Governor Christie is “pouring resources into an effort to attract blacks, Hispanics and women”

N.Y. Times, Aug. 17, 2013
Christie’s Re-election Engine Gets in Gear for a Bigger Race
By Jonathan Martin
BOSTON — He has hired specialists in microtargeting who worked for the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and George W. Bush. He has built a sprawling, 50-state fund-raising network, including major Republican players like Harold Simmons, the billionaire backer of a Karl Rove-led “super PAC” that spent $105 million in the 2012 race.
And he is pouring resources into an effort to attract blacks, Hispanics and women to prove that he is a new kind of Republican.
As Gov. Chris Christie heads for what is expected to be an easy re-election, he is also quietly building a sophisticated political operation that could become the basis for a national campaign. His advisers, while saying the governor is focused on New Jersey, are aiming to run up a huge margin against his Democratic opponent and position Mr. Christie as a formidable figure among Republicans ahead of the next presidential primary.
At the Republican National Committee summer meeting in Boston last week, Mr. Christie and his aides repeatedly made the case that his re-election effort in heavily Democratic New Jersey this fall would offer a model for Republicans in the years ahead. And despite their claims to be focused only on 2013, his aides have also signaled to Republicans that the governor, if re-elected as expected, plans to begin visiting other states immediately after November.
Mr. Christie’s appearance at the twice-annual gathering of Republican state officials was significant. In addition to courting the conservative-leaning party activists, he met privately with two Republicans who could be helpful in a presidential race: Spencer Zwick, Mr. Romney’s well-connected chief fund-raiser, and Scott P. Brown, the former Republican senator from Massachusetts who is considering a Senate run in New Hampshire, which holds the first presidential primary. Already, Mr. Christie is assembling the kind of national fund-raising network that would be essential to a presidential campaign; some 35 percent of the $9 million he has raised for his re-election is from out of state, and he has held fund-raisers around the country, both in donor-rich enclaves like Palm Beach, Fla., and McLean, Va., and in Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Chicago and throughout California.
Thanks to his prominence, and the fact that New Jersey is one of only two states with contests for governor this year, Mr. Christie has been able to cultivate big donors around the country.
“Under the guise of his re-election, he’s able to meet these folks and say, ‘I need your help,’ ” Mr. Rove said. The governor has tapped some boldface contributors like the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But more important for his future ambitions are the checks he has gathered from loyal Republican givers like Mr. Simmons, the deep-pocketed Dallas political patron, and lesser-known local power players like Dax R. Swatek, an Alabama lobbyist.
“I wrote him a check because, first, I think, as a Republican in New Jersey doing what he’s been able to do is pretty damn impressive,” said Mr. Swatek, who is close to many of his state’s leading Republicans. “Secondly, looking at it long-term, the way the presidential map is, it is going to be very difficult for Republicans to win without going into some states that are purple and blue. To me, the guy can do it.”
Not all of Mr. Christie’s donors this year can be counted on to support him if he runs for president in 2016. But winning the backing of people like Mr. Swatek, who can raise money from a wide variety of sources, helps the governor reach potential presidential donors in other state capitals and business communities across the country.
Mike DuHaime, Mr. Christie’s chief strategist, has also reached out to Mercer Reynolds, a Cincinnati executive who is one of the Republican Party’s top contributors and was Mr. Bush’s finance chair in 2000. Earlier this month, Mr. Christie held a fund-raiser at a Las Vegas hotel owned by the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. Mr. Adelson and his wife, two of the biggest contributors to Republicans last year, were listed as co-hosts and each gave Mr. Christie the maximum contribution of $3,800.
Of course, the governor has a long way to go to prove to Republicans nationally that he can be the party standard-bearer, and some conservative activists are still smarting over his embrace of President Obama in the days after Hurricane Sandy.
