New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg vetoed two bills on Tuesday that would have held the New York Police Department accountable for unlawful use of a tactic known as “stop-and-frisk.”
One of the bills would have created an NYPD inspector general position to oversee the department’s stop-and-frisk policies and procedures. It also would have established a strong and enforceable ban on racial profiling by police officers.
The other bill would have expanded the definition of racial profiling and allowed those who believed they were racially profiled to sue the police in New York state court.
Bloomberg said he vetoed the bills because they were “dangerous and irresponsible” measures that “would make New Yorkers less safe.”
“The consequences would be chaotic, dangerous, and even deadly for our police officers and for our city,” he wrote in his veto message.
Bloomberg said he was concerned the inspector general would conflict with the police commissioner when it came to law enforcement policy and strategy. Current NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has historically applauded the stop-and-frisk policy and cited it as the reason New York City is “the safest big city in America.”
Bloomberg was also concerned that the expansion of the definition of racial profiling would “unleash an avalanche of lawsuits against the police department.”
As Mint Press News reported earlier this year, opponents of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program often point out that of the some 5 million people that had been subjected to this controversial program, 84 percent were Black or Latino.
Reports from the NYPD itself also indicate that 9 out of 10 New Yorkers who were stopped as part of the stop-and-frisk program were innocent.
The New York City Council, which passed the legislation last month, did so to hold officers accountable for racial profiling. Though New York had banned racial profiling previously, New York Civil Liberties Union Senior Organizer Candis Tolliver said “the law had no teeth.”
Known as the Community Safety Act, the legislation would have required officers to “base law-enforcement decisions on a person’s actions, not their skin color, religion or immigration status,” Tolliver said.
In May, when the City Council first began to discuss such legislation, Bloomberg said he was concerned that banning the stop-and-frisk tactic would allow illegal drugs and weapons back on the streets and prevent police officers from being able to do their jobs.
In a letter to City Council members earlier this year, Bloomberg’s lawyer, Michael Best, wrote that the bill “would authorize new lawsuits that could result in a blanket prohibition against the use of stop, question and frisk in New York City — and potentially many other strategies and tactics used by the police to address and prevent crime.”
Since controversy regarding the stop-and-frisk program began in recent years, the NYPD has reduced its use of the tactic. Though the number of stop-and-frisk incidents decreased by 51 percent in the first three months of 2013, murder rates also dropped by 30 percent and overall crime fell by 2.7 percent.
Many opponents of the stop-and-frisk program, including minority groups and civil rights advocates, applauded the passage of the law and now hope that the council overrides Bloomberg’s veto.
In order to do so, two-thirds of the 51-member City Council must vote to override the veto. Thirty-four council members voted for the legislation, which also happens to be the exact number of votes needed for an override.
To prevent the law from being enacted, all Bloomberg would have to do is convince one council member who voted for the legislation to now vote against it. But that may be more of a challenge than Bloomberg anticipated.
Since the veto, many groups and Democratic mayoral candidates have released statements urging the City Council to override Bloomberg’s veto and enact the historic legislation.
“It’s pretty simple: Either you believe people should be treated differently simply because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or immigration status, or you find that repulsive and believe it should be outlawed,” said Communities United for Police Reform.
Two Democratic council members who supported passage of the law, Jumaane Williams and Brad Lander, have also encouraged their peers to override the veto.
“The Community Safety Act will help us make New York a place where everyone can walk the streets without fear of violence or discriminatory policing,” the duo said in a statement. “We look forward to overturning Mayor Bloomberg’s veto and making this legislation law.”