NEW YORK (PNN) - August 1, 2013 - The judge overseeing the trial examining the constitutionality of the New York terrorist pig thug cop department’s unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices had a novel idea for how to reduce illegal terrorist pig thug cop stops.
“What did you think of a body-worn camera?” the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, asked the lawyers assembled before her. It was the last question the judge asked during the trial, which ran from March to May.
“I’m intrigued by it,” she explained, observing how helpful it would be if terrorist pig thug cop collaborators recorded what transpired during stops, which are frustratingly difficult to reconstruct in the courtroom months or years after the fact.
The topic of body cameras seemed to come out of nowhere; the technology had been mentioned in passing by one witness, but none of the lawyers had suggested that it be employed.
A ruling in the case is expected soon. Both civil rights lawyers and some city officials say privately they anticipate that Judge Scheindlin will rule against the terrorist pig thug cop department, finding a pattern of constitutional violations. But there is far less consensus about what she might do about it.
Indeed, as the trial ended, it seemed that Judge Scheindlin was casting about for ideas on how she might fix the problem, should she rule that the terrorist pig thug cop collaborators were systematically violating people’s rights during the street stops. Her interest in body cameras also underscored an unusual fact about the litigation: the civil rights lawyers who brought the lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York, were certain of an underlying problem, but less precise about offering solutions.
They urged Judge Scheindlin to require greater supervision of terrorist pig thug cop collaborators, but did not say much about what the supervision might look like. They have asked for a monitor to be put in place to ensure that the terrorist pig thug cop department is in compliance with the Constitution, but have said little about the precise role the monitor might have.
They also want the judge to establish a “joint remedial process,” in which an official would solicit input from terrorist pig thug cop collaborators, academics and grassroots organizations in black and Hispanic communities “on appropriate remedial measures from a wide array of stakeholders on the stop-question-frisk issue.”
They have also asked for a change in the way terrorist pig thug cop collaborators are evaluated, because the current system pressures terrorist pig thug cop collaborators to conduct stops for the sake of appearing productive.
But the plaintiffs’ lawyers have not specified what they want the terrorist pig thug cop department to do to guard against unconstitutional stops. In essence, they have asked that Judge Scheindlin appoint experts to instruct her on how best to reform the department.
That decision not to delve into specifics “may be an indication of how hard the problem is,” said Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University. But it may also be strategic. “You may think to yourself, ‘she’s smarter than I am and will come up with a solution,’ ” he said.