And New Jersey voters may resent what they see as his exploiting state issues to appeal to the conservative wing of the national party. The governor recently vetoed $7.5 million in family planning spending and Friday vetoed three gun-control measures. Barbara Buono, his opponent in the governor’s race, frequently says he “would rather be campaigning in the cornfields of Iowa.” According to an analysis by Democrats, since last August Mr. Christie was outside of New Jersey for all or part of 91 days, or roughly 24 percent of the time. Mr. Christie emphasized that much of that out-of-state travel was for nonpolitical trips.
Senior Republicans who are familiar with Mr. Christie’s strategy say it is most closely modeled after Mr. Bush’s bid in 1998 for re-election as governor of Texas. The parallels are clear. Mr. Bush was considered a shoo-in for re-election to the governor’s office, but he and Mr. Rove became determined to win over Hispanic and black voters to demonstrate the governor’s broad appeal to a national audience. Mr. Bush won that race, with 68 percent of the vote, which included more than a third of the Hispanic vote, offering him a powerful credential when he ran for president two years later as “a different kind of Republican.”
This summer, Mr. Christie established a bilingual campaign office in Paterson, N.J., and spent $275,000 on a Spanish-language television ad. He has also announced a Hispanics for Christie coalition and is now running even among Hispanic voters against Ms. Buono, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released 10 days ago.
“He’s going to emphasize first trying to win a big re-election with a diverse coalition behind him,” Mr. Rove said.
Despite his lead, Mr. Christie is spending expansively to enhance his targeting of voters this year. While his core team is filled with fixtures of presidential politics — including Mr. DuHaime, the ad man Russell J. Schriefer, the communications director Maria Comella and the campaign chairman, William J. Palatucci — he has brought aboard a new Republican firm, Deep Root Analytics.
The group includes strategists from Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign and the consultants who ran Mr. Romney’s data effort last year, and is helping Mr. Christie direct his advertising more precisely by determining what voters are watching on TV, and from that, deciding what ads to air and when. (Mr. Obama’s campaign used the same technology in 2012.)
“The unspoken element in the room is that this could potentially be a test of what works and what doesn’t” for a presidential contest, said a Republican with knowledge of the inner workings of the campaign who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Mr. Christie’s circle.
The timing gives Mr. Christie distinct advantages: If he prevails in November, he will be handed a big national platform — the chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association. The position will give him a reason, and ample time, to travel the country, meet with activists and candidates, and raise unlimited money for the association, freed from federal and state regulations that limit him as governor from seeking contributions from those that do business with the state. Early primary states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, are holding governors’ races next year, so Mr. Christie will surely visit. And he will ultimately get to play the role of political Santa Claus inside the Republican Party, distributing millions in campaign cash to grateful governors and would-be governors.
Even if Mr. Christie is well-positioned, however, skepticism toward him within the Republican base is still real. And, despite the warm reception he received in Boston, some resistance was apparent.
“I just really had a little bit of a problem with him embracing Obama,” explained Paul Reynolds, the national Republican committeeman from Alabama, after Mr. Christie spoke. “I’ve got to get over that.”
The broader challenge for Mr. Christie regarding party activists is that he is not seen as sufficiently tough on a president the Republican base loathes, and is too quick to throw an elbow at other Republicans, as he did with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky on national security issues last month.
William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard who recently met privately with Mr. Christie over pizza, said the governor must avoid being seen as the Republican who likes to beat up on his own party.
“The party hates that and they will not forgive it,” Mr. Kristol said. “A Republican who simply comes from a different part of the country, has a few differences on issues but respects the actual Republican primary voter worldview — that’s a different story. That’s the line Christie needs to walk. He doesn’t have to be a red state Republican, but he needs to respect red state Republicans.”
========
Derek Willis contributed research.
 

