Judicial panel suspends 'Stop and Frisk' ruling

• Thursday%27s ruling stays earlier decision until appeal by NYC%2C other parties is decided
• Judge issued ruling in August ordering review%2C changes to %27Stop and Frisk%27
• Federal appeals court removed Schiendlin from the case%2C citing improprieties

A panel of three federal judges in New York on Thursday stayed an earlier ruling that halted a city policy giving police wide latitude in stopping and questioning people they deem suspicious.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has granted a stay of an August ruling that ordered a host of changes and reviews in the practice of "Stop and Frisk," a policy that gives New York Police Department officers wide latitude in stopping anyone they deem suspicious. The August ruling also held that "Stop and Frisk" violated Constitutional amendments prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and guaranteeing equal protection.

The stay is in effect while the city and other parties appeal the ruling.

In issuing the decision, the court also pulled Judge Shira Schiendlin from the case, citing an "appearance of partiality surrounding this litigation."

The ruling accused Scheindlin of steering the case toward her courtroom when it was initially filed five years ago.

Representatives for the city of New York, whose leaders touted "Stop and Frisk" as an effective crime deterrent, were happy.

"This is an important decision for all New Yorkers and for the men and women of the New York City Police Department, who work very hard day in and day out to keep this city safe," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in a statement. "Their reputation was unfairly besmirched by Judge Scheindlin's decision and I am pleased that independent judges have begun to look at this case and have stayed her decision."

"We could not be more pleased with the court's findings," said Michael Cardozo, the city's corporation counsel. "This ruling not only ensures that the remedies ordered by the district court ... will be put on hold during our appeal, but it stays the liability decision on the POlice Department's compliance with the Constitution. In short, the fuling of onconstitutional practices is no longer operative, and that question will now receive a fresh and independent look both by the appeals court and then, if necessary, by a differen trial court judge."

Civil rights organizations complained that minority males represented the majority of people stopped under the policy.

The civil rights community expressed disappointment in the ruling.

" 'Stop and frisk' policing is nothing less than the largest racial profiling program in the country, and Judge Schiendlin was right to rule it unconstitutional," NAACP president and CEO Benjamin Jealous said. "Legalized racial profiling has been discredited and will ultimately be relegated to the dustbin of history."

"This is a disappointing roadblock in the effort to fight profiling on New York City's streets," said Niaz Kasravi, the NAACP's criminal justice director. "Judge Scheindlin's decision responded to vast amounts of evidence that the NYPD profiled based on race, ethnicity, LGBT status and faith. We will continue to fight until we end bias-based policing in New York City and across the country."

In the her August decision, Schiendlin ruled that police had violated the civil rights of thousands by wrongly targeting minority men.

The judges who wrote the Thursday ruling concluded that Scheindlin "ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges," specifically, the parst that stipulates that a judge "should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities," and "shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."