The judge in the stop-and-frisk trial Friday offered an interesting explanation of her view on the case, and a key element of the city's defense. It came at a point where in questioning a plaintiff's expert, a city lawyer was trying to make the point that the tactic is an effective crime strategy.
Judge Shira Scheindlin blocked the line of questioning, saying her role is not to weight the effectiveness of stop-and-frisk, but whether the tactic as used by the NYPD is constitutional. "Whether this is good or bad is of no interest," she said from the bench. "What I mean by that is there are effective police tactics that might be good for reducing crime but that are unconstitutional. The Court's interest is only with the constitution, not with the effectiveness."