By Rich Bockmann
Queens pretty much drew its line in the sand on stop-and-frisk with the debate over the City Council’s Community Safety Act back in June. So when a federal judge earlier this week released her widely anticipated decision rebuking the NYPD’s use of the controversial practice, voices on both sides of the debate seized upon an opportunity to dig in their heels.
In southeast Queens — where Council members voted in unison in June to support both an inspector general to oversee the NYPD and an expansion of the city’s anti-profiling laws — support was unanimous for Judge Shira Scheindlin’s ruling Monday that the department’s use of stop-and-frisk violated constitutional rights.
“The ongoing abuse of New York City’s stop and frisk policy has instilled a deep distrust between the NYPD and thousands of innocent, tax-paying citizens who are simply trying to live their lives in peace,” said Councilman Donovan Richards (D-Laurelton), who was joined by fellow Councilmen Leroy Comrie (D-St. Albans) and Ruben Wills (D-Jamaica) in applauding Scheindlin’s appointment of an independent monitor to oversee the NYPD as it implements changes to its policies.
“In order to regain the trust of those who have been disillusioned by what we now recognize as constitutional violations, we must start with common sense reforms that protect the rights and safety of all New Yorkers,” Richards added.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg vetoed the Community Safety Act, and the council has until its next stated meeting Thursday to push forward with an override.
“As a supporter of the Community Safety Act, I applaud Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s ruling on stop-and-frisk,” said Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst). “I look forward to the benefits this ruling will bring to so many communities across our great City.”
Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Astoria), a borough president candidate and one of Queens’ most vocal NYPD supporters, agreed with the mayor’s claim that Scheindlin was biased against the city from the start, and said the focus now should be on protecting the city within the guidelines she set.
“Even this biased federal judge recognized the importance of stop-and-frisk,” he said. “Specifically she said she doesn’t want to end it or end proactive policing. I agree with her on that”
Eastern Queens has been a hotbed of debate over stop-and-frisk, especially since two police unions began organizing against Councilman Mark Weprin (D-Oakland Gardens) for his support of the Community Safety Act and former NYPD Capt Joseph Concannon stepped forward to challenge the incumbent for his seat.
“This thoughtless decision is coming from an out-of-touch ideologue who has no understanding of policing and the crime fighting tactics that made New York City the safest major city in the nation,” Concannon said. “Police officers do not engage in racial profiling. They stop and question individuals about whom they have reasonable suspicion.”
Weprin said the judge’s decision did not change his view of the Community Safety Act, but did lend weight to his position on stop-and-frisk.
“The court stated what I’ve been saying all along: that stop-and-frisk is an effective tool to help reduce crime, when used properly,” he said. “New York City has abused stop-and-frisk and created mistrust in communities.”
There were two borough Council members, Dan Halloran (R-Whitestone) and Karen Koslowitz (D-Forest Hills), who split their votes on the Community Safety Act, opposing legislation that would open the NYPD to legal claims of profiling but supporting an inspector general.
A Halloran spokesman said the councilman believes oversight of the NYPD is best done at a local level.
Reach reporter Rich Bockmann by e-mail at rbockmann@cnglocal.com or by phone at 718-260-4574.
