A federal appeals court blocked a judge’s order that would have drastically changed the New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program. The judge has also been removed from the case.
In August, Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that New York City had violated the Constitution with the implementation of its stop-and-frisk by unfairly targeting young black and Hispanic males.
The city quickly filed suit against Scheindlin’s ruling and on Thursday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that her decision would be stayed stayed pending the outcome of an appeal by the city, ABC New York reports.
The court claimed that Scheindlin must be removed from the case because she violated the necessity for a judge to appear impartial on a case by appearing in a series of media interviews speaking against stop-and-frisk.
Scheindlin’s original ruling called for changes in the way NYPD officers targeted suspects to be stopped and frisked, including further changes in training, supervision and official policies. The ruling called for a supervisor to ease the NYPD into the transition and for a pilot program in which officers would wear cameras to record their activities in areas with high levels of stop-and-frisk stops. None of these changes will go into effect until the city’s appeal against the ruling is complete.
The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program has been widely criticized by civil rights groups.
Over the past decade, stop-and-frisk searches have jumped by close to 600 percent in New York City. In 2011, 92 percent of those stopped were males, and 87 percent of the individuals stopped were either black or Hispanic. Eighty-eight percent of the stop resulted in the police releasing the person without an arrest or ticket.
Eric Brown is an IBTimes political reporter who eats far too much pizza. He is a graduate of Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, and currently resides in Brooklyn.