Scheindlin appointed Peter L. Zimroth, a partner at the Arnold & Porter LLP, to serve as the independent monitor. Zimroth graduated from Yale, taught at New York University School of Law and will be "narrowly focused on the City's compliance with reforming the NYPD's use of stop and frisk". Zimroth is under orders to publish reports every six months. Zimroth's appointment is open-ended, with Scheindlin writing that his service "will come to an end when the City has achieved compliance".
Actually the political pressure led to the drop in stop, question & frisk. Likewise the greatly escalating violent crime rate in New York City is going to drive political pressure to greatly expand the number of stops. Especially under the new mayoral administration of Eric Adams -- who was elected on a platform of controlling crime. And if you didn't notice he very publicly called 911 on his first day in office when witnessing a violent fight.
Part of the decline had to do with Bloomberg leaving. The NYCLU is still griping that almost all the stops are minorities, so the monitor obviously isn't requiring that an equal number of whites and asians be stopped, as you were proposing.
Actually,no it didn't.Bloomberg wouldn't have filed an appeal (which was denied)and said he "HOPED"it could continue if he didn't have to stop. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html In her 195-page decision, Judge Scheindlin concluded that the stops, 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, as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg angrily accused the judge of deliberately denying the city “a fair trial” and said the city would file an appeal. Striking a defiant tone, Mr. Bloomberg said, “You’re not going to see any change in tactics overnight.” He said he hoped the appeal process would allow the current stop-and-frisk practices to continue through the end of his administration because “I wouldn’t want to be responsible for a lot of people dying.”
And yet -- here we are completing 2021 and the stops are still happening in New York City.... and the new mayoral administration plans to increase the number greatly. No matter how to attempt to spin it. Two points are clear: Stop, question & frisk is NOT unconstitutional. Stop, question & frisk is still going on in NYC and many other cities today.
The boys will go on and on trying to seem right about something to try and paper over their poor grasp. GWB and ipatent have a lot in common. Back to Forged in Fire.
No matter how to attempt to spin it. Two points are clear: Stop, question & frisk is NOT constitutional the way NYPD was doing it. Stop, question & frisk is still going on in NYC at a fraction(over 500,000 to 13,000) of what it used to and it seems to be going on in a constitutional way as the monitor isn't complaining as far as I know. If the new mayoral administration brings back stop, question & frisk as it was he will be shut down in court just like Bloomberg was shut down.