NJDEP says NJ now meets fine particle air standards statewide

The state is now able to claim compliance with federal standards for fine-particle air pollution (soot) because it has only one monitor in each county in the state (and not all of those are operating all the time). If they had more monitors they would detect more pollution and very well might exceed federal standards. There are plenty of “hot spots” that they aren’t monitoring — for example near the shipping port and the airport in Newark. In other words, by its design, the monitoring system is rigged to minimize the measurement of pollution. Furthermore, the standards have been set for each pollutant as if it were the only pollutant people were inhaling, which is demonstrably untrue. And finally, the press release is notably silent on what standards are being met. Is NJ meeting the new daily and annual PM2.5 standards that EPA has proposed? Are we meeting the health-based standards that have been set in California? It’s unclear. I suspect that if N.J. were meeting EPA’s proposed more stringent standards the press release would have said so. –P.M. (pm8525@gmail.com)
=========
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 20, 2013
Contact:  Lawrence Ragonese (609) 292-2994
Lawrence Hajna       (609) 984-1795
Bob Considine         (609) 984-1795
 
CHRISTIE ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES ATTAINMENT OF KEY EPA AIR POLLUTON HEALTH STANDARD IN METROPOLITAN AREAS
MILESTONE MEANS ALL OF NEW JERSEY MEETS FEDERAL STANDARD FOR FINE PARTICLES
(13/P82) TRENTON – In another positive step for air quality in New Jersey, the Christie Administration today announced that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has notified the state that New Jersey’s metropolitan areas are in compliance with federal standards for fine particles, a type of pollutant that can cause serious health problems, especially in vulnerable populations.
This action means all of New Jersey’s counties for the first time meet federal health standards for this air pollutant.
“This is a major milestone for New Jersey and for the health of our residents, especially the young, the elderly, and those with chronic respiratory conditions who are particularly at risk to this pollutant,” said Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner (DEP) Bob Martin. “This is a result of the Christie Administration’s continued commitment to protecting and enhancing the state’s environment, including taking aggressive steps to control sources of pollution within New Jersey’s borders and fighting out-of-state sources of pollution that impact our air quality.”
Specifically, the EPA has notified the state that counties that are part of the state’s two major metropolitan areas meet the daily and annual health standards for fine particles, also known as Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5. The attainment status will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
In the New York metropolitan region, those counties in attainment are Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset and Union. In the Philadelphia region, those counties are Burlington, Camden and Gloucester. The eight remaining New Jersey counties already meet the EPA’s health standards for fine particles.
Fine particles are two and one half microns or less in width, or approximately 1/30th the width of a human hair. According to EPA, fine particles may pose the greatest health risks of all air pollutants because they can lodge deeply into the lungs.
Exposure to fine particles can cause short-term health effects such as eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose and shortness of breath. Exposure to fine particles can also affect lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart disease.
The state manages air quality with ambient air monitoring, inventories of sources, emission reduction plans, rules, permits, stack testing, air quality modeling and risk assessment, vehicle testing, inspections and enforcement.
“We have worked tirelessly to control emissions from a variety of sources, including coal-fired power plants, diesel engines and motor vehicles,” Commissioner Martin said. “At the same time, we have become a national leader in the development of renewable energy, while promoting greater use of cleaner burning natural gas. We are confident that, as a result of our sound policies, we will continue to meet the standard for fine particles into the future, as we continue to make progress in reducing the pollutants that cause ozone smog.”
In addition to addressing in-state sources of these pollutants, the Christie Administration has taken on out-of-state sources, notably winning an unprecedented victory with the EPA’s approval of petition forcing a coal-fired power plant in Portland, Pa. to drastically reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide.
This plant, operated by GenOn REMA, has been a major source of sulfur dioxides to northern New Jersey. Sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides from coal-burning power plants convert to fine particles as they are transported by wind currents. The Administration recently secured an agreement that will result in the permanent cessation of the use of coal at this facility in 2014.
The DEP also has participated in lawsuits against owners of the Homer City Station plant and against Allegheny Energy Inc., to cut massive emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pouring into New Jersey from those western Pennsylvania plants.
Additional steps taken by Governor Christie to improve air quality in New Jersey include:
*       Adopting a policy of not allowing new coal-fired power plants to be built in New Jersey, and ensuring that additional generation comes from clean energy sources.
*       Mandating 2015 closure or latest technology upgrades to polluting “peaker units”‘ during high energy demand days.
*       Approving a pilot program to reduce diesel emissions from big construction vehicles at state construction sites.
*       Completing retrofits or replacement of diesel engines on 800 NJ Transit commuter buses.
*       Setting a new, lower standard for sulfur content for home heating oil.
For more information on air quality in New Jersey, including a link to information about the state’s air monitoring network and daily air quality reports, please visit: the Division of Air Quality website at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/daq/

Experiences of racism linked to adult-onset asthma in African-American women

Science Daily, Aug. 15, 2013

According to a new study from the Slone Epidemiology Center (SEC) at Boston University, African-American women who reported more frequent experiences of racism had a greater likelihood of adult-onset asthma compared to women who reported less frequent experiences.

