Baltimore police officers routinely engage in unconstitutional searches and arrests, excessive force, and profiling of black people, says a report from the Department of Justice presented on Wednesday morning.

The 163-page report says this pattern exists because of “systemic deficiencies in BPD’s policies, training, supervision, and accountability structures that fail to equip officers with the tools they need to police effectively and within the bounds of the federal law.”

Unconstitutional stops and arrests

The report is not a pleasant read. While people living in the wealthy, predominantly white areas of Baltimore describe the police as responsive and respectful, individuals in the poor, mainly black neighborhoods, on the other hand, describe the police as disrespectful and not responsive to their calls. They are also often targeted for unjustified stops and searches.

The DOJ’s report presents numbers on how many black people were stopped, often without reasonable suspicion. In fact, many were stopped when simply standing or walking on the city’s sidewalks. In the report, an image of a police department permeated with racial bias emerges.

Black people accounted for 95 percent of the 410 people who were stopped 10 times or more in the five and a half year period of data collection. One man, in particular, was stopped 30 times in less than 4 years, without ever being charged with a crime.

.@TheJusticeDept: ‘BPD’s Enforcement Activities Disproportionately Impact African Americans’ https://t.co/c0KeX8WF4X pic.twitter.com/f2Q1I3wXUN

— DOJ Civil Rights (@CivilRights) August 10, 2016

The frequent disregard for the Constitution through mass stops, searches, and arrests seem to be due to the  “zero tolerance” policy from the 1990s, which rewarded officers who make a lot of arrests.

The Baltimore Police also may have been biased against women when handling sexual assault cases. Officers failed to properly and meaningfully investigate cases of sexual assault and also to collect and corroborate evidence supporting the women’s accounts. While the DOJ did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that policing in Baltimore amounted to gender-bias in violation of federal law, some bias appears to have affected officers’ handling of sexual assault cases.

What’s next?

The Department of Justice launched the investigation in the spring of 2015, after the death of Freddie Gray. Reforms to make necessary changes will probably cost tens of millions of dollars and may take several years. The next step in the process is for city and federal officials to negotiate a settlement and present it to a federal judge. The settlement will include a list of requirements that the Baltimore Police Department will need to meet in the coming years.

A positive note is that everyone the DOJ investigators talked to during the investigation agreed that the BPD needs major reforms, even current police officers and city leaders. The DOJ said it will talk to local residents to take their opinions into account during the later stages of negotiation.

“There’s going to be a lot of folks with a lot of ideas about what needs to happen now in the community and in law enforcement, and it’s been really important to us to be able to hear directly from community members,” Vanita Gupta, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, said to the Baltimore Sun.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baltimore Police: Racially Biased, Routinely Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Getting your driver’s license revoked for unpaid fees is undoubtedly annoying, but is it actually unconstitutional? A lawsuit against the Virginia DMV is challenging the policy, claiming that it is unfair to those without the ability to pay.

The class action suit alleges that revoking a person’s driver’s license is a violation of the protections in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. The defendants accuse the policy of being an “unconstitutional scheme that unfairly punishes them for being poor.” Without a license, a person would legally be unable to drive to work, school, or fulfill other necessary obligations, making the license revocation more than just an inconvenience.

Drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked due to unpaid court fines face a $145 reinstatement fee from the Virginia DMV. To put that in some perspective, that would be equivalent to about 20 hours of wages for someone working at Virginia’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. While wealthier people would have no problem paying off the fine and getting off scot-free, it could be a financial burden to anyone living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The Legal Aid Justice Center (LAJC), which filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, also recently released a full report on this issue, highlighting the ways in which the state’s repayment plans for unpaid fines hurt lower-income families. The report’s findings indicated that the Virginia DMV does not take into account a person’s financial situation before making the decision to suspend a license.

The plaintiffs in this suit hope to prove that these fines are one of the many injustices that come with being poor in America. People with lower incomes generally find it harder to obtain loans, build and maintain credit scores, and are charged fines for things such as negative bank balances. Court fees and fines also disproportionately affect lower-income people, as they are more likely to go through the court system. Essentially, those with lower incomes are penalized for being poor, while wealthier people are often able to avoid such fees, despite their ability to pay.

LAJC is trying to advocate that the policy be changed to take into account one’s income level before revoking or suspending a license. The suit claims that currently 940,ooo people in the state have suspended licenses due to unpaid fees (over 10 percent of the state’s population of 8.3 million), meaning that a policy change could have a significant impact on Virginia’s citizens.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is It Unconstitutional to Take Away Someone’s License for Unpaid Fines? appeared first on Law Street.

