Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin has issued a temporary stay of her order earlier this month halting the use of stop-and-frisk against suspected trespassers at privately owned Bronx buildings.

Don’t think for a moment that she’s rethinking her inclination to curtail one of the most effective anti-crime tactics in urban America. In her decision to grant a stay, she wrote that there is “more than enough proof that a large number of people have been improperly stopped as a result of NYPD practices.”

All the judge did was to accept the city’s contention that an immediate ban, even of a limited program like that in The Bronx, would impose too many burdens on the NYPD. Better, she said, to wait until she’s decided on a comprehensive series of “reforms” to remake stop-and-frisk.

In other words, she’s not backing down from the position she outlined in her first ruling: “The public interest in liberty and dignity under the Fourth Amendment trumps whatever modicum of added safety might be gained.”

Indeed, she’s refused even to allow a city witness to testify to stop-and-frisk’s effectiveness, calling that irrelevant.

It’s not irrelevant to New Yorkers, of course — especially those who live in buildings and neighborhoods not nearly as safe and serene as those of federal judges.