ShareThis Page
Nation

New York City police unions want to continue fight for stop-and-frisk policy

| Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2014, 9:27 p.m.

NEW YORK — Police unions should be able to appeal a federal judge's ruling that the New York Police Department's stop- and-frisk policy violated civil rights even though the city no longer wants to fight, union lawyers argued Wednesday.

A lower court judge has said the unions did not signal soon enough their wish to be included in the case, heard last year in federal court. U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled after a 10-week civil trial that the NYPD's stop, question and frisk policy sometimes discriminated against minorities. She ordered sweeping reforms and installed a monitor to oversee the changes.

Then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration appealed her decision, but Mayor Bill de Blasio dropped the appeal when he came into office this year. The police unions want to continue the fight.

The unions believe the ruling damaged their officers' reputations and worry they won't be able to bargain on the reforms ordered that involve training, discipline and other changes, their lawyers told a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday.

The judges peppered the attorneys with challenges. Judge Barrington Parker Jr. said it would be highly unusual for an appeal to proceed when the actual parties in the case have agreed to settle — whether the unions like it or not.

It's a new regime “that wants its police department to behave differently,” Parker said. “It's a part of the democratic process.”

“You can't rewind the clock to what it was before the de Blasio administration took office,” Judge John Walker Jr. said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me