Forum/Discussions

The third week in court in our case challenging New York City’s stop–and–frisk program began with stunning testimony from State Senator Eric Adams recounting a conversation with Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. The senator, a 22–year police veteran himself, raised concerns about Blacks and Latinos being targeted. In response, Adams testified, Kelly “stated he targeted that group because he wanted to instill fear in them [that] every time they leave their home they could be stopped and frisked.”

Adams, a supporter of constitutional stops and frisks, said “nowhere are you allowed to use the tool to instill fear,” and called such unconstitutional stops “terrible.”

Much of the week’s testimony was from police officers and supervisors and revealed time and again that no one at the NYPD is working to ensure that stops are constitutional; forms and memo books are checked in a cursory way or not checked at all, discrepancies are not investigated and follow–up questioning is non–existent.

Additional tapes of precinct roll calls and other conversations among police officers were also introduced into evidence and, like the previous tapes, they demonstrated that cops are pressured to ‘get numbers.’ They also revealed disturbing attitudes towards community members that the NYPD is supposed to protect. “We have to get all the f–––ing riff–raff on the corners,” one officer said.

The testimony of two witnesses who recounted their experiences being illegally stopped underscored the same problems. One was chased and stopped by police in an unmarked van, a terrifying experience. The other was stopped in the lobby of his apartment building and told that listening to the officer's 50 Cent ringtone would "calm him down."

The second half of the week turned to expert testimony. Prof. Jeffrey Fagan was on the stand for three days talking about the two studies he did analyzing eight and a half years of UF 250 forms (the form officers fill out for each stop). Rigorous statistical analysis of the data shows that, after controlling for crime, local social conditions, and the concentration of police officers in an area, Blacks and Latinos are significantly more likely to be stopped than whites. Prof. Eli Silverman, meanwhile, testified to the results of two surveys of retired officers he conducted that found that police officers report a huge increase in the pressure to make stops during the Bloomberg/Kelly era.

The expert testimony backed up what the court had already heard from New Yorkers who have been stopped and frisked, officers who have stopped them, and police supervisors. It also resonated with Senator Adams’ testimony at the beginning of the week, showing so clearly that people are being stopped, unconstitutionally, for who they are, not what they’ve done.

The courtroom continues to be packed every day with community–based groups. So many different groups and constituencies are affected by stop and frisk, and day after day a roll call of community organizations turns out to add their voices to the demand to end unconstitutional stops. Floyd v. City of New York is CCR’s unique contribution to the this effort, but it’s clear from the hundreds and hundreds of people who have come to court to watch the NYPD on trial that we are part of a much larger movement.

We continue to write daily updates from the courtroom, which we post on Facebook and Twitter. You can also find them on the CCR website. Please help support CCR’s critical work to end unconstitutional stops and frisks by donating to CCR; sharing our Facebook posts; retweeting our tweets and using the hashtag #NYPDonTRIAL; and inviting your friends to like Center for Constitutional Rights on Facebook and follow @TheCCR on Twitter.

Annette Warren Dickerson
Director of Education and Outreach
Center of constitutional Rights

Donate: https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/383/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=9750