Stop-and-frisk policies were one of the hottest topics in law enforcement in the last several years. The controversial New York policy made headlines, led to accusations of racial profiling and discrimination, and was the subject of multiple court cases. Now, the practice has basically been discontinued altogether. Read on to learn about stop-and-frisk policies, the arguments for and against them, and the progress we’ve made since.

What is Stop and Frisk?

Stop and Frisk is a situation in which a police officer detains a suspicious person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect’s outer garments in order to determine if that person is carrying a concealed weapon. If this “patting down” doesn’t alleviate the officer’s suspicion, he may also check the suspect’s pockets. Its constitutionality derives from the 1968 Supreme Court decision of Terry v. Ohio in which the Court ruled that it is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment; however, many criticize the stop-and-frisk practice for being a racial profiling tool, claiming that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are subject to it.

On August 12, 2013, in Floyd v. City of New York, the Southern District Court of New York ruled that stop and frisk is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision was met with a lot of criticism and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals initially blocked and randomly reassigned the case in October 2013, stating that Judge Scheindlin, who wrote the majority opinion in August, “ran afoul” and had “compromised the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” More recently, the Court of Appeals failed to find any misconduct or ethical violation by Scheindlin and declined to reverse the decision. But it continued the stay on the ruling until the City of New York appealed it.

Why was it ruled unconstitutional in August 2013?

Activists in New York have been fighting stop and frisk for years. The August 2013 decision was based on a wealth of statistical data. Out of 4.4 million stops over the span of eight-and-a-half years, 52 percent of suspects were Black, 31 percent were Hispanic, and 10 percent were White (from a population of 23 percent Black, 29 percent Hispanic, and 33 percent White). Furthermore, in 23 to 24 percent of all stops with Black or Hispanic suspects, the police used force. Contrastingly, the police used force in 17 percent of all stops with White suspects. It was this evidence that prompted Scheindlin to write, “the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling.” Unlike former Mayor Bloomberg who strongly supported the practice, Mayor Bill de Blasio sharply criticized the policy during his campaign and promised to reform it. The public was outraged when the City of New York appealed the August 2013 decision.

What was the argument in favor of stop and frisk?

Supporters of stop and frisk believe in its efficacy for driving down crime. One of the most vocal supporters of the practice said that rules against stop and frisk “will make it harder for our police officers to protect New Yorkers and continue to drive down crime.” He argued that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are stopped under this practice because a disproportionate number of them commit crimes. At least 10 out of 19 stops have been deemed justified. A report stated that gun shootings have increased by 2.3 percent between August and November 2013. The efficacy of this practice is further supported by a study that revealed that more than half of stops lead to guilty convictions, therefore keeping criminals off the street.

What’s the status of stop and frisk now?

Stop and frisk has pretty much been eliminated. According to data obtained by the New Republic, stop-and-frisk incidents have fallen by almost 80 percent during the first three quarters of 2014. More importantly, the seemingly apocalyptic scenario that many warned about if stop and frisk was discontinued didn’t happen. In August 2013, right when stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said, “No question about it, violent crime will go up.” Bloomberg  agreed: “if you try to so much as reform stop and frisk…you’re playing politics with people’s lives.”

But crime hasn’t actually gone up–in fact, just the opposite. It’s decreased, the same way that it has been steadily decreasing over the last few decades nationwide. Despite no more stop and frisk, the streets of New York City are getting safer.

Stop and frisk does still happen, though it’s gone down a lot. There’s a Twitter account dedicated to memorializing all the times that stop-and-frisk incidents happen, @stopandfrisk. It’s still active, and it still chronicles incidences of stop and frisk being used on citizens.

Stop and frisk could have made some sense, in theory, but ended up being a more problematic program than it was worth, not to mention unconstitutional. It’s heartening to see that the crime rate has continued to fall, even with stop and frisk no longer being used.

Resources

Primary

US Constitution: Fourth Amendment

US Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

NYPD: New York City Police Department Stop Question & Frisk Activity Official Report of First Quarter, 2013

New York Civil Liberties Union: Stop-And-Frisk Campaign

Center for Constitutional Rights: Floyd, et al. v. City of New York

Additional

Nation: Ending Stop-And-Frisk, Keeping the Racism

Washington Post: Judge Says New York’s ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Law Unconstitutional

Al-Jazeera: New Yorkers Urge de Blasio to #DropTheAppeal on Stop-and-Frisk

MSNBC: African-American Teen Says Stop-and-Frisk Has Made Him Fear Police

ACLU: We Know That Stop-and-Frisk is All Kinds of Horrible: So Why is it Expanding Nationwide?