The study, which currently appears on-line in the journal Chest, was led by Patricia Coogan, DSc, senior epidemiologist at SEC and research professor of epidemiology at Boston University School of Public Health.

This study followed 38,142 African-American women, all of whom are participants in the Black Women’s Health Study (BWHS), between 1997 and 2011. They completed health questionnaires every two years. In 1997 and 2009 they provided information on their experiences of "everyday" racism, like poor service in stores or restaurants, and "lifetime" racism, which was discrimination encountered on the job, in housing and by police.

The results indicate that as experiences of everyday and lifetime racism increased, the incidence of adult-onset asthma also rose, up to a 45 percent increase in women in the highest compared to the lowest category of the racism measures. Furthermore, the incidence of asthma was increased even more in women who were in the highest category of everyday racism in both 1997 and 2009, and who may have had more consistent experiences of racism over time.

"This is the first prospective study to show an association between experiences of racism and adult-onset asthma," said Coogan. "Racism is a significant stressor in the lives of African American women, and our results contribute to a growing body of evidence indicating that experiences of racism can have adverse effects on health."The hypothesized mechanism linking experiences of racism to asthma incidence is stress and its physiological consequences, particularly effects on the immune system and the airways. "Given the high prevalence of both asthma and of experiences of racism in African Americans, the association is of public health importance," she added.

How to Really End Mass Incarceration

N.Y. Times, Aug. 14, 2013

By Vanita Gupta

Washington — In 2003, I represented dozens of African-American residents in Tulia, Tex., who had been convicted after a botched drug sting. Jason Jerome Williams, a 22-year-old with no prior criminal record, had been sentenced to 45 years in prison for four sales of an eighth of an ounce of cocaine. Freddie Brookins Jr., 25, had received 20 years for a first-time offense of selling less than four grams of cocaine. Joe Moore, a 56-year-old hog farmer, had gotten 90 years for two cocaine sales totaling under five grams. Others accepted plea deals to try to avoid such lengthy prison terms.

The convictions, in 1999 and 2000, were based on the flawed testimony of an undercover officer. The prosecution offered no physical evidence of marked bills, weapons, narcotics or drug paraphernalia — things you would expect to find in a sophisticated drug ring.

It took years of advocacy by many lawyers to win their release, but this hard-fought vindication was just a flash in the pan. Starting in the 1970s, a domestic “war on crime” dominated by antidrug policies and racial profiling fueled a prison-building binge that is morally — and now financially — bankrupt. Both political parties embraced draconian policies like mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws and wide disparities in sentences for possession of crack versus powder cocaine. The result: by 2003, the United States had 4.6 percent of the world’s population but 22.4 percent of its prison population — even though violent crime started dropping in the 1990s. Prospects for reform looked bleak.

So I was elated when Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on Monday that the government would commit to reducing the bloated prison population. This is without precedent: the nation’s top law enforcement official directed all federal prosecutors to exercise their discretion toward ending the relentless warehousing of inmates — the vast majority of whom are minorities — in federal prison for low-level drug crimes.

But the immediate impact will be very limited at best. First, federal inmates accounted for just 14 percent of the nation’s 1.6 million prisoners last year. Second, Mr. Holder has limited authority to enact permanent reforms without Congressional action. Third, it’s unclear how federal prosecutors will enforce his plan. To maximize its impact, the Justice Department needs to track implementation by the 93 United States attorneys around the country and hold them accountable for enforcing the policy.

For lasting national impact we need to look at the states, where most criminal defendants are sentenced. Over the past few years, a quiet revolution has been brewing in state capitals. Historically low crime rates and shrinking state coffers have led to a nascent consensus among lawmakers and advocates across the ideological spectrum that our addiction to incarceration is not sustainable, effective or humane. Republican governors in cash-strapped states have been among those leading the charge. States as varied as Texas, New York, Colorado and Michigan have passed reforms that have stabilized or significantly reduced prison populations without increasing crime.

What Mr. Holder has done is turn up the dial, lending his imprimatur to a growing sense of national urgency and moral necessity. The muted reaction to his announcement from ardent conservatives is a reflection of the shift in debate.

