[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website] on Tuesday denied [opinion, PDF] New York City’s motion to stay her order regarding the New York City Police Department (NYPD) [official website] ‘stop-and-frisk’ [JURIST report] policy. Judge Shira Scheindlin initially ruled [JURIST report] that the methods used by the NYPD were a violation of the Fourth Amendment, among others, and ordered them ceased until a final judgment on the matter was issued. The city appealed the matter and requested injunctive relief on the order. That request was denied when the court held:
Contrary to statements by certain high-level city officials and pundits, this Court did not order an end to the practice of stop and frisk. Rather, this Court ordered that such activity be conducted in accordance with well-established controlling law. … In short, the only activity at this stage is discussion between the Monitor, the Facilitator, and the parties to develop the remedies described above. No other specific relief is imminent, much less ordered.
The court emphasized that no further steps or appeals can be taken while the case rests in an interlocutory phase and settlements are negotiated.
Last week New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg filed suit [JURIST report] against the City Council in an effort to overturn recently-enacted legislation relating to the NYPD stop-and-frisk program. The legislation at issue, Local Law 71 of 2013, is a bill that expands the definition of racial profiling and gives New Yorkers who believe they were targeted the right to sue police in state court. In July of last year a report issued by a coalition of legal rights organizations said that the NYPD used excessive force and violated the rights of protesters [JURIST report] who participated in the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York City. A month prior, a Muslim rights group filed a lawsuit [JURIST report] in New Jersey seeking to end the department’s controversial surveillance program, which allegedly targets individuals based on religious affiliation. In May of last year, following an investigation into the NYPD’s surveillance program, New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa concluded that it did not violate the Constitution.