New York Daily News

September 25, 2014


 

Stop and Frisk rally at City Hall — but this time against unions, not NYPD

BY JENNIFER FERMINO

The same coalition of community groups, police reform advocates and politicians who sued the city - and won - over stop and frisk rallied again at City Hall on Wednesday, but this time they weren't protesting the NYPD.

Instead, the over 50 demonstrators gathered to protest against the NYPD unions, which are appealing the federal ruling in the case. That appeal is delaying the reform actions the judge ruled the NYPD must enact.

"What's happening now is a prolonged temper tantrum by people who wanted to continue to flaunt and push institutional racism," fumed City Councilman Jumaane Williams. 

The federal court in August 2013 found that the NYPD's implementation of its stop-and-frisk policy was unconstitutional, and ordered all of the parties - including the police unions - to sit down at the table and come up with reforms.

None of that has happened, even though the city has agreed to settle under the terms of the ruling, because the unions refuse to drop their case.

The use of body cameras on cops, another reform mandated by the lawsuit, is moving forward without input from the stakeholders because the legal action is still ongoing, said Darius Charney.

"It was supposed to be completely transparent, but they [the city] couldn't wait [for the lawsuit to finish]," said Charney.

Several groups - including Communities United for Police Reform, National Latino Officers Association, and both the Public Advocate and City Council's Progressive Caucus - are filing motions asking the judge to drop the union's appeal.

"We do not believe the union is representing the interests of the officers," said Miranda.

In a statement, Patrolmen's Benevolent Association President Patrick J. Lynch said: “We make no apologies for protecting our members from a decision that directly impacts how we do our jobs.  The point of our challenge is to allow our members who protect everyone in this city regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation, to have a voice in the discussion of operational changes that will directly impact us and the work that we do.”