Petulant Billionaire NY Mayor Continues To Insist He's Never Wrong; Sues City Council Over Stop-And-Frisk Legislation
from the it's-my-way-or-IT'S-MY-WAY,-dammit! dept
Maybe billionaires are just used to getting their way. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has seen his and Kelly's precious stop-and-frisk program declared unconstitutional by a federal court and face additional curbs via legislation passed by the New York City Council with a veto-proof vote. (Not that it stopped him from threatening those who voted for it… and vetoing them on sheer principle.)
Despite the number of legal attacks on the program, Bloomberg still feels its an unassailable part of modern policing. And as the opposition has continued to mount, Bloomberg's defensive actions and statements have taken on a degree of stubborn petulance. Everyone's wrong but him and his personal army.
At this point, Bloomberg is running short of toys to throw out of his well-appointed crib. However, he still has a few left to hurl at his opponents, and this latest salvo pretty much erases any emaciated notions that Bloomberg cares about New Yorkers more than he cares about being "right."
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg sued the City Council Tuesday in a bid to overturn a law that aims to curb the police department's use of its controversial stop-and-frisk policy.For a man who constantly claims his first concern is public safety when defending stop-and-frisk, he sure doesn't seem to care much for them otherwise. Bloomberg gives every appearance that he believes he owns the city he's supposed to be serving -- and that what he says goes, no matter how many people object.
The council's votes came less than two weeks after a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the department's stop-and-frisk policy, in which officers stop people in high-crime areas suspected of engaging in criminal activity. The policy was thrown out on the grounds that it disproportionately targets minorities.
The council reaffirmed their passage of the measure 10 days ago, along with another bill creating an independent watchdog to monitor the New York Police Department, overriding the mayor's veto, despite his warnings that the legislation would threaten public safety.
By filing this lawsuit, he's basically attacking the city's own governing body (another set of servants who represent the public) for daring to undercut his decrees. The suit's success rests on an assertion Bloomberg certainly finds appealing -- that state criminal procedure laws trump a city's attempt to undercut his unconstitutional program.
The lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, asserted the bill was invalid because it is superseded by the state's criminal procedure law, or CPL, which governs the standards and procedures that police officers must follow.This is a very interesting tactic. Well, "interesting" isn't really the best word. Perhaps "disingenuous" or "hypocritical" or "transparently self-serving" would be better substitutes. Whether or not the mayor's legal argument has any weight remains to be seen but, in plain English, using the mayor's own assertions, this is what he's arguing.
"The CPL preempts the field of criminal procedure legislation and prevents local legislatures, including the council, from passing local laws in this area," the lawsuit said.
The city council cannot pass local laws that address areas covered by state criminal procedure laws -- and he's using this argument to defend a local program. Stop-and-frisk is not used statewide. It is solely a NYPD program. If that's the case, it could reasonably be argued that the city council does indeed have the power to pass laws affecting purely local police programs, such as stop-and-frisk.
But as the city's counsel states here, Bloomberg can make a pretty strong case otherwise:
Michael Cardozo, the city's top lawyer, said in a statement that the lawsuit was necessary to ensure the council did not overstep its authority.Cardozo calls the council's bill "regulation of law enforcement activity." Utilizing this broad term, the council would be overstepping its limits.The way the council's legislation is written doesn't specifically target the program itself, but rather the methods deployed for the stops and searches, and even those aren't addressed directly. It's more of a tangential approach that broadens the recourse options for citizens who feel they've been unfairly treated by these tactics.
"Local legislative bodies should not be passing laws affecting the regulation of law enforcement activity in this way," he said. "This is a matter governed by the state legislature."
Bloomberg is likely relying on the inherent vagueness of the council's legislation to work against it in this lawsuit, a vagueness that was likely intentional as the broader wording helped trim down the number of potential loopholes the NYPD could exploit in order to escape filed lawsuits.
If this lawsuit goes Bloomberg's way, it hardly looks like the end of the attacks on stop-and-frisk, but it does perhaps signal the end of its rigorous defense from the mayor's office. Two mayoral candidates have stated their displeasure with the program.
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a leading Democratic mayoral candidate:
"Mayor Bloomberg can sue all he wants, but at the end of the day, we will successfully beat back this ill-advised litigation and ensure the prerogative of the city council to reform stop & frisk..."Bill de Blasio, another Democratic frontrunner stated that "racial profiling is not good policing," adding later that, "we will not continue stop-and-frisk the way Ray Kelly's had it."
Bloomberg's third and final term ends this year but it appears he's going to do everything he can before then to ensure his legacy of unconstitutional stops lives on.