But this is no time to rest. Those who seek a fairer criminal justice system, unclouded by racial bias, must at a minimum demand that the government eliminate mandatory minimum sentences, which tie judges’ hands; rescind three-strikes laws, which often make no distinction between, say, armed assault and auto theft; amend “truth in sentencing” statutes, which prohibit early release for good behavior; and recalibrate drug policies, starting with decriminalization of marijuana possession and investment in substance-abuse prevention and treatment. Federal aid to state and local agencies, like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant and the Community Oriented Policing Services, must prioritize diversion and rehabilitation over arrest and incarceration.

I am not naïve about the challenge, or of the needs of crime victims. In 1992, as I was finishing high school, my 71-year-old paternal grandmother was murdered in a house robbery in Sahibabad, India. The killing remains unsolved, and the anguish it caused my family will never fade away. But in America, our criminal justice system has too often focused on vengeance and punishment (and racial suspicion) rather than on crime prevention, restitution for victims and the social and economic reintegration of released prisoners into our communities so that they do not turn to crime again.

The buildup of our prison-industrial complex was a bipartisan process that unfolded over decades, and digging ourselves out of this hole will require unlikely political alliances. (For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union is working on sentencing reform with Right on Crime, a conservative initiative, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization whose stances on immigration, voting and other civil rights policies we are fighting tooth and nail.) And where there is a lack of political will, we need to bring litigation of the kind that drove down prison populations in California and New Jersey and organize to make our voices heard.

The work ahead is daunting, but Mr. Holder’s announcement holds out hope that we have crossed a threshold, that there is no longer any serious argument about whether there is a problem with criminal justice in America. It’s sad it took so long for this moment to arrive — and that the impetus has come as much from budget pressures as from concerns about justice — but we need to seize it.

========

Vanita Gupta is a deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Racial Profiling Lives On

N.Y. Times, Aug. 14, 2013

By Devon W. Carbado, Cheryl I. Harris, and Kimberlé W. Crenshaw

Los Angeles — The historic ruling by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin that the stop-and-frisk practices of the New York Police Department violate the Constitution is being applauded as a major victory against unreasonable policing.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, meanwhile, is bitterly disappointed. “This is a very dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works,” he said after the decision was handed down Monday.

But if unrestrained policing is, for Mr. Bloomberg, policing that works, it turns out that he can still have it. The ruling by Judge Scheindlin, of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, does nothing to disrupt the authority the Supreme Court has given police officers to target African-Americans and Latinos with little or no basis. Despite the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that provision gives the police frighteningly wide discretion to follow, stop, question, frisk and employ excessive force against African-Americans and Latinos who have shown virtually no indication of wrongdoing.

That might sound hyperbolic. But consider these 10 actions a hypothetical Officer Bloomberg could still take against a hypothetical black man, Tony.

First, Officer Bloomberg can follow Tony without any hint that Tony had done anything wrong. The officer could ask: “What’s your name? What are you doing here? What have you got in the bag? May I see some identification?” The Supreme Court would rule that because the suspect was free to walk away, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply.

Officer Bloomberg could ask Tony for permission to search his person or his belongings. He would not be required to tell Tony that he has the right to refuse consent or walk away — the Supreme Court has held that people do not have a right to know that they can say no to an officer’s request to conduct a search.

Despite this week’s decision, Officer Bloomberg could stop and frisk Tony for weapons based on the officer’s “reasonable suspicion” — a standard the Supreme Court defines as more than a hunch but less than probable cause. Nothing in Judge Scheindlin’s opinion challenges this standard, one that is relatively easy for the police to meet.

For example, the Supreme Court has made clear that simply being in a “high crime” (which often means a predominantly black or Latino) area can be a factor in determining whether a person is armed and dangerous.

And suppose Tony ran away upon seeing Officer Bloomberg? The officer would be free to chase Tony, even if he had no reason to believe that Tony had violated any law. The Supreme Court has ruled that people who are chased and captured by the police are not “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Moreover, Tony’s running away would be counted in determining reasonable suspicion, and if he fled in a “high crime” area, the standard would likely be met.

