CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

The costs of the stop-and-frisk ruling

An op-ed piece from The New York Times:

SETTING aside the legal wisdom of the recent decision by a federal judge against the New York Police Departmentand its stop-and-frisk policy, one thing seems clear: the judge’s remedy will be enormously expensive and time-consuming to implement, and at a time when the number of stops is falling dramatically.

. . .

Judge Scheindlin also ordered a one-year program requiring officers from the precinct in each borough with the highest number of stops to wear body cameras. This program could involve some 2,000 officers, including those assigned to public housing. The judge cites the success of a similar program in Rialto, Calif., but that city of 100,000 can’t be compared to New York. (Rialto had 54 police officers, half of whom wore cameras.) The judge argued that body cameras will, among other things, “encourage lawful and respectful interactions on the part of both parties.” But anyone who watches the reality show “Cops” has good reason to be skeptical.

| Permalink


"Cops" is no deterrent because the Court's rarely side against the police, making police misconduct almost untouchable. Now that a judge has the guts to do something, a body-worn camera could very well greatly slow down some police misconduct.

Posted by: Daniel | Sep 1, 2013 8:07:54 PM

Post a comment