Anti-stop-and-frisk professor runs NYPD data, quantifies his criticism
According to a new report analyzing stop-and-frisk data made public by the New York Police Department, 95,000 stops appear to have been unconstitutional.
The report released today is from the Center for Constitution Rights and professor Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University, a critic of stop-and-frisk who is currently part of a class-action lawsuit against the city.
The report says that "based on the information recorded on NYPD stop-and-frisk forms by police officers themselves, more than 95,000 stops lacked reasonable articulable suspicion and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures."
Asked about that claim, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne responded by email, "Stops save lives and they comport with descriptions provided by victims of violent crime."
Also, Kelly has said the NYPD didn't do a great job in the past at reporting stop-and-frisk figures, and that residents in high-crime communities actually want more, not fewer, stop-and-frisks conducted.
Fagan told me last December that based on his research, the stops were "all about race."