Stop attacking N.Y. judges 

JONATHAN LIPPMAN

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

In recent weeks, however, the passions aroused on both sides of the stop-and-frisk debate have threatened to boil over. In the aftermath of two court decisions that found that the police had violated suspects’ constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, the judges who participated in these decisions have been subjected to a variety of personal accusations, including linking their rulings to a recent spike in violent crime in the city.

F or the past year or so, there has been a spirited public debate about the New York City Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” policy. By and large, this is the sign of a healthy democracy. Getting the balance right between protecting public safety and preserving civil liberties is no simple matter, and reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the line. Indeed, vetting these kinds of policy disagreements in an open fashion is part of what makes this country great.

These judges are hardly the first to be vilified for their judicial determinations. While commentators and public officials are free to draw their own conclusions as to the wisdom of court rulings, I cannot comment on the legal issues in cases that may be appealed to the Court of Appeals, where I preside.

As the head of the judicial branch of government in New York, however, I do want to discuss why it is so important that the judiciary not be subject to public scorn and derision for simply doing its job and meeting its constitutional responsibilities.

In the current heated environment, it can be hard to find common ground between Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and critics of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk procedures. Both sides would surely agree that in some cases police officers conduct stops and frisks that are questionable. Judges are often called upon to evaluate the legality of the police action in these cases.

Making these decisions is not easy. Legal standards are frequently expressed in the most general terms, leaving judges to fill in the details. It would be difficult enough to apply these legal standards if everyone agreed on the facts in each dispute, but of course this is rarely the case. In a typical street encounter between a police officer and an individual, what happened is hotly contested.

The article was printed in the New York Daily News and can be found at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stop-attacking-n-y-judges-article-1.1115540