REMARKS
Jumaane Williams introduces stop and frisk background
0:09:02
·
60 sec
Jumaane Williams, the Public Advocate for New York City, provides background on the stop and frisk policy. He discusses the 2013 federal ruling that found the NYPD's stop and frisk policy unconstitutional, violating the 4th and 14th amendments.
- Explains the concept of Terry stops based on the 1963 Supreme Court ruling
- Highlights that the NYPD was found to be stopping people based on race rather than reasonable suspicion
- Acknowledges that stop, question, and frisk is a necessary tool for officers, but its abuse led to discrimination against black and Latino New Yorkers
Jumaane Williams
0:09:02
Thank you, mister chair.
0:09:03
Good morning, everyone.
0:09:04
As As mentioned, my name is Jumaane Williams, public advocate for the City of New York.
0:09:07
I'd like to thank chair Salam and the members of the Committee on Public Safety for holding this very important hearing.
0:09:13
As mentioned in 2013, a federal judge ruled that NYPD stop and frisk policy was unconstitutional, violating the 4th and 14th amendment.
0:09:21
This ruling was based on 1963 Supreme Court ruling, Terry versus Ohio, which found that an officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminality before the officer can conduct that stop.
0:09:31
Stops in which a civilian is not free to leave is thus known as a Terry stop.
0:09:35
The judge in the 2013 ruling found that NYPD was stopping people on the basis of race, not reasonable suspicion, and this constitutes inten intention of discrimination against black and Latino New Yorkers.
0:09:45
Just wanna make note that, the tool of stop, question, and frisk is a tool that I understand is necessary for officers to do their job.
0:09:54
What's commonly known as stop and frisk, was really an abuse of those tools, which is where most of us spent our resources trying to pull back.