This all assumes Tony was on foot. If he was driving, Officer Bloomberg could easily stop and arrest him if he had probable cause that Tony had committed a traffic infraction, no matter how minor. Even if Officer Bloomberg specifically targeted Tony for arrest because he was black, the Fourth Amendment is not a bar, as long as probable cause exists.

If Tony were a Latino, Officer Bloomberg could argue that Tony “looked Mexican,” and therefore believed that Tony was undocumented. Under a 1975 Supreme Court decision that remains good law, apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in determining whether a person is undocumented. Lots of local police departments, not just those in Arizona, regularly take race into account in enforcing immigration laws.

Upon arrest, no matter how minor the charge, Officer Bloomberg could handcuff Tony, conduct a full search of his person and haul him off to the police station.

In each of the preceding examples, Officer Bloomberg could successfully argue that he did not impermissibly rely on race. In immigration enforcement, using race is permitted, and the Supreme Court has largely ignored the role of race in ordinary policing.

Finally, even if Tony, like Rodney G. King or Oscar Grant III, didn’t resist, but was beaten or shot and killed by Officer Bloomberg, the likelihood of winning an excessive-force claim would be difficult. Courts and jurors defer to police judgments, even if those judgments are inflected by racial stereotypes that inevitably render an unarmed black man more dangerous than an armed policeman.

None of this is to say that Judge Scheindlin’s ruling is unimportant. But she was ruling on a particular policy. The victory leaves in place a higher body of law, Supreme Court doctrine, that continues to expose African-Americans and Latinos to surveillance, harassment, violence — and death.

========

Devon W. Carbado and Cheryl I. Harris are law professors at the University of California, Los Angeles. Kimberlé W. Crenshaw is a law professor there and at Columbia University.

© 2013 New York Times

Why “Stop & Frisk” Matters, Even If You Don’t Live in New York

Atlantic Mag, Aug. 13, 2013

by Andrew Cohen

If you don’t live in or near New York City, it’s easy not to care about the controversial "stop and frisk" policy its police have implemented there. If you are a tourist visiting Manhattan, for example, the chances that you will be stopped and frisked on a public street are more than remote. If you are someone who frequently travels to the city for business, you aren’t likely to go near a "high crime area" that often triggers these police stops. You enjoy the security the police say these practices bring — why would you look behind the curtain to understand how?

Oh, and it helps, measurably, if you are white. If you are white in New York City, or if you are a white person visiting the city for a day or a week or a year, your chances of being stopped and frisked are far lower than if you are a person of color. So this is one of those stories that means far more to the people affected by a government policy than it does to anyone else — a story that cries out for the type of racial and ethnic and regional empathy that, let’s face it, most people cannot or will not muster on behalf of strangers.

It’s also easy not to want to spend the time in the middle of August reading a 198-page judicial opinion written by a federal trial judge. But in this case, you should make the time. Everyone in America, white or black, urban or rural, Democrat or Republican, should take the time. Because U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin has just written a ruling about New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy that goes beyond the city, its policies, and its constitutional law to the essence of the debate about law and order, crime and punishment. It’s not just about the tension between liberty and security — it’s about simple government competence.

Do, in other words, what so many public officials did not do Monday before pronouncing the opinion right or wrong — read it for yourself, all of it, twice if you must, to understand both what Judge Scheindlin did and did not do:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/frisk-op.pdf

Only then will you be able to understand the magnitude of the NYPD’s failure as well as the opportunity this turning point provides. Despite the hysteria offered by city officials, there is room in New York City, and in this ruling, for a better, smarter, fairer stop-and-frisk policy; the only obstacle to it now is the unremitting pride and stubbornness of the men defending what is essentially indefensible as a matter of law or fact.

So what exactly is Mayor Michael Bloomberg defending? A racially discriminatory police policy he and his tribunes tolerated with "deliberate indifference" to its unconstitutional applications? Overwhelming evidence of shoddy training and management practices within the police department? With their Chicken Little reaction to the ruling — murder and mayhem are on the way now that we aren’t stopping and frisking minorities! — city officials are purposefully avoiding the part of Judge Scheindlin’s ruling they really can do something about.

