In a move that has left many observers bewildered, Democratic lawmakers in New York have proposed a bill that would limit police officers' ability to conduct minor traffic stops in the name of promoting racial equity.
The bill, known as New York State Senate Bill S3662A, is sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and has been described by Nassau County law enforcement officials as the "most dangerous" and "craziest" piece of legislation they have ever encountered, according to the New York Post.
The bill's title, which reads as a convoluted legal jargon, hints at its controversial objective: "An act to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to limiting the frequency of traffic stops for minor violations in furtherance of racial equity and public safety; to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to the basis for a motion to suppress or exclude evidence; and to amend the executive law, in relation to the duties of the division of criminal justice services." In essence, the bill seeks to prohibit law enforcement officers from enforcing traffic laws in a bid to eliminate racial disparities.
The bill also outlines that any evidence obtained from an unlawful stop, primarily based on a person's race, creed, color, national origin, or other status protected under human rights law, would be inadmissible in a criminal action against such person. It further defines 24 separate "secondary" traffic violations, including "failure to have adequate windshield wipers," "failure to have two lighted headlamps," "obstructed view from an item on the front windshield," "excessive noise," and "littering," except where the item thrown from the window threatens injury or death.
Critics of the bill argue that it is not only absurd but also inherently racist. They question the logic behind linking minor traffic violations such as "excessive noise" and "littering" to racial profiling. Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly expressed her disbelief at the bill, stating, "It is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in my 36 years in law enforcement."
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman also voiced his concerns, arguing that the bill's racial element is nonsensical. "Its just a bizarre argument; its pro-criminal," Blakeman said. "It doesnt matter what race you are. If youre breaking the law, then youre breaking the law."
However, the bill's supporters argue that it is a necessary measure to combat racial profiling. Shelly Persaud of Long Island shared her husband's experiences with racial profiling, stating, "Hes been pulled over many times for no reason at all, simply for the way he looks."
Yet, the bill's critics argue that the frequency of traffic stops does not necessarily indicate racial profiling. They suggest that the perception of racism may be fueled by decades of liberal race propaganda, leading to people seeing racism where it may not exist.
Nassau County Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder emphasized the inherent risks associated with traffic stops, stating, "Theres no such thing as a routine car stop. Every car stop is dangerous. Every car stop puts our officers at risk."
The bill's critics argue that while many citizens would appreciate leniency for minor traffic violations, the proposed legislation goes too far. They accuse New York Democrats of prioritizing virtue signaling over reason and personal liberty, and of being more interested in protecting criminals than in upholding the law.
Despite the rejection of the liberal racialized worldview in the 2024 election, critics argue that the Democrats supporting this bill are so entrenched in their racialized perspective that they are unable to think or act outside of it. This controversial bill, they argue, is a clear manifestation of this racialized worldview and a stark reminder of the ideological divide that continues to shape American politics.
Login