Whenever I come across those NYPD bag searching bases in the subway (I’m sure they have an official title but I have no idea what that is), I play a little game. As soon as I come down those stairs  and spot that table surrounded by police officers, I take on the role of  “Suspicious Character Kayt.” I nervously grasp my tote bag. I avoid eye contact with the officers. Sometimes I put my head down. Sometimes I anxiously look around as if I’m considering making a run for it. It really all depends on my mood how dramatic my portrayal of “Suspicious Character Kayt” is but, regardless of how Oscar worthy my performance (and, believe me, I think I’m pretty good),  I have yet to be stopped. Now this may have something to do with the NYPD officers’ skill level at assessing real and credible threats or it may have something to do with my age,  the fact that I am white and the fact that I am a woman. This is not the experience of many other New Yorkers in the subway station and on the streets where they live. Many young people, particularly minority men  aged 13-24, living in stop-and-frisk “hot spots” have often been stopped numerous times. A recent Vera Institute study suggests 9 times or more.  This is the issue at the center of the debate surrounding the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy; a debate that is currently playing out in the federal court system and  one that I feel I would be remiss if I did not mention, as it so acutely highlights the concept of social justice that differentiates social work from other social science fields.

 

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk policy, as its called, essentially allows for police officers to stop anyone they have “reasonable suspicion” to suspect of criminal activity. One might wonder what constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” That answer is not a clear one. The NYPD sees stop-and-frisk as a preventative measure. Instead of waiting for crimes to occur and reacting, the police stop would-be-criminals before they have a chance to engage in criminal activity. To them, its a proactive stance and one that has significantly impacted the crime rates of NYC. Anyone could be stopped and frisked they say.  Civil rights group see it a different way. They have brought numerous lawsuits against the city’s police department alleging that this “reasonable suspicion” is without merit and largely based on skin color. “Suspicious Character Kayt’s” inability to draw attention may just illustrate their point.

This week, the judge who ruled on these cases brought by civil rights groups has taken center stage. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin has heard numerous stop-and-frisk cases over the last decade,beginning in 1999 with a the infamous Diallo case. She has had this opportunity on account of the court’s “related-case-rule.” “Related-case-rule”  allows judges the chance to accept cases that they deem to have “similarity of facts and legal issues” or those that emanate from the “same transactions or events,” all in an effort to conserve judicial resources. In a ruling issued on Thursday by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Scheindlin was removed from the latest stop-and-frisk case before her (Floyd v. City of New York) and her rulings were reversed. The panel of three judges issuing this ruling believed that Judge Scheindlin had, perhaps, been too liberal with her application of the “related-case-rule” and that she did not appear to be impartial about the matter.

The reversal of Judge Scheindlin’s recent orders means that no monitor will be appointed to perform a watchdog function over the NYPD’s searches and the pilot program that was meant to record street encounters for five of the city’s precincts will not be implemented at this time. A new judge will have a chance to rule on this, but only after the Court of Appeals gives the go ahead. The impact of the Court of Appeals findings could be vast in the communities where many of us work at our field placements. Without monitoring, the NYPD is free to continue to stop-and-frisk racial minorities in disproportionate amounts. This can lead to disproportionate numbers of arrests, felony convictions, incarcerations. All of which, as we know,  greatly affect a community’s ability to prosper.

One thing we can do to advocate for socially just NYPD policies is to vote tomorrow in the mayoral election. Bill de Blasio has widely criticized the tactics of stop-and-frisk, Joseph Lhota is in favor. The choice will be our next mayor’s as to whether to continue to pursue the appeal of Judge Scheindlin’s orders or to go ahead and implement reform.  While casting a ballot on November 5 may just turn out to be a means to end for my acting career and “Suspicious Character Kayt,”   it also offers a real chance to provide relief in the communities who most deserve it, and, in my opinion, that’s a rare opportunity.