Judge says NYPD's Systematic Stop & Frisk of Non-Whites Violates Constitution
Monday, August 12, 2013 at 11:58AM 
A federal judge has found that the NYPD ordered its overseers (officers) to violate the Constitutional rights of non-whites as a matter of policy. This of course is of no moment to many white people or their media, who are supportive or indifferent to such practices of white supremacy (like ID "Papers Please" laws). Similar to the increasingly meaningless 4th Amendment rights of non-whites, during Nazi Germany, various residency/movement regulations and identification measures were undertaken against Jews by the Government as preconditions to genocide. [MORE] In her written opinion the judge proposed that cops wear body cameras to record their encounters with non-white people and host more community meetings. But, the only remedy that will actually produce justice is to end white supremacy/racism.
From [HERE] In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg (racist suspect in photo) administration’s crime-fighting legacy, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of non-whites in New York, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.
In a decision issued on Monday, the Court ruled that police officers have for years been systematically stopping innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Officers often frisked these people, usually young minority men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, before letting them go, according to the 195-page decision.
Over the past decade the city has conducted about 5 million stop and frisks. The vast majority of residents who have been stopped, more than 80 percent, have been black or Latino. [MORE]
Above, White NYPD Deputy Inspector Recorded Telling Officer to Target Young Black Men Wearing Dark Clothing [MORE]
These stop-and-frisk episodes, which soared in number over the last decade as crime continued to decline, demonstrated a widespread disregard for the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, according to the ruling. It also found violations with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Judge Scheindlin found that the city “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling by targeting racially defined groups for stops based on local crime suspect data.” She rejected the city’s arguments that more stops happened in minority neighborhoods solely because those happened to have high-crime rates.
“I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” she wrote.
