D.” New York Times, 13 June 2013, by the New York Times Editorial Board
- Department of Justice Court Filing, 12 June 2013 (PDF from DOJ)
- Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- New York Civil Liberties Union, Stop-and-Frisk Campaign
- Public Advocate for the City of New York Statement on Stop-and-Frisk
- Stop-and-Frisk Report by Bill de Blasio, Public Advocate for the City of New York, May 2013 (PDF)
Survey. Do you think that Stop-and-Frisk practices are constitutional? Complete the survey below to share your views.