Closing Arguments In Stop-And-Frisk Trial

After more than nine weeks of testimony, closing arguments began Monday in the federal trial examining the city's controversial stop-and-frisk policy. The city argued the New York City Police Department does not need a court system monitor overseeing its use of the crime fighting tactic which critics say unfairly targets young black and Latino men.

Lawyers representing those who claim they were illegally stopped say of the roughly four million people stopped over a 10 year period, 90 percent were found to have been doing nothing wrong. During closing arguments Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin said a lot of the suspicion officers have on the street ends up not being right, and that a 90 percent error rate is a big problem.

Outside court, NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne reiterated the department's stance, saying stop and frisk is needed when targeting high crime areas. "We're making stops based on suspicious activities. Yes there's more crime in poor neighborhoods and you're seeing more suspicious activity in poor neighborhoods because there's more crime there. But that's base don protecting people that are the most vulnerable in the city," Browne said. In addition to a court monitor, the judge could issue recommendations on officer training, supervision and documentation in her ruling

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/182356/closing-arguments-in-stop-and-frisk-trial