Wall Street Journal: Judge Rules NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violates Rights

USA Today: Trayvon Martin’s Mom Blasts ‘Stop-and-Frisk’

Huffington Post: Joe Lhota Says Only Some of Stop and Frisks Might Constitute Racial Profiling In NYC

Washington Post: Ray Kelley defends New York’s controversial ‘stop and frisk’ law

NY Daily News: Bloomberg Sues City Council to Overturn Law Targeting Stop-and-Frisk Profiling

Washington Times: New York Police, Banned From Stop-and-Frisk, Warn of 12 Percent Drop in Gun Seizures

Reuters: Half of New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Arrests Yield Convictions

Legal Dictionary: Stop-and-Frisk

The New York Times: Court Block’s Stop-and-Frisk Changes for New York Police

Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology: Reflections on New York’s Stop-and-Frisk law and it’s Claimed Unconstitutionality

Fordham Law Review: The Right to Investigate and New York’s “Stop and Frisk” Law

VOA News: After NYC Elections, ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Debate Persists

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Stop and Frisk: Did Ending it Make a Difference? appeared first on Law Street.

 Since the implementation of the “silent filibuster” (allows Senators to fiat the idea that they would speak for ever), filibusters have become a juggernaut tactic to halt legislation. Now, filibusters are used as jokes.

The reasoning is simple: Filibusters no longer serve as a means of discussing legislation.

 What the hell is our politics coming to when Senators feel it is acceptable to read a child’s book on the floor of the Senate?  The filibuster was once a strategic tool to discuss legislation and improve a proposed bill. Now, we have senators akin to Ted Cruz who find it appropriate to recite Green Eggs and Ham. I am positive Doctor Seuss would be as disgraced with our politicians as many of us our today.

 It is no mystery that the filibuster has lost its intended purpose. From the “Silent Filibuster” to Ted Cruz’s story time readings, the western model of government is losing credibility—it is a joke. But who are we to complain? After all, WE elected them into office (great job, Texas).

 All of the mockery put aside, how is it possible that  something as corrupt as the filibuster is constitutional? This brings up a particular question; is the filibuster even in the constitution?

 Nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly state anything about the filibuster, nor the act of filibustering. So does that mean it is unconstitutional? Aaron Burr, Vice President to John Adams, can be blamed for this confusion. As President of the Senate, Burr removed cloture, deeming it unnecessary, leaving an open spot for the filibuster in the “unwritten constitution”. Although it is not written verbatim in the Constitution, it has been adapted into our structure of government. This can also be seen in the emergence of a two party system as well as the cabinet.

If I recall, the Constitution does not directly include an Air Force, so does that mean the United States Air force is unconstitutional as well? The Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, which is why Article I, § 8, establishes that Congress has the power to “raise and support Armies”. So the answer is, yeah, the filibuster is constitutional; it’s just being exploited.

And if you think it couldn’t get any more corrupt, it does. In fact, this process was too strenuous; hence the birth of the Silent filibuster. Now, Senators simply fiat the idea of talking for infinity.  The way I see it, they should be required to put in some effort. The notion that one can halt an entire bill because they say they will talk forever is absurd.

Not only is Cruz giving a bad name for himself, he is tarnishing diplomacy, moreover the democratic process our nation prides itself upon. His political stunt is parallel to celebrity Miley Cyrus’s unwarranted gestures—a nation utterly embarrassed.

[ RawStory] [Newsdailynews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filibusters: Political Twerking appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Jerry Brown and legislative leaders announced Monday a deal to seek an extension on the compliance order to cut California’s prison population by expanding rehabilitation programs.  This approach is aimed at reducing the number of former inmates committing new crimes through health and informational programs. If the request for an extension is rejected by the panel of judges then the state is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to house inmates in private prisons.

The federal judges, who deemed California prisons unconstitutionally crowded, gave the state officials until December 31 to reduce the prison population by thousands. There has been a lot of controversy in the Capitol over how to handle the court order.  The Governor’s original plan was to spend $1.1 billion over three years to house inmates in private prisons, county jails and other facilities. Meanwhile, California Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg wanted to extend the court order for three years, allowing the state more time to expand mental-health and drug rehabilitation programs. Both proposals did not adequately provide a working solution within the time frame allotted.

[LA Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Luis Argerich via Wikipedia]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Time Please: Deal Seeking an Extension on California’s Prison Compliance Order appeared first on Law Street.

The New York appeals court on Tuesday upheld the ruling that Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks is unconstitutional.  In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the law “violated the state principle of separation of powers.”  The ban would have prohibited the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants throughout the city.  The appeals court decision came after a New York Supreme Court Justice ruled that the ban was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Bloomberg has recently issued several executive orders and initiatives in an attempt to improving the health of New Yorkers, including mandating that all chain restaurants publicize calorie counts; promoting the use of stairways rather than elevators; and even an attempt to raise the age to buy cigarettes from 18 to 21.  Although he has faced several challenges to his health initiatives, he remains committed to improving the health and well-being of all New Yorkers.

[NY Daily News]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Large Drink Ban Still Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.