Photo by longislandwins. Photo courtesy of Flickr Commons.

Stop and Frisk has long divided New Yorkers who disagree over what constitutes appropriate policing strategies in the protection of city streets from violent crime. In some neighborhoods where these practices are nothing short of commonplace, activists are as fired up as ever in their efforts to reform local law enforcement.

The polarizing Stop and Frisk program has been a topic of major contention in the city recently as its use by the New York Police Department has increased exponentially over the last several years. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has forcefully defended the practice, saying that the stops “save lives” by “preventing violence before it occurs, not responding to the victims after the fact.”

Still, many critics argue that the program is ineffective and violates civil rights. They also claim that it disproportionately targets racial minorities.

According to data compiled by the New York Civil Liberties Union, 41.6% of all stops made in New York City 2011 were of black and Latino men between the ages of 14 and 24. By comparison, this group accounts for just 4.7% of the city’s population.

One group fighting against such inequalities is the Bronx Defenders, a non-profit organization that provides free legal representation and other services to Bronx residents who have been charged with crimes. The Defenders hosted a block party yesterday to engage community members in the issues facing the Bronx residents. Attendees mingled, played basketball, snacked on Italian ices — and learned about various services available in their neighborhood.

“Besides bringing together the local community, we want to let them know about the different campaigns we’re working with through our office,” said Patricio Martinez, a policy and communications development intern for the Defenders. “Particularly with Stop and Frisk, we’re working with several groups to stop racial profiling and start holding the NYPD accountable.”

He said these groups include NYCLU as well as campaigns such as Communities United for Police Reform. Representatives from both passed out literature at yesterday’s event.

Another Defenders volunteer, a long-time resident of the Bronx, first found his way to the non-profit not to help provide legal counsel, but to solicit it.

“I started as a client,” said former defendant Riko Guzman. “After that they helped me go to college. Then I came by and started helping out and offering my services.”

Guzman has been working for the organization since February.

“His story really shows what the Bronx Defenders are all about,” Martinez said.

Now, Guzman is determined to help put an end to Stop and Frisk policies, starting with communities in the Bronx. He outlined what he said are the three key goals of the movement to eliminate these kinds of police stops.

First, he said, is to once and for all eliminate racial and discriminatory practices in law enforcement.

Second, to politically empower areas classified by the NYPD as “high impact zones” — where there is increased police presence due to high crime rates — which Guzman claims are a target for Stop and Frisk because “the police think that nobody will care.”

Finally, he said, there needs to be more of a “mutual agreement” between cops and the residents of the communities they serve, in order to bolster trust rather than fear.

According to Guzman, another way for people to help combat discriminatory practices and racial profiling is to exercise their right to observe and report. For instance, he described a new app for smartphones that allows a user to videotape police encounters and to send the footage directly to the NYCLU.

“It automatically sends the video the second it stops recording,” Guzman explained, “so even if the police destroy your phone, it still gets sent to NYCLU.”

by Mike Vidafar

Len Levitt, a reporter who wrote the column “One Police Plaza” for Newsday from 1995-2005, was cleared of defamation charges on Mar. 22, 2012. The allegations, brought on by Port Authority Police Officer Francis Pisano, began in 2009, when a book by Levitt, NYPD Confidential: Power and Corruption in the Country’s Greatest Police Force was reviewed in the New York Post.

A NY Post review of Levitt's s 2009 "NYPD Confidential" sparked legal action

According to an April 4, 2012 press release by The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), who agreed to take on Levitt’s case, the New York Post included a picture of a police officer alongside a review the book, written by freelance journalist T.J. English. Levitt then re-posted the review on his personal website, NYPDConfidential.com.

In Dec. 2009, Officer Pisano brought charges against Levitt, T.J. English, several other members of New York Post and News Corp. (the parent company of the New York Post), maintaining that because Levitt’s book details police corruption, readers would associate the officer photographed with the acts detailed in Levitt’s book, according to the April 4 press release by The NYCLU.

News Corp.’s umbrella (including T.J. English) tied to the New York Post book review were able to reach a settlement outside of court with Pisano in Aug. 2010, according to the verdict issued by Nassau County Supreme Court’s Hon. Thomas A. Adams. However, Levitt was not absolved of litigation alongside his co-defendants. Facing libel and slander charges that totaled $5 mil., according to the NYCLU Press Release, and unable to pay for sustained legal council in his defense, Levitt then found himself allied with NYCLU and attorney Ken Norwick, who acting cooperatively, agreed to take on the charges in Levitt’s defense.

“For any ordinary person who did nothing wrong, being sued for $5 million is disquieting to say the least,” Levitt said. “I am relieved a grateful to the NYCLU for taking my case.”

In establishing Levitt’s right to re-post the review on his website, Norwick established a familiar defense: Levitt’s first amendment rights, which famously establish and protects the freedom of speech, and the rights of the press.

Citing the verdict rendered by Hon. Thomas A. Adams, The NYCLU’s Communications Director, Jennifer Carnig, paraphrased the main reasoning behind the decision. “A ‘re-publisher’ of any work may rely on the research of the original publisher, unless there is reason to question the accuracy of the article, or the good faith of the reporter.”

“In this day and age it’s critically important that we stand up for our First Amendment rights online. No one should be afraid to re-post a story from a reputable source on his or her blog or website,” said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn.

No information, beyond the statement released by the NYCLU’s Jennifer Caring, and the verdict judgment by Hon. Thomas A. Adams concerning the case, particularly Mr. Pisano’s allegations were discovered by reporting staff. However, the NYCLU and Mr. Levitt have a cooperative relationship dating back to Oct. 2011, when the NYCLU agreed to file suit against The NYPD on Levitt’s behalf. That decision was in response to the NYPD’s refusal to make Police Commissioner Ray Kelly’s schedule from 2002 to 2010 public under a request filed by Levitt under the Freedom of Information Law in May 2011.