State Supreme Court Justice Anil Singh may have had the law right when he denied two police unions standing to challenge the Community Safety Act.
But he was dead wrong when he went on to insist this law doesn’t hinder cops in their ability to do their job and keep guns and criminals off New York streets.
Under the law, passed last year over Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s veto, people who claim they are victims of cops’ racial profiling can sue the officers and collect legal and other fees (though not civil damages) if successful.
Two police unions challenged the law, calling it vague and arguing it is preempted by the state Criminal Procedure Law, which bans racial profiling.
Singh rejected both arguments, and he defended the broader law on the grounds it does not ban stop-and-frisk altogether.
Here’s the problem: As Justice Singh recognized, “Police officers must make split-second decisions when engaging in investigative stops.”
Those decisions should not include the very real threat of a lawsuit every time a police officer approaches someone who may be carrying an illegal gun.
Back in 2008, five former US attorneys general — Democrats as well as Republicans — argued public officials should be able to “carry out their governmental functions without fear that their time and reputations will later be squandered by vexatious lawsuits brought by those wishing to second-guess their good-faith decisions.”
Too bad this sensible principle no longer applies to the men and women charged with the grave responsibility of keeping New Yorkers safe from violent criminals.