A federal judge hearing arguments over police use of stop and frisk blasted Public Advocate Bill de Blasio Tuesday, saying the mayoral front-runner would love nothing better than to have the NYPD run by the courts.
“The public advocate is dying to have the Police Department run by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York,” appellate Judge José Alberto Cabranes candidly told lawyer John Siegal, who was representing De Blasio’s current elected office.
Siegel argued the public advocate’s position that the city should not seek a delay in implementation of the August ruling by federal Judge Shira Scheindlin — which found stop and frisk to be unconstitutional and called for a federal monitor on the NYPD and for cops to wear body cameras on patrol.
Siegal later said that the anti-stop-and-frisk De Blasio, if elected mayor, would leave the running of the NYPD up to the police commissioner and that a court-appointed monitor tapped to oversee policy changes would only be on the job “temporarily” with a “limited role” related to “specific changes to stop-and-frisk.”
The three-judge federal appeals panel is reviewing the city’s bid for a stay on Scheindlin’s bombshell ruling after the judge last month shot down the Bloomberg administration’s request for a stay on her order while it is under appeal.
Cabranes and fellow appellate Judge Barrington Parker Jr. also accused the administration’s lawyers of bizarrely trying to delay its own appeal until after Mayor Bloomberg leaves office at year’s end.
“You might see your marching orders change [if De Blasio is elected mayor],” Parker said.
Cabranes likened the city’s “delay” tactics to Muhammad Ali’s famous “rope-a-dope,” saying if Schiendlin’s ruling was already having negative repercussions for NYPD operations, as the city claims it has, the city could have appealed at least a month sooner to help guarantee a ruling before Bloomberg leaves office.
“I do think a reasonable observer reviewing this record could think the city has been speaking out of two sides of its mouth … castigating the district court [while] moving at a painfully slow pace.
“Perhaps you are proceeding with what Muhammad Ali used to call the ‘rope-a-dope’ to… save your energy … for the end.”
Following the hearing, city lawyer Celeste Koeleveld called such criticism “highly unfair.”
“The resistance has come from the other side in moving things slowly,” she said. “We are moving as fast as we can.”
Koeleveld earlier told the panel that the city believes Scheindlin’s order should be delayed because it’s had a “chilling effect” on the cops who must carry it out.
She said officers are “hesitant” to use stop-and-frisk – a tactic that’s been hailed by many for reducing crime citywide the past decade.
Lawyer Daniel Connolly, who appeared on behalf of former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and ex-U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, also told the panel that cops have become “defensive, passive and scared” following Scheindlin’s August ruling.
But Darius Charney, a lawyer for lead plaintiff Center for Constitutional Rights, said granting a stay would only “continue to harm the communities who have suffered massive violations of their constitutional rights for so long.”
The appeals court will rule on the stay request at a later date.