It seems to me that pages 11 and 12 of the judge’s ruling form the heart of the non-racial case against New York City’s stop-and-frisk practices. It turns out that they aren’t just intentional acts of racial discrimination or humiliating to the millions of people caught up in them. They also represent terribly inefficient police practices. Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly shouldn’t be angry that a judge has exposed these sad truths about police tactics — they should be terribly embarrassed. It’s the taxpayers who pay for all this who should be angry:

As early as 1999, a report from New York’s Attorney General placed the City on notice that stops and frisks were being conducted in a racially skewed manner. Nothing was done in response. In the years following this report, pressure was placed on supervisors to increase the number of stops. Evidence at trial revealed that officers have been pressured to make a certain number of stops and risk negative consequences if they fail to achieve the goal.

Without a system to ensure that stops are justified, such pressure is a predictable formula for producing unconstitutional stops. As one high ranking police official noted in 2010, this pressure, without a comparable emphasis on ensuring that the activities are legally justified, "could result in an officer taking enforcement action for the purpose of meeting a quota rather than because a violation of the law has occurred."

In addition, the evidence at trial revealed that the NYPD has an unwritten policy of targeting "the right people" for stops. In practice, the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling. While a person’s race may be important if it fits the description of a particular crime suspect, it is impermissible to subject all members of a racially defined group to heightened police enforcement because some members of that group are criminals The Equal Protection Clause does not permit race-based suspicion.

Much evidence was introduced regarding inadequate monitoring and supervision of unconstitutional stops. Supervisors routinely review the productivity of officers, but do not review the facts of a stop to determine whether it was legally warranted. Nor do supervisors ensure that an officer has made a proper record of a stop so that it can be reviewed for constitutionality. Deficiencies were also shown in the training of officers with respect to stop and frisk and in the disciplining of officers when they were found to have made a bad stop or frisk. Despite the mounting evidence that many bad stops were made, that officers failed to make adequate records of stops, and that discipline was spotty or non-existent, little has been done to improve the situation.

One example of poor training is particularly telling. Two officers testified to their understanding of the term "furtive movements." One explained that "furtive movement is a very broad concept," and could include a person "changing direction," "walking in a certain way," "[a]cting a little suspicious," "making a movement that is not regular," being "very fidgety," "going in and out of his pocket," "going in and out of a location," "looking back and forth constantly," "looking over their shoulder," "adjusting their hip or their belt," "moving in and out of a car too quickly," "[t]urning a part of their body away from you," "[g]rabbing at a certain pocket or something at their waist," "getting a little nervous, maybe shaking," and "stutter[ing]."

Another officer explained that "usually" a furtive movement is someone hanging out in front of [a] building, sitting on the benches or something like that" and then making a "quick movement," such as "bending down and quickly standing back up," "going inside the lobby. . . and then quickly coming back out," or "all of a sudden becom[ing] very nervous, very aware." If officers believe that the behavior described above constitutes furtive movement that justifies a stop, then it is no surprise that stops so rarely produce evidence of criminal activity.

The police say that all of this nonsense works. Let’s assume, for this moment alone, that it does. What the judge is really saying here is this discriminatory stop-and-frisk policy the city is trying so hard to defend is actually one giant bluff — an enormously arbitrary and capricious attempt to scare a relatively small number of people away from criminal conduct by inconveniencing a great many people (but of course not a great many people who have a great deal of political and economic power within the city). Whether it worked or not, such a policy would be legally valid if it humiliated blacks and whites evenly. But clearly it doesn’t.

Instead of lamenting Judge Scheindlin’s ruling or promising quickly to appeal it, Bloomberg and Kelly and company ought to be pledging to fix the widespread "inadequate monitoring and supervision" of police officers who are implementing the policy. Instead of arguing that the city will become Gotham if these policies are made more efficient and less discriminatory, they should accept the reasonable remedies the judge has suggested, pledging even to go beyond what she proposes to make these stops more accurate, more fair, and more justifiable.

The most storied and prominent police force in the nation has just been caught implementing a racially discriminatory policy by means of arbitrary tactics undertaken without adequate monitoring or supervision. That’s not just a constitutional scandal in one city– it’s a scandal that could take place whenever and wherever the police are willing to take shortcuts in the name of security. That’s why New York City’s trouble today is a national story — and why you should care about it even if you are white and live a thousand miles from the Empire State Building.