By Scrutinize
State court judges play a crucial role in upholding constitutional protections that safeguard individuals from abuses such as unlawful stop-and-frisk, coerced interrogations, and warrantless searches. However, judges' interpretations and applications of these rights vary significantly, affecting both individual defendants and the broader community's interactions with law enforcement. This report introduces a new metric for assessing judges: Failure to protect constitutional rights against law enforcement overreach. We analyze appellate decisions to identify cases where trial court judges ruled that officers acted constitutionally in obtaining evidence, but were overturned by higher courts. Using examples from suppression reversals and other sources, we suggest that some suppression reversals not only indicate a pattern of failing to protect constitutional rights, but may also reveal a trial court judge's bias toward law enforcement. Our new analysis enhances transparency in the judicial system, empowers New Yorkers with crucial insights about the judges serving their communities, and provides decision-makers with valuable information.
Key Findings:
Ninety-five judges had multiple suppression decisions reversed between 2007 and 2023.
Approximately 38% of the reversals (153 cases) were dismissed because of a finding that the trial court judge erred in denying suppression, suggesting that some New Yorkers may have been wrongfully incarcerated due to unconstitutionally obtained evidence.
An additional 69 cases were overturned due to judicial errors that limited or prevented constitutional scrutiny of law enforcement actions.
Recommendations:
New York's court system should increase transparency by releasing all trial court judges’ suppression rulings along with hearing transcripts.
New York’s court system should publish annual reports containing summary data on suppression proceedings, outcomes, and other pertinent information.
New York: Scrutinize, 2024. 24p.