For the past several years, the NYPD has been in trouble over a troubling “stop and frisk” policy. But with the election of Bill De Blasio, it looks like that policy may be going away.

The term “stop and frisk” stems from the practice of stopping individuals on the street, and searching them for contraband items- without probable cause. New York in particular came under fire over the past few years for taking part in the “stop and frisk” activities, and targeting minorities in the process.

Legally, there is some precedent on the issue. Terry v. Ohio was a case in 1968, which determined that officers could stop individuals without probable cause, so long as the officer had a “reasonable suspicion” to believe something was wrong. Many people claim that the NYPD took this to a new level, and used it to discriminate the people they stopped based on race, using “reasonable suspicion,” as a backdrop for that.

A lawsuit was brought against the city in 2008, and it was decided that the NYPD did indeed unfairly target minorities, specifically African American and Latino men. Rather than accept the fact the NYPD was acting in a systemically racist way, the city fought an appeals process over the ruling.

But with the newly elected mayor, Bill De Blasio, came a change in regards to the policy. This stance was one on which De Blasio campaigned last year. On Thursday, January 30, 2014 the mayor announced he would stop the appeals process of the lawsuit, agreeing to the recommendations by the judge who ruled on the case last year.

It seems as though the mayor might be looking at solutions outside of the courts, too.

This week, NYPD Chief William J. Bratton announced that rather than putting rookie police officers in high-crime neighborhoods, the NYPD would instead place more veteran officers with a better understanding of the complex dynamics in these situations.

The proposal can be seen as a step in the right direction when trying to train officers for the future. As Bratton pointed out, it would be possible for young, inexperienced, officers to take the “easy” way out, and engage in stop-and-frisk activities because it seems like the simplest way to target suspicious behavior. But starting a career with activities like this could lead to acting that way for years to come, perpetuating the kind of system for which New York is now under fire.

But are these two actions enough? Probably not, but they are two good places to start.

By changing the rhetoric and course of action Bloomberg had regarding the stop and frisk policies, De Blasio is acknowledging the systematic wrongdoings the NYPD took part in over the past years, and perhaps even decades. While the settlement itself may not change the attitudes of every NYPD officer, it is a sign of De Blasio’s willingness to move forward past these discriminatory policies.

On the same token, changing policies regarding young officers in dangerous neighborhoods may make an impact, but not until further down the road. It may not have been the lack of experience of the officers, which lead them to stop and frisk thousands of individuals without reasonable suspicion. That could have just as easily come from poor training, or a poor example set by higher-up officers in the NYPD. It could have been the result of already prejudiced individuals. And it some cases, it could have just made a mistake.

Regardless of the motivations behind the stop and frisk frenzy that took place in New York, moving forward, there isn’t going to be an easy fix to it. Though De Blasio seems to be taking the right steps in promoting change, it would be naïve to think that something as systematic and prejudiced as this policy will go away overnight. It will take major commitment on De Blasio’s part to maintain growth away from this policy.

[WSJ] [Terry v. Ohio] [NYT] [Floyd Case]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [debra via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With a New Regime, Can New York Settle on Controversial Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, my lovely editors here at Law Street sent me to cover PEN America’s “Talking Transitions” event. Go, they said. It will be interesting, they said.

Fuck yeah it was!

Basically, a whole bunch of writers gathered in a super-fancy tent at the intersection of Sixth Avenue and Canal Street, and addressed Mayor-Elect de Blasio town hall style. One by one, they got up on stage, and read approximately three-minute speeches about how they’d like to see him differentiate his administration from Bloomberg’s.

Yes, every single person read their speech. Writers, am I right? We could all use a serious public speaking class.

Anyway! There were about 20 or so speakers, addressing an audience of maybe a hundred. And there were tons of professional photographers trolling about, not to mention an incredibly expensive looking video camera set up in the back. Very official. I’m hoping the videotape will ultimately be sent to Mayor de Blasio, since he—shocker!—was not in attendance last night.

No show. Courtesy of Jon Mannion via Flickr.

So why should all you legal junkies care about a bunch of writers gathering to bitch about Bloomberg? Like, don’t we all do that in our apartments every night, sans fancy cameras?

Yes. Yes, we do. But here’s why you should care.

PEN America is a surprisingly influential group of people. Its member list is huge, and includes people like Toni Morrison, David Sedaris, and (really?) Molly Ringwald. This is an organization with clout, and it’s got a little army of writers whose words literally have power to influence public policy.

Also, most of the speakers were politically focused and highly self-aware. Last night wasn’t about flowers and poetry, it was about policy.

Let’s get into that, shall we?

First of all—a quick note about the speakers. Being who I am, I took a little tally as they each graced the stage, and discovered that, while the majority were women (represent!), all but two of them were white. Only four people of color spoke in total last night. We can do better than that, can’t we? Also, every single speaker was normatively gendered. No queerness anywhere in sight.

PEN, you’re fabulous, but please step up your diversity efforts, mmkay?

Moving right along! Issues of affordable housing, gentrification, and unethical (actually racist, let’s just be real here) policing were all major themes throughout the night.

Sergio de la Pava, a public defender by day and an award-winning novelist by night, made the excellent point that, while actual crime rates have never been lower, New York City’s arrest rate has gone up by 20 percent.

Which is a fact that makes absolutely no sense. Except for the fact that different zip codes are policed differently— unjustly funneling poor people, queer people, and people of color into poverty, substance abuse, and the prison industrial complex, regardless of whether or not they’re actually criminals.

So really, while de la Pava was up there talking about crime rates, he was really talking about racism.

“It’s of little use if New York City is the most diverse city in the world,” he said, “if its prison population is monochromatic.”

Got it, de Blasio? End the racism of the Bloomberg era. End it now.

Affordable housing and gentrification were big talking points last night as well, introduced by none other than super-rich philanthropist George Soros. He claimed, accurately, that New York is a city “where decent housing can’t be found for less than two thousand dollars,” and that’s not the kind of environment that breeds creativity, innovation, or community.

Or really, anything other than a gated community of asinine gazillionaires who are in love with the status-quo.

George Soros, philanthropist extraordinaire. Courtesy of Niccolo Caranti via Flickr.

But last night’s speakers didn’t stop at telling de Blasio what needed to change. They also told him how to do it.

Masha Hamilton, a novelist who just came back from spending the last 16 months as the Director of Communications and Public Diplomacy for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, told de Blasio exactly what to do.

Put a poet on his communications team. A street artist on the Housing Authority.

“Let's get a poet on the mayor's communications team…a street artist on the Housing Authority…”-Masha Hamilton #PENspeakout @TalkNYC2013

— PEN Membership (@PENmembership) November 12, 2013

Why? Because according to Hamilton, artists are innovators. “It’s part of their job description to help us dream up new solutions,” she said.

It’s the creative community—that is currently getting crowded out of this overpriced, over-policed city—that can save New York City from itself. Or, more specifically, from corrupt, elitist assholes like lame duck Mayor Bloomberg.

So, what do you think de Blasio should do to improve New York City? Do you want a street artist on the Housing Authority?

Blow it up in the comments!

—

Featured image courtesy of [Tom Roeleveld via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Creatives Can Save New York appeared first on Law Street.