Medical Examiner Sues City Of New York After Being Forced Out Of Her Job For Questioning DNA Testing Techniques

from the siding-with-the-guilty?-that's-a-firin' dept

A lawsuit recently filed by an allegedly ousted New York City medical examiner lends more credibility to the theory that the justice system is more concerned with successful prosecutions than actual justice. At the center of the allegations lies a DNA testing technique apparently used nowhere else in the country.

A doctor filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Thursday, who said she was forced out of her job at the New York City Medical Examiner’s office after raising questions about the city’s use of a disputed technique for analyzing trace samples of DNA.

Dr. Marina Stajic said she was told she could either retire or be fired from her job as a laboratory director in April 2015. She said she was perceived as an adversary because of her position on the use of the DNA profiling technique known as low copy number, which critics have argued is unreliable and should not be used in court.

DNA evidence, once considered infallible, has proven to be just as questionable as other forms of evidence, like bite marks or hair samples. It's not so much the technique itself, but the fallibility of those using it. Test results are often overstated and the evidence itself is so minute (literally no more than dozens of cells) that it risks contamination if not handled extremely carefully. This is especially true of Low Copy Number, which uses far fewer cells than other DNA testing methods.

LCN requires just 15–20 cells, allowing profiles to be yielded from miniscule amounts of biological material—such as skin cells or sweat residue from a single fingerprint on a variety of items which an offender may have touched or come into contact with. The LCN DNA process ‘facilitates the examination of a whole new range of evidence types that previously could not be analyzed because of the very low amounts of DNA recoverable from the sample’.

But this sensitivity is accompanied by a range of risks as it can mislead crime investigations and/or lead to possible wrongful convictions. First, the number of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) cycles has to be substantially increased to obtain LCN DNA profiles, which inevitably magnifies the risk of contamination and inaccurate results from ‘stochastic effects’, random statistical anomalies. Secondly, even if a DNA profile is accurately yielded, there are difficulties associated with the propositions and interpretations that can be drawn from LCN DNA results. Since LCN DNA profile can stem from the cells of a single touch by an unconnected innocent individual prior to the crime, a phenomenon commonly termed ‘adventitious transference’ can occur. Thirdly, low levels of DNA may also result from secondary transfer. For instance, if the perpetrator who is a poor DNA shedder had casual contact with an innocent individual who is a good DNA shedder prior to committing the crime, the perpetrator may leave behind DNA of the innocent individual whilst not shedding any of his or her own cells.

Dr. Stajic also served on the state's Commission on Forensic Sciences and had been trying to get the city to drop the disputed DNA testing technique and move to something more reliable and less prone to false positives. Her complaint points out that the local Forensic Biology Laboratory is unique in its reliance on a questionable technique.

The use of LCN in criminal proceedings is currently the subject of controversy in the scientific and legal communities because of concerns that the analysis produces an unacceptable number of false positive results, which in turn can result in wrongful convictions.

On information and belief, the FBL is the only public DNA laboratory in the country that uses LCN in criminal cases. Sampson and Kuperfschmid have been strong advocates for the OCME’s continued use of LCN.

Sampson is Dr. Barbara Sampson, the city's Chief Medical Examiner. Sampson was the one who told Dr. Stajic she could either resign or be fired after trying to make data on LCN available to the public. The chain of events depicted in the filing indicate the Medical Examiner's Office is far more interested in locking people up than using accurate DNA testing methods.

Barry Scheck, Esq., a CFS Commissioner, participated in the October 24, 2014, meeting of the Commission. Scheck is a well-known criminal defense attorney and, along with fellow CFS Commissioner Peter Neufeld, Esq., is the co-founder of the Innocence Project, an organization that assists prisoners who can be proven innocent through the use of DNA testing.

At the October 24, 2014, meeting of the Commission, Scheck questioned Lien as to whether OCME had conducted an internal validation study that supported the use of LCN when the DNA sample recovered was a mixture of two or more people and the amount of the sample was particularly small (i.e., 25 picograms or less). Lien responded that OCME did indeed possess an internal validation study supporting the use of LCN under those circumstances.

Following Lien’s statement, Scheck made a motion for the Commission to request that OCME produce the internal validation study referred to by Lien and for the study to be available to the public.

Stajic voted in favor of Scheck’s motion because she believed that OCME should produce the internal data that it claimed supported the continued use of LCN with particularly small DNA samples. Stajic was also concerned that Lien’s statement about the existence of an internal validation study may not have been accurate.

Stajic was one of only three Commissioners to vote in favor of the motion, which was defeated. In addition to Stajic and Scheck, the only other Commissioner voting in favor of the motion was Marvin Schechter, who is also a criminal defense attorney...

Stajic’s vote in favor of Scheck’s motions were taken at a public meeting of the Commission. On information and belief, Sampson and Kuperfschmid became aware of Stajic’s votes, and they were displeased that Stajic appeared to be aligned with the criminal defense lawyers on the Commission, who Sampson and Kupferschmid viewed as adversarial to OCME.

In an office where everyone should be striving for truth and accuracy, it appears those in control are far more interested in showing deference to one side of the criminal justice equation: the prosecution. In doing so, the medical examiner's office has cut the same public it's instrumental in locking up out of the data loop. And, if the allegations are true, the office is silencing dissent by cutting loose employees who question its methods.

Filed Under: dna testing, evidence, marina stajic, medical examiner, nyc

DA Cyrus Vance Throws Encrypted Phones On Table And Hands In Air As Criminals Take Over New York City

from the admits-law-enforcement-will-never-solve-crimes-again dept

Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance can't stop griping about phone encryption. He's basically a one-issue politician at this point. His creaky platform is the coming criminal apocalypse, currently being ushered in by smartphone manufacturers. The only person complaining more about phone encryption is FBI Director James Comey, but in Comey's defense, his jurisdiction is the whole of the United States. Vance has only his district, but it encompasses the NYPD -- a police force that often seems to view itself as the pinnacle of American policing.

So, with the battle between the FBI and Apple underway in a California court, Vance is back at it, attempting to grab the national spotlight from his position on the opposite coast.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. said at a news conference that investigators cannot access 175 Apple devices sitting in his cybercrime lab because of encryption embedded in the company’s latest operating systems.

“They’re warrant proof,” he said, adding that the inability to peer inside the devices was especially problematic because so much evidence once stored in file cabinets, on paper, and in vaults, is now only on criminals’ smartphones.

Tough luck, that. But considering the information inside is encrypted, it's a bit bold to declare that whatever's contained there that the NYPD hasn't seen would be useful to investigators. The assumption seems to be that if it's encrypted and on a device seized by law enforcement, then it must be composed of smoking guns and signed confessions in PDF format.

Even if we buy the assumption that the phones contain massive amounts of useful data, there are other pathways to this data. It doesn't have to run through the smartphone provider. And the efforts made to lock out cops (as it's always presented) also keeps criminals from accessing the personal data and communications of others. So, there's that.

Vance claims investigations are being hindered by encryption. Supposedly, the NYPD is sitting on 175 uncracked devices -- some of which were displayed during the press conference. But other than this number being cited, very little was offered in the way of further detail. Instead, Vance photo-opped a pile of supposedly inaccessible devices and let the press draw its own conclusions. Police Commissioner Bill Bratton was on hand to back up Vance's assertions with the sort of jailhouse hearsay Detective Vincent Hanna would find patently ridiculous.

Bratton said criminals are increasingly aware of the protection offered by their devices. He said a prisoner in a city jail was recently recorded saying in a phone call that iPhone encryption was “another gift from God.”.

Devastating.


It's a shame the Vance-Bratton loop doesn't seem to be interested in hearing from other law enforcement representatives about whether the government should be forcing companies out of the encryption business or a locked-up phone should be treated as an investigative brick wall.

Here's PoliceOne's editor-in-chief, Doug Wyllie, pointing out what's wrong with the FBI's efforts -- and every assertion made by other law enforcement officials who believe private companies should be forced to destroy the protective efforts they've built into their devices.

The Associated Press said in its report, “The dispute places Apple, one of the world’s most respected companies, on the side of protecting the digital privacy of an accused Islamic terrorist.”

Well, no. Apple is protecting its product for the hundreds of millions who possess Apple iOS devices, and it is protecting its own corporate interests. The company’s market position could be jeopardized by taking away one of the elements to its product that is most appealing to consumers (privacy and encryption) and thereby put the shareholders in financial jeopardy. As CEO, it is Cook’s responsibility to resist that.

Furthermore, the FBI may be using terrorism as leverage to secure Apple's assistance, but its insistence that key info is held on a dead suspect's phone suggests it's reading too much into things it can't actually see, as well as short-circuiting its own investigative processes.

The fact is that the probability that a terrorist would keep sensitive information about his plot/plans on his government-issued mobile phone is pretty preposterous. In the unlikely event that there is information relevant to the investigation on that device, the possibility exists that it resides elsewhere as well, such as with mobile carrier network records, or another person’s phone who spoke or exchanged messages with Farook. Consequently, the FBI should:

Vigorously pursue all of the other avenues of investigation.

Work to develop better decryption capabilities for future investigations.

Withdraw its petition to the court to force a private company to damage its products.

This is coming from the editor of a site that's so much of a law enforcement echo chamber that you're not even allowed to see comments unless you can prove you're a law enforcement officer or official.


When another closed, pro-law enforcement loop can see both the forest and the trees, it clearly exposes Vance's efforts here as little more than grandstanding. What Vance and Bratton want -- along with James Comey -- is for every impediment to investigations to be removed, either by courts or by legislators. Because they've chosen to focus on encryption, they're ignoring scalable fences while wringing their hands over the padlock on the gate.

And, once more it must be pointed out that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies solved plenty of crimes before smartphones -- much less smartphone encryption -- became the norm. They claim everything that used to reside in file cabinets and bedroom drawers now resides in encrypted devices. While many people's "lives" are contained in their phones, their lives encompass far more than their Companion Rectangles™. They still have computers and laptops that aren't encrypted, third party social media services/email providers, as well as friends, relatives and co-conspirators who may be able to offer more insight or access. But all people like Vance see is iNcriminating Device 5S standing between them and justice, even when multiple paths around it still exist.

Filed Under: crime, cyrus vance, encryption, going dark, law enforcement, new york city, nyc, nypd

Close Only Counts In Horseshoes, Hand Grