NYPD Unions, City Counsel Seek To Secure Bloomberg's Stop-And-Frisk Legacy Ahead Of New Mayor Taking Office

from the we-want-to-keep-our-wrong-the-way-it-is! dept

It's been less than two weeks since the Second Circuit Appeals Court issued a stay on Judge Scheindlin's decision finding elements of the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program unconstitutional and, very oddly and with little evidence, kicked the judge off the case for appearances of "bias" and "impropriety."

What prompted the appeals court to remove Scheindlin remains a mystery. The information supplied in that decision's footnotes hardly indicate any impropriety or bias on Scheindlin's part. Scheindlin's press release points out two things:

1.) the Daniels case in which she allegedly showed an "appearance of impropriety" by suggesting a plaintiff file a case (Floyd v. New York -- the stop and frisk case under discussion) as "related" in order for it to be accepted by her court was done to avoid violating the protective order in Daniels -- something the plaintiff's attempt to bring contempt proceedings would have done. By marking it as "related," the plaintiff could pursue the city without violating the protective order.

2.) the articles in which she allegedly showed bias against the NYPD actually showed nothing of the sort. Certain quotes may have been framed by the writers to indicate this, but Scheindlin provided the interviews with the understanding that she would not discuss the pending stop-and-frisk case.

Another federal judge, Richard Kopf, called it a "cheap shot."

The Second Circuit's spontaneous decision, apparently without briefing and coming out of the blue, was factually predicated upon a "relatedness" question mentioned in the record before the Court of Appeals and in the footnoted NYT article referred to by the Circuit. But, if that was really the reason for the trial judge's removal, the decision was both wrong, and, worse, unnecessary.

Scott Greenfield goes even further:

Let's get real here: Judge Scheindlin is the government's worst nightmare. She gives the defense, the accused, the black, the Hispanic, a fair shake. She has demonstrated throughout her career that she will not let agents or assistants roll over the Constitution. They despise her for not being a team player, and dread a case getting sent to her courtroom.

As for Local Rule 13, the related case rule, she did nothing that isn't done daily. Worse yet, most of the time the related case rule works to the government's favor, as judges who sign search and wiretap warrants get the cases when the takedown comes, making it essentially impossible to obtain neutral review of their grant of the warrants. The government survives on this ploy, and we all know it. This isn't about the Circuit panel beating up on the local rule.

The discussion as to whether the city (meaning its lawyers, the NYPD's legal counsel and Mayor Bloomberg) was able to bring enough heat to push Scheindlin out is ongoing. Keep in mind that the "improprieties" of Davis case -- the appeals court's justification for Scheindlin's removal -- occurred in 2007. [Full relevant conversation embedded below.] It's been nearly six years since and no questions have been raised about Scheindlin's judicial propriety until now.

Does someone in New York have enough influence to nudge a federal appeals court in a certain direction? We'd all like to believe federal courts can't be swayed by local interests, but there's definitely a lots of pressure being exerted in hopes of overturning Scheindlin's decision.

First and foremost, newly elected mayor Bill de Blasio hasn't been shy about his opposition to stop-and-frisk. As the new mayor, he certainly has the power to end the stop-and-frisk program as well as rescind the city's appeal of the ruling. Or at least he could have until the Second Circuit froze everything in place pending rewritten appeals, some of which have already made their way to the court.

The city's police unions have filed a request to be allowed to continue fighting Scheindlin's decision even if de Blasio drops the appeal. The arguments are familiar and weak: change of any kind with disrupt the police force irreparably.

"What we want to do is to make sure that the reforms that were recommended by the last court do not go into place," PBA president Patrick Lynch said. "This court appeal must go forward. We want to make sure the police officers' opinions are heard in the court."

The unions said the rulings would unfairly taint the integrity of the police force and re-write rules governing officer conduct.

"This affects how we do our job, it protects our contract and labor rights and it affects the responsibilities that we have on a regular basis on the street," Lynch said.

If Lynch is truly concerned about the decision "tainting" the "integrity of the police force," he's several hundred million dollars worth of city settlements too late. "Re-writing" these rules would simply make them compliant with the Constitution, something the NYPD should have been safeguarding all along, rather than just when forced to by lawsuits.

The city's counsel, Michael Cardozo, has done the unions one better: he's asking for the decision to be vacated entirely. Cardozo's motion leverages the appeals court's "appearances of impropriety and bias" into full-blown, factually baseless claims that Scheindlin is, and always has been, a hater of all things cop- and city-related.

In the filing on Saturday, Michael A. Cardozo, the corporation counsel, said that Judge Scheindlin's decisions "continue, unfairly and improperly, to cloud the public's perception of the N.Y.P.D."

"The district court's orders lend credence to the notion that the N.Y.P.D. unfairly targets minorities for stops and frisks," Mr. Cardozo wrote, "undermining its ability to carry out its mission effectively."

He also made reference to Judge Scheindlin's findings that in stopping and frisking people, the department had violated the Constitution and resorted to a "policy of indirect racial profiling."

"Wrongly labeling the N.Y.P.D. — and the City — a racial profiling entity and flouter of the Fourth Amendment should be sufficient injustice to vacate the Orders," Mr. Cardozo wrote.

What Cardozo is arguing runs counter to the statistics collected by the NYPD itself on stop-and-frisk. It does target minorities unfairly and these stops frequently go beyond the legal concept of the Terry stop, doing away with reasonable suspicion in favor of a checklist that could be filled out post facto to attribute suspicion to such vagaries as "furtive movement" or "actions indicative of casing."

This is a last-minute push by Bloomberg's administration to control the future and leave de Blasio facing an uphill battle against a police force openly contemptuous of any attempts to control it. As ugly as that is, it's even worse that Bloomberg apparently needs to have this last win -- and last word -- before he turns over the reins to his successor.

Scheindlin has also weighed in, asking through her counsel for the appeals court to withdraw its order until such point that her alleged wrongdoing can be discussed "at an appropriate point in the proceedings," rather than giving Floyd v. New York the dubious honor of being the host of a judicial "naked mudwrestling match."

At this point, everything is up in the air, but its apparent the Bloomberg administration and "his" police department are unwilling to make even the smallest change to current practices, despite racking up millions of dollars in settlements every year and a growing number of people unwilling to cede more of their civil liberties, no matter how "effective" the unconstitutional program is.

Filed Under: michael bloomberg, nyc, nypd, shira scheindlin, stop and frisk

Over 120 Rights And Religious Groups Join ACLU In Call For DOJ To Investigate NYPD's Surveillance Of Muslims

from the pushing-back dept

Over the last few years, the NYPD's intrusive surveillance of the city's Muslim population has raised many concerns about civil liberty violations while simultaneously failing to turn up much in the way of terrorist plots.

The ACLU has gathered the support of 125 civil rights, religious, racial justice and other community organizations, all of which have signed its letter requesting that the DOJ investigate the NYPD's surveillance of Muslims.

Dear Acting Assistant Attorney General Samuels and Section Chief Smith:

The undersigned civil rights, faith, community, and advocacy groups request that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice commence a prompt investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 into the New York City Police Department’s (“NYPD”) discriminatory surveillance of American Muslim communities.

As shown by the NYPD’s own documents, for over a decade, the Department has engaged in unlawful religious profiling and suspicionless surveillance of Muslims in New York City (and beyond). This surveillance is based on the false and unconstitutional premise, reflected in the NYPD’s published “radicalization” theory, that Muslim religious belief, practices, and community engagement are grounds for law enforcement scrutiny. That is a premise rooted in ignorance and bias: it is wrong and unfairly stigmatizes Muslims, who are a law-abiding, diverse, and integral part of our nation and New York City. Unsurprisingly, the NYPD’s surveillance program has had far-reaching, deeply negative effects on Muslims’ constitutional rights by chilling speech and religious practice and harming religious goals and missions. It has frayed the social fabric of Muslim communities by breeding anxiety, distrust, and fear. The NYPD’s biased policing practices hurt not only Muslims, but all communities who rightfully expect that law enforcement will serve and protect America’s diverse population equally, without discrimination.

Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 § 210401, the United States Attorney General is authorized to conduct investigations concerning “a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a)...

As we've seen previously, the NYPD has placed blanket surveillance on entire mosques, justifying it with guidelines weakened by a former CIA officer who exploited post-9/11 paranoia to broadly expand the department's surveillance powers and eliminate built-in protection of civil liberties. This surveillance continues to this day despite an NYPD official admitting these programs have yet to generate a single useful lead or investigation.

The ACLU has drawn support across a variety of religious groups, many of which recognize that while the NYPD may be focused on Muslims now, any other religious (or political, activist, etc.) group could be subject to the same intrusive surveillance if a future attack brings with it guilt by association.

If the DOJ follows through, this will be the second time in recent months that it has weighed in on the NYPD's questionable tactics. Back in June, Attorney General Eric Holder filed a brief recommending that if Judge Scheindlin found the department's stop-and-frisk program to be unconstitutional, independent oversight should be appointed to keep the department in line. Sheindlin did find elements of the program unconstitutional and one of the remedies was, indeed, independent oversight.

As was pointed out then, the DOJ's reputation may be terrible, but one of the few areas in which it has been "aggressive and commendable" is its handling of civil rights violations by police departments. Hopefully, this will result in more of the same.

Filed Under: doj, investigation, muslims, nyc, nypd

The NYPD: Making New York Safer By Spying On Bicyclists, Relief Efforts And Republicans

from the let-the-circle-be-unbroken-severely-compromised dept

As more details continue to surface, the NYPD's activities are beginning to make the NSA's surveillance programs look like the paragon of restraint. We've already detailed how the NYPD (with help from a former CIA official) placed entire mosques under surveillance and infiltrated the Occupy movement.

Having effectively neutered the Handschu guidelines in 2003 (which placed severe restrictions on monitoring political activity), the NYPD was free to surveill all sorts of non-criminal, politically-focused gatherings.

So before and during the Iraq War, the organization of antiwar rallies was regarded as a fit matter for police surveillance; so were the monthly Critical Mass bicycle rallies, as well as groups protesting at the Republican National Convention in 2004, and a range of Islamic facilities, from mosques to college student clubs.

That's right. The NYPD cast its surveillance net over bicyclists. It also set its sights on the rescue/recovery efforts of Occupy Sandy, something that (perhaps due to it being a non-governmental effort) drew praise for its "nimble, effective work."

The PD's ongoing disregard for the civil liberties of New Yorkers (see also: stop-and-frisk) makes this news unsurprising. But it's worth noting that these spying efforts were ushered in by a former CIA officer who persuaded a judge to drop the limits governing the surveillance of political activities by playing the terrorist card shortly after the 9/11 attacks. If the NYPD is going to protect New Yorkers from future terrorist attacks, it's going to have to stop allocating resources to spy on non-terrorist, First Amendment-protected activities.

Then there's the problem with the undercover officers themselves. As we've seen in previous reports about undercover anti-terrorism work, many of the "plots" are crafted and propelled by undercover agents with minimal encouragement and involvement from their targets. How much trouble do these cops stir up just to maintain cover and justify their efforts?

One of the large, undiscussed questions of such surveillance is how civic dialogue can be influenced or distorted by police agents — perhaps as provocateurs, or possibly with no motive beyond maintaining cover. During the Republican convention, after a group making a film was arrested, a redheaded man standing on the street pounded on the back window of a police van, urging that the people inside be let go. A day later, the same man was videotaped being briefly put under a fake arrest, leading to tumult in the street from others who objected to his incarceration. They were unaware that the man was an undercover police officer who was walked down the street by uniformed officers, hands behind his back but uncuffed, and sent on his way: catch and release.

Like other efforts being made to make us "safer," these surveillance efforts lead to situations that are anything but. The widespread surveillance of non-terrorist, non-criminal entities both undermines the integrity of the infiltrated groups and actually leads to the commission of criminal activities that never would have been attempted if an NYPD officer wasn't there to instigate and encourage this behavior.

Filed Under: nypd, ray kelly, surveillance

Recent Revelations Prompt Motion To Block NYPD's Surveillance Of Muslims

from the this-will-all-seem-eerily-familiar-to-the-presiding-judge dept

A recent investigative report on the NYPD's surveillance of mosques has led to a possible revisiting of the Handschu Agreement by the federal judge presiding over a lawsuit filed against the city seeking to bar further surveillance of Muslims in New York City.

According to the 1985 ruling, the Handschu Agreement limited indiscriminate surveillance of purely political activity. If such surveillance was to take place, it first had to be approved by the three-member Handschu Authority and performed only by the specially-designated Public Security Section, a division of NYPD Intelligence. It also prohibited the videotaping or photographing of large public gatherings when there was no indication of criminal activity and forbade the sharing of information with outside agencies unless they agreed to be bound by the limitations of the Agreement.

This is what was assumed to be in place. When the plaintiffs filed in February, their attorney pointed out that the police activity that had been observed clearly violated those limitations.

The police measures directed at Muslims violate the Handschu decree "because they're not rooted in the fact that there's a criminal predicate," said plaintiff attorney Paul Chevigny. "They're rooted in the fact that the subjects are Muslims."

It was exactly as it looked: Muslims being placed under surveillance simply because they attended certain mosques -- mosques the NYPD had declared to be "terrorist organizations."

The city has countered by claiming that it closely observes the Handschu guidelines when making decisions about how to fight terror. A city lawyer, Peter Farrell, told the judge on Tuesday that the department launches investigations based on evidence of legitimate threats, not on religion.

"It's undeniable that New York City remains at the center of the threat by Islamists who have been radicalized to violence," he said.

What the city lawyer's conveniently left out was that the Handschu guidelines had been deliberately weakened by the NYPD, thanks to the efforts of a former CIA officer and his CIA liaison, who formed a so-called "Demographics Group" that was charged with monitoring activity by the city's Muslims.

[T]he activities that [CIA liaison Larry] Sanchez and [former senior CIA officer David] Cohen were proposing would not have been permitted under the Handschu guidelines. So, on September 12, 2002, Cohen filed a 23-page document in federal court asking a judge to throw out the guidelines and give his officers more leeway.

Cohen insisted that the world had changed since Al Qaeda attacked America, and the NYPD needed to change with it. “These changes were not envisioned when the Handschu guidelines were agreed upon,” he wrote, “and their continuation dangerously limits the ability of the NYPD to protect the people it is sworn to serve.”

The severely watered-down Handschu guidelines were approved by Judge Charles Haight. The name remained unchanged and most New Yorkers were unaware that hardly any limitations remained tied to the Agreement.

After securing this expanded definition (which also thoroughly abused the word "related"), the Demographics Group proceeded to declare entire mosques as "terrorist organizations" and began constant surveillance of their members. And, contrary to what the city's lawyer declared, it has yet to be proven by the NYPD or anyone else that New York is the "center of the threat by Islamists." The NYPD has spent millions of dollars and thousands of manhours surveilling and investigating Muslims and has turned up exactly zero useful leads.

When the plaintiffs filed this case, they had no idea the Handschu guidelines had been so thoroughly eviscerated. Armed with this new knowledge, the plaintiffs have asked the city to turn over so-called "investigative statements" related to these surveillance operations. The city won't even meet them halfway, offering only to turn over a "handful" for the plaintiffs' lawyers to view without making them part of the public record.

Technically, the city is correct: the NYPD is following the guidelines, as they have been altered, not as they were originally written.

The presiding judge says he will rule at a later date. However, one key factor is problematic. The presiding judge is Charles Haight, the same judge who agreed to relax those rules for the NYPD back in 2002. When he says something like this, it's hard to know how to take it.

"I've come to think of this case as a volcano that's asleep most of the time ... but every now and then blows up," U.S. District Judge Charles Haight said at the start of a hearing in federal court in Manhattan.

This "volcano" is at least partially of his own making. Haight knows how few restrictions remain under those guidelines. The NYPD can "closely observe" the relaxed Handschu guidelines and still place entire mosques under surveillance. The protections remaining are so weak and the scope of what is deemed "terrorist-related" so broad that even the CIA itself is unable to use the information collected by the Demographics Unit because doing so means violating CIA policies regarding domestic surveillance.

But it appears (although details are incredibly light) that Haight may revisit his own decision relaxing those guidelines. His upcoming ruling will determine whether the near-useless offer the city's lawyer made will be sufficient or if the city will need to cough up what's been requested: investigative statements related to "any operation targeting Muslims." Haight will also make the call as to whether the documents will remain "off the record."

The NYPD has never been very responsive when asked to turn over information, but considering this order may come from a federal judge, rather than a member of the public, the response time might be a little quicker. As for the plaintiffs, it would seem they drew possibly the least sympathetic judge to hear this case. But who knows, maybe Haight's had a change of heart over the years. Many rash legislative and legal decisions were made shortly after the 9/11 attacks and there have been more than a few who have expressed regret for their decisions or dismay at the continual expansion of already-broad policies. Haight might be one of the ones who regrets his decision. Fortunately, he's still in a position to make some changes.

Filed Under: handschu authority, mosques, muslims, nypd, surveillance

Without Any Legal Basis, The NYPD Has Been Classifying Its Own Documents For More Than A Decade

from the aw,-how-cute!-it-thinks-it's-above-the-law! dept

Under the guidance of Chief Ray Kelly and Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the NYPD has transformed into an autonomous militarized force. Technically, it answers to Bloomberg and Kelly, but they've both shown extreme amounts of resistance to reining in any of the PD's excesses.

Any attempts at bringing oversight and accountability to the force are met with anger and condescension, despite the fact that the NYPD's casual abuse of New Yorker's civil liberties are the subject of major lawsuits and city council legislation, as well as a sizable contributor to the city's annual outlay of $700-800 million in settlements.

We've previously discussed the department's secretiveness that has seen it described by investigative journalists as worse than the NSA and FBI when it comes to responding to FOI requests. (Not for nothing does the New York law governing these requests do business under the acronym "FOIL.") But the NYPD is doing something no other city law enforcement agency has done: classifying its own documents.

Since at least 2003, the New York Police Department has been labeling some of its internal documents "Secret," a designation that has baffled government secrecy experts, journalists and civil liberties lawyers.

By labeling documents "secret," the Intelligence Division appears to be operating its own in-house classification system, similar to those used at federal agencies like the CIA, where Intel's chief, David Cohen, previously worked for 35 years.

Some of the documents also include the caveat, in all-caps, that "No portion of this document can be copied or distributed without the exclusive permission of the policy commissioner or deputy commissioner of intelligence."

Why is this "baffling?" Because the NYPD's in-house classification system has nothing legal to back it up.

"You know what that [label] means? It means diddly," said Robert Freeman, executive director of New York's Committee on Open Government. "I think the police department is following the lead of the federal government. The difficulty is, in my opinion, it does not have a legal basis for doing that."

Christopher Dunn, associate legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, told HuffPost he has only seen the label on documents created after 2001. He agreed with Freeman that "as far as I know, this marking has no legal significance."

The NYPD remains a law unto itself. Bloomberg has referred to it as the "seventh biggest army in the world" (and his own "personal army") and has, over the course of his three terms, indulged every excess. It should be noted that former CIA officer David Cohen got the ball rolling on the civil liberties-violating "Demographics Group" (the one that labeled entire mosques as terrorist entities) late in 2002, which would explain the noticeable uptick in "SECRET" documents in 2003. Nothing drives overclassification more than a combination of dubious legality and working hand-in-hand with national intelligence agency liaisons.

And it would appear that the NYPD still has lots of secrets it's not willing to share with the public. HuffPo points to this story from 2011 in which Chief Kelly makes the claim that the NYPD could "take down an airplane" thanks to its anti-aircraft weaponry. That itself should be troubling enough and a strong indicator that Bloomberg and Kelly are better qualified to run a banana republic than an American city, but when asked to comment on the PD's anti-aircraft guns, Bloomberg responded with this smirk of a statement:

"New York City Police Department has lots of capabilities you don't know about and you won't know about them."

That's comforting. Nothing like having the commander-in-chief of the "seventh biggest army in the world" tell you his force might have even bigger tricks up its sleeve than anti-aircraft weapons.

On the bright side, Mayor for life Bloomberg will be leaving soon and the front runner for his position, Bill De Blasio, gave the police force a failing grade for its responsiveness to FOI requests and will be likely looking to force the PD to shoot for a low-C at minimum. If Chief Kelly sticks around, though, De Blasio will have an uphill battle to fight against the ingrained arrogance and contempt that pervades the NYPD's upper management.

Filed Under: classification, michael bloomberg, nypd, ray kelly, secret

Judge Scheindlin Shuts Down NYC's Request For Stay On Ruling Finding Stop And Frisk Unconstitutional

from the Bloomberg:stop-and-frisk::pitbull:toddler dept

A few weeks back the city of New York filed a motion to stay Judge Scheindlin's ruling (pending appeal) that components of the NYPD's infamous stop and frisk program were unconstitutional. She also ordered the installation of an independent monitor and the deployment of body cameras at one station per precinct.

The city, of course, declared that pretty much everything about Sheindlin's decision would result in "irreparable harm" (as one does in these filings). Scheindlin has denied the stay and shot down every single claim presented by the city. Fun fact: several city council members and mayoral candidate Bill De Blasio all offered declarations of opposition to the city's motion to stay. (De Blasio's was an amicus curiae letter.)

As to the city's argument that carrying out the Finest message (i.e., instructing its officers to operate in adherence with the Constitution) will cause "irreparable harm" via confusion in the ranks (especially if Sheindlin's ruling is overturned on appeal), both in implementation and (possible) retraining (again, dependent on the success of the appeal), the judge had this to say:

The City’s first argument is circular. The Court’s orders simply require that the NYPD conform its policies and practices to well-established constitutional requirements. The City’s argument here is merely a restatement of its argument regarding the likelihood of success on the merits. Because it believes the Court’s decisions are based on an erroneous view of the law — despite repeated citations to Supreme Court and Second Circuit controlling law — it also believes that irreparable harm will result from basing any relief on those decisions. Thus, the City’s argument conflates the first two factors and fails to prove either one.

Follow the Constitution. Is that so hard? If the NYPD trains its officers to follow constitutional guidelines in its stops then there should be no confusion. The city's argument complains that it will first have to train its officers to respect the limits and protections built into the Constitution, but if Sheindlin's ruling is overturned, it will have to retrain its officers to resume their disrespect of the public's rights. That's the argument, and it's bizarre, and Sheindlin calls the city out for it.

As for the city's complaint that deploying body cameras will cause "significant harm" in terms of time, money and (ROFL) "possible impingement on the privacy rights of the public," Sheindlin offers this rebuttal:

With respect to the pilot project on body-worn cameras, it is undisputed that the project will require the expenditure of time and resources, but it is also clear that the Monitor will oversee the project to ensure that the privacy rights of both police officers and citizens are carefully protected. The purpose of the experiment is to ensure that both police and citizens benefit from the recording of stop and frisk encounters — which will provide a contemporaneous and presumptively incontestable record of what occurred during the encounter. Again, it does not appear that any irreparable harm will result from instituting a pilot project that will be carefully developed prior to implementation and that has been used by other police departments with apparent success.

While I'm slightly disappointed that Scheindlin didn't call the NYPD out for installing several thousand cameras around the city with no apparent concern for the "privacy rights of the public," it's good to see that she's not going to let the city refer to initial expenses as "irreparable harm." Roughly paraphrased: Of course implementing something that didn't previously exist will expend resources. That's a given. Quit acting like this order will somehow result in a permanent and debilitating blow to the NYPD's budget.

The city's third argument -- that the court's decision violates the principles of federalism by its "unjustified incursion into the municipality's authority to police its citizens" -- is handled the best. Sheindlin flips the city's own argument ("constitutional harm… is always irreparable") and uses it against it.

The City has the obligation and the right to police its citizens — but it must do so in compliance with the dictates of the United States Constitution.

There's your "irreparable constitutional harm" -- except that it's the city that's been causing "irreparable harm" on a massive scale for more than a decade.

Also of note on this particular argument: Mayor Bloomberg has sued the city council over a bill it passed that targets stop and frisk. Bloomberg argued that state laws governing criminal procedure supersede city policies. Because of that, the city council could not pass legislation aimed at regulating criminal procedure. Presumably, the US Constitution supersedes any New York state law (or city law). If Bloomberg manages to win this suit, all the city council has to do is redraw its stop and frisk bill a bit more along constitutional lines.

The city also claims that "public interest" favors a stay. Even without the statements from several city council members and Bill De Blasio's filing, this would be a ridiculous claim. The "public interest" stated here is a solely the imaginary product of the Bloomberg-Kelly brain trust. The city (read: Kelly and Bloomberg) argues (as they always do) that crime rates will rise precipitously and minorities will be "hurt" if stop and frisk is hindered in any way.

Scheindlin strikes this claim down with math. She points out that in the first half of 2013, 'stop and frisk' stops dropped 50% as compared to the previous year and yet, crime failed to skyrocket (or even tick upwards). Instead, the overall crime rate dropped 2.7%.

Sheindlin states that allowing the stay would send the wrong message to the public, telling them that the NYPD's stop and frisk program is a) constitutionally sound (when it isn't), and b) that the program actually curbs crime, and that going without it would be dangerous.

The case is still being appealed, but in the meantime the remedies ordered by will have to be put into practice. Bloomberg and Kelly are probably past the point of addressing this at a press conference but I imagine they're off somewhere fuming loudly.

Filed Under: michael bloomberg, nyc, nypd, ray kelly, stop and frisk

AP Journalists: The NYPD 'Less Transparent' Than CIA, FBI And NSA When It Comes To FOI Requests

from the ray-kelly-states-info-needs-to-be-pried-from-his-cold,-live-fingers dept

According to the investigative journalists Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman, the entity most reluctant to part ways with information isn't any of the expected national intelligence agencies. No, the entity least likely to kick loose a response to a FOI request is none other than the NYPD.

“For the most part, they don’t respond,” Apuzzo, 34, said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “I don’t think people are well-served by that. Even the NSA responds.”

“Even the CIA responds,” Goldman, 42, jumped in. “Even the FBI responds.”

Incredibly, this is an improvement over the Giuliani years.

Bob Liff, a former reporter and Democratic political consultant, said the public’s right to know may not be perfectly served under Bloomberg, but it has vastly improved from his predecessor’s time.

“I don’t doubt that there’s always a battle over controversial information,” Liff said. “But under Rudy, the battle was over basic information. That’s a significant distinction.”

Thanks to the oft-thwarted efforts of Apuzzo and Goldman, we now have an answer as to why New York is referred to as the "city that never sleeps." It's because it's up all night crafting narratives.

The "public is not well-served by a police department that doesn’t allow you access to 911 calls or public records, police reports" and then "produces their own summaries of cases for you to look at, but doesn’t let you get access to the underlying documents,” Apuzzo added later.

“The NYPD is deciding what’s news,” Goldman said.

Apuzzo and Goldman have had plenty of experience with the NYPD, having exposed the department's highly questionable surveillance tactics deployed after the 9/11 attacks, along with breaking the news that a former high-ranking CIA officer was running the so-called Demographics Unit. This unit has designated entire mosques as "terrorist operations" and operates under a loophole in the laws governing police investigations -- a generous loophole manufactured by the former CIA agent himself.

The powers granted to this unit are so audacious that national intelligence agencies are unable to utilize the information collected without breaking national civil liberties laws.

The NYPD's protection of its own info seems almost antagonistic. As we've covered earlier, the NYPD has rejected FOI requests for everything from weapons discharge reports to Ray Kelly's official calendar. The city of New York isn't much better, as Mike Masnick can personally attest.

There's an insularity to New York that outsiders have trouble permeating. The city is unlike any other in the US, and the residents and ingrained institutions know it. Most people don't have what it takes to get past its callous exterior and those who try are often rebuffed simply on principle. The mayor's office and police department have had each other's back throughout Bloomberg's tenure, which isn't too surprising considering the NYPD has been very instrumental in the mayor's micromanagement of the city and its inhabitants.

But this "we protect our own" attitude extends into the journalistic ranks as well, which is extremely problematic when the police department is already doing everything it can to prevent the release of unflattering information. Apuzzo and Goldman's investigative work was greeted with reactions ranging from harsh criticism to complete indifference by New York papers.

The city’s top tabloid newspapers, the New York Post and Daily News, editorialized against the AP's NYPD series in 2011, and The New York Times did little follow-up reporting on the revelations and newly published documents.

"It was extremely surprising to us that putting a former CIA officer in charge of the NYPD intelligence division and creating what’s been created generated so little attention at the time," Apuzzo said.

That should have been a big deal and New York journalist should have been the ones informing their local readers about the abuses occurring in the name of "security" -- and at the behest of a former CIA officer. But they didn't, instead entertaining the mayor's assertions that everything the department did was legal, above board and not a violation of anyone's rights.

Bloomberg, like President Obama, promised greater transparency. And like the president, he's failed to follow through. Worse, this isn't simply a case of neglect -- both have taken great strides in the direction of opacity. And as for those New York journalists who criticized the pair's work, they need to take a good, long look at their own complicity in the NYPD's overreach.

Filed Under: adam goldman, foia, matt apuzzo, nypd, transparency

If You Can't Trust A Cop... 13-Year Veteran Of Seattle PD Makes Body Cameras For Cops

from the accountability-is-always-a-good-thing dept

The NYPD may be forced to wear body cameras in the near future, something that makes Bloomberg's veins pulse and eyes start twitching. For some reason, Bloomberg is convinced all these cameras will do is make "his" cops look bad. It's a shame he won't look at the actual results of cops wearing cameras -- other cities that have implemented the technology have noticed a marked decrease in both the deployment of excessive force and number of citizen complaints. It's a win for both sides: the public and their public servants.

But if Bloomberg can't trust the conclusions reached by other PDs, chances are he won't trust the opinion of Steve Ward, a 13-year veteran of the Seattle Police Department.

Steve Ward doesn't care about reasons why the cameras are worn, just that police wear them. Now he wants to put a similar version into the public's hands.

Six years ago, Ward created VieVu, a company that produces a rugged, virtually tamper-proof camera that officers wear that records audio, video, time and GPS information.

Since then, the former Seattle police officer claims VieVu is now the market leader in wearable cameras designed for police use. The company claims 3,000 police departments in 16 countries use them.

Some police personnel express reluctance to wear body cameras, not necessarily because they're bad cops, but because being asked to wear one implies that they are. This same sort of resistance occurred 20 years ago, during the rollout of dashcams. Steve Ward, however, had an uncommon take on the new technology, and on cops and cameras in general.

He got the idea back mid 90s when the 13-year police veteran was part of a magazine profile on bicycle cops and a photographer strapped a camera on him.

"I realized that this is just like those in-car cameras that were just catching on, but the cop wears it," Ward said. "It means you capture everything a cop does, not just the 5-percent that happens in front of the car."

Ward calls it his "ah-ha" moment.

If a cop views "capturing everything" as a positive thing, he immediately stands out as an anomaly. But actual experience with the cameras -- especially the calming effect their use has on angry citizens -- has turned plenty of law enforcement officers into believers. Here's what representatives from two Connecticut police departments had to say about the cameras.

Some New Haven officers have purchased body cameras on their own, Esserman said. It’s a stark contrast from a time when many officers were highly skeptical of dashboard cameras.

“Years ago it was imposed on officers; now it seems many officers think it’s in their best interest,” he said. “I think the world has changed and people are much more comfortable with cameras than they used to be.”

In Branford, Halloran said body cameras have been embraced by his officers.

“Now the attitude of the officers are, if there’s a camera broken down, ‘Well, I want a camera. I’m not going on the road without a camera,’” Halloran said.

VieVu's backend is where Ward's product earns its trustworthiness. Even though officers can control what's recorded via the sliding lens cover, they can't edit or delete footage once its uploaded. This may allow an officer to selectively record interactions with the public, but in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, the officer has to make the decision before the interaction begins. Any complaint filed by citizens about excessive force or abuse should have some corresponding footage. If it doesn't, (ideally) this lack of footage should cast serious doubts on the officer's narrative of the event, especially since he or she had the opportunity and technology to record the interaction, but chose not to.

The bottom line here is this: if Bloomberg and Chief Kelly (and others like them) can't trust the opinions of a federal court judge or private citizens, surely they can take the word of other cops, right? Or do they trust no one but New York's Finest? When a ex-cop's making body cameras, it's more than simply filling a market. It's an implicit statement that cameras are good for cops -- that it's not simply about forcing bad cops to generate their own damning evidence.

If these cops can't trust other cops, there's no way they view the public as worth respecting… or protecting.

Filed Under: body cameras, michael bloomberg, nypd, police

Least Surprising Thing Ever: Manhattan Speedster Afroduck Arrested

from the told-you dept

Well, that didn't take long. Remember that jackwagon that sped around Manhattan in a mega-illegal time-window of just over twenty-four minutes? Remember how he was all: pssh, you can't identify me! Remember how Ray Kelly decided to declare his own personal war on a man named Afroduck, proving that reality is way more insane than anything you can think of from Adult Swim?

Yeah, he got busted, and it only took a day or so.

ABC 7 News was on hand to see Afroduck get taken into custody early this morning at the 25th Precinct in East Harlem. They report that [Christopher Adam] Tang is 30 years old. He gives no comment to the reporters, and he smiles.

The report goes on to say that no details were given on how they found Tang or tied him to the dash cam video he uploaded, but when Ray Kelly boasted that they have license plate cameras for that kind of thing, he wasn't lying. Commenters in the original piece noted that the fact Tang wasn't pulled over as he went about his speed run seemed like a complete lack of police presence, but there's no shortage of license plate and traffic cams.

It will be interesting to see how an arrest based so heavily on evidence from this kind of technology, assuming we don't learn of some other method for the identification of Tang, is used in court. Until then, stop making speed runs in the country's largest city.

Filed Under: afroduck, nypd, ray kelly, speeding, youtube

Petulant Billionaire NY Mayor Continues To Insist He's Never Wrong; Sues City Council Over Stop-And-Frisk Legislation

from the it's-my-way-or-IT'S-MY-WAY,-dammit! dept

Maybe billionaires are just used to getting their way. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has seen his and Kelly's precious stop-and-frisk program declared unconstitutional by a federal court and face additional curbs via legislation passed by the New York City Council with a veto-proof vote. (Not that it stopped him from threatening those who voted for it… and vetoing them on sheer principle.)

Despite the number of legal attacks on the program, Bloomberg still feels its an unassailable part of modern policing. And as the opposition has continued to mount, Bloomberg's defensive actions and statements have taken on a degree of stubborn petulance. Everyone's wrong but him and his personal army.

At this point, Bloomberg is running short of toys to throw out of his well-appointed crib. However, he still has a few left to hurl at his opponents, and this latest salvo pretty much erases any emaciated notions that Bloomberg cares about New Yorkers more than he cares about being "right."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg sued the City Council Tuesday in a bid to overturn a law that aims to curb the police department's use of its controversial stop-and-frisk policy.

The council's votes came less than two weeks after a federal judge ruled unconstitutional the department's stop-and-frisk policy, in which officers stop people in high-crime areas suspected of engaging in criminal activity. The policy was thrown out on the grounds that it disproportionately targets minorities.

The council reaffirmed their passage of the measure 10 days ago, along with another bill creating an independent watchdog to monitor the New York Police Department, overriding the mayor's veto, despite his warnings that the legislation would threaten public safety.

For a man who constantly claims his first concern is public safety when defending stop-and-frisk, he sure doesn't seem to care much for them otherwise. Bloomberg gives every appearance that he believes he owns the city he's supposed to be serving -- and that what he says goes, no matter how many people object.

By filing this lawsuit, he's basically attacking the city's own governing body (another set of servants who represent the public) for daring to undercut his decrees. The suit's success rests on an assertion Bloomberg certainly finds appealing -- that state criminal procedure laws trump a city's attempt to undercut his unconstitutional program.

The lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, asserted the bill was invalid because it is superseded by the state's criminal procedure law, or CPL, which governs the standards and procedures that police officers must follow.

"The CPL preempts the field of criminal procedure legislation and prevents local legislatures, including the council, from passing local laws in this area," the lawsuit said.

This is a very interesting tactic. Well, "interesting" isn't really the best word. Perhaps "disingenuous" or "hypocritical" or "transparently self-serving" would be better substitutes. Whether or not the mayor's legal argument has any weight remains to be seen but, in plain English, using the mayor's own assertions, this is what he's arguing.

The city council cannot pass local laws that address areas covered by state criminal procedure laws -- and he's using this argument to defend a local program. Stop-and-frisk is not used statewide. It is solely a NYPD program. If that's the case, it could reasonably be argued that the city council does indeed have the power to pass laws affecting purely local police programs, such as stop-and-frisk.

But as the city's counsel states here, Bloomberg can make a pretty strong case otherwise:

Michael Cardozo, the city's top lawyer, said in a statement that the lawsuit was necessary to ensure the council did not overstep its authority.

"Local legislative bodies should not be passing laws affecting the regulation of law enforcement activity in this way," he said. "This is a matter governed by the state legislature."

Cardozo calls the council's bill "regulation of law enforcement activity." Utilizing this broad term, the council would be overstepping its limits.The way the council's legislation is written doesn't specifically target the program itself, but rather the methods deployed for the stops and searches, and even those aren't addressed directly. It's more of a tangential approach that broadens the recourse options for citizens who feel they've been unfairly treated by these tactics.

Bloomberg is likely relying on the inherent vagueness of the council's legislation to work against it in this lawsuit, a vagueness that was likely intentional as the broader wording helped trim down the number of potential loopholes the NYPD could exploit in order to escape filed lawsuits.

If this lawsuit goes Bloomberg's way, it hardly looks like the end of the attacks on stop-and-frisk, but it does perhaps signal the end of its rigorous defense from the mayor's office. Two mayoral candidates have stated their displeasure with the program.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a leading Democratic mayoral candidate:

"Mayor Bloomberg can sue all he wants, but at the end of the day, we will successfully beat back this ill-advised litigation and ensure the prerogative of the city council to reform stop & frisk..."

Bill de Blasio, another Democratic frontrunner stated that "racial profiling is not good policing," adding later that, "we will not continue stop-and-frisk the way Ray Kelly's had it."

Bloomberg's third and final term ends this year but it appears he's going to do everything he can before then to ensure his legacy of unconstitutional stops lives on.

Filed Under: city council, michael bloomberg, nyc, nypd, ray kelly, stop and frisk