Pubdate: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 Source: New York Times (NY) Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298 Author: Benjamin Weiser JUDGE IS REBUFFED ON REQUEST TO END STOP-AND-FRISK INQUIRY A federal judge in Manhattan tried to win a promise yesterday from the United States attorney's office that it would conclude its lengthy investigation of the stop-and-frisk tactics of the Police Department within 90 or 120 days, but a prosecutor refused, saying only that the government would continue to act expeditiously. The judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court, seemed to sympathize with the city, which has stopped cooperating with the federal investigation, begun two years ago. "Maybe one of their annoyances is it's dragging on," Judge Scheindlin said. "Maybe because it's so open-ended and hanging over their head." Prosecutors in the office of United States Attorney Mary Jo White had been reviewing internal records of police stop-and-frisks as part of an investigation into the Street Crime Unit. The investigation began in March 1999, in the weeks after the fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo by four officers who were members of the unit. Ms. White's office has the power to sue the city, seeking reforms in police practices and possibly a police monitor. To bring such a suit, the government must show a pattern or practice of civil rights violations. The city had been voluntarily giving the federal investigators internal reports of stop-and-frisks by the department. It also produced similar records in a private class-action lawsuit before Judge Scheindlin. Last year, Ms. White's office reached an internal conclusion that there was a statistical pattern of racial profiling by Street Crime Unit officers, but the office has yet to file a lawsuit and has continued its investigation. Last fall, the city stopped cooperating with that investigation, leading Ms. White's office to go into court, asking Judge Scheindlin to order that the records be turned over so that the government could make a final decision on whether to sue. A federal prosecutor, Sara L. Shudofsky, cited a great public interest in whether the New York Police Department "discriminated against blacks and Hispanics in stop-and-frisk practices." A senior lawyer for the city, Daniel S. Connolly, did not specify why the city stopped cooperating with Ms. White's office, but his comments suggested that the city thought that it was being treated unfairly. He said there were questions about the "good faith of how the investigation was being conducted" and whether information provided by the city had been misused or improperly released. Ms. Shudofsky rejected any suggestions of bad faith. Mr. Connolly also made clear that the city saw the federal investigation as an unreasonable intrusion into local affairs. "We have the responsibility, the City of New York, to conduct law enforcement activities the best way we see fit," he said. Judge Scheindlin also quizzed Mr. Connolly about the wisdom of not cooperating with Ms. White's office, particularly if the city, which has denied any wrongdoing by its officers, believed that the documents would help prove its case that there is no justification for a suit. "You're inviting the action, and I don't understand it," Judge Scheindlin said. When the judge asked for a time limit on resolving the question of a lawsuit, Ms. Shudofsky said she did not have the authority to make such a promise. "We're certainly interested in doing this quickly," she said. "We're not interested in its dragging on." - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens