Metro

Cops may be forced to wear video cameras after judge rules current stop-frisk policy ‘unconstitutional’

‘DANGEROUS’:Mayor Bloomberg, joined by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly at City Hall yesterday, warns of rising crime rates as a result of the stop-and-frisk ruling.

‘DANGEROUS’:Mayor Bloomberg, joined by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly at City Hall yesterday, warns of rising crime rates as a result of the stop-and-frisk ruling. (NY Post: Chad Rachman)

‘DANGEROUS’: Mayor Bloomberg, joined by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly at City Hall yesterday, warns of rising crime rates as a result of the stop-and-frisk ruling. (
)

A federal judge declared the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program unconstitutional yesterday and in an unprecedented move appointed an outside monitor to rein in the controversial tactic — prompting a furious Mayor Bloomberg to warn that crime would skyrocket if the ruling stands.

“I worry for my kids, and I worry for your kids. I worry for you and I worry for me,” Bloomberg said at a City Hall press conference with Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin had found the city liable for violating the constitutional rights of black and Hispanic plaintiffs who claim they were illegally targeted for stops because of their race.

In her 195-page ruling, Scheindlin — who presided over a nine-week, non-jury trial on the issue this year — said “statistical and anecdotal evidence showed that minorities are indeed treated differently than whites,” with blacks and Hispanics “more likely than whites to be stopped within precincts and census tracts, even after controlling for other relevant variables.

“The city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner,” she added.

“In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of targeting ‘the right people’ is racially discriminatory.”

MOMS DISAGREE WITH STOP-FRISK RULING

MONITOR PROMISES TO JOIN FORCES

Although Scheindlin said she wasn’t ordering an end to stop-and-frisk, she directed the NYPD to adopt reforms, including a one-year pilot program to outfit some patrol cops with video cameras to be worn on their bodies.

She also tapped prominent lawyer Peter Zimroth, a former city corporation counsel and Manhattan prosecutor, to serve as an independent monitor to oversee the changes and develop more through town-hall-style meetings across the city.

Bloomberg said the move marks the first time a judge has ever ordered outside oversight of a law-enforcement agency after a trial.

Cops across the country, from Detroit to New Orleans to Oakland, are currently subject to court-ordered monitors, also — but all were appointed pursuant to consent decrees.

WEEKEND BUST IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT STOP-AND-FRISK

EDITORIAL: JUDGE’S RULING CARRIES AN INCALCULABLE PRICE

Scheindlin wrote that the city’s neighborhoods must play a role in improving the system.

“If the reforms to stop-and-frisk are not perceived as legitimate by those most affected, the reforms are unlikely to be successful,” she wrote.

“Neither an independent monitor, nor a municipal administration, nor this court can speak for those who have been and will be most affected by the NYPD’s use of stop-and-frisk.”

Bloomberg vowed to appeal.

“This is a very dangerous decision made by a judge that I think just does not understand how policing works and what is compliant with the US Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court,” the agitated mayor said.

“We believe we have done exactly what the courts allow and what the Constitution allows.”

Bloomberg said that during the trial, Scheindlin “made it clear she was not at all interested in the crime reductions here or how we achieved them,” and he warned crime rates could soar if the monitor impedes police practices.

“Crime can come back any time. The criminals think that they’re going to get away with things. [We] just cannot let that happen,” he said.

Kelly said: “What I find most disturbing and offensive about this decision is the notion that the NYPD engages in racial profiling. That simply is recklessly untrue.

“We do not engage in racial profiling. It is prohibited by law. It is prohibited by our own regulations,” Kelly said.

“We train our officers that they need reasonable suspicion to make a stop, and I can assure you that race is never a reason to conduct a stop,” he said.

Vincent Warren, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which led the legal fight, called the ruling a “landmark decision.”

Scheindlin’s ruling came weeks before primary elections in the mayoral race. Several candidates have vowed to abolish or curtail stop-and-frisk. With an appeal expected to take a year or more, their election could render Scheindlin’s ruling moot.

In her decision, Scheindlin cited “uncontested” statistics showing more than 4.4 million stops from January 2004 to June 2012, with blacks accounting for 52 percent of stops, Hispanics for 31 percent and whites for 10 percent.

In 2010, the city’s population was 23 percent black, 29 percent Hispanic and 33 percent white.

City officials say the stops are the result of descriptions given of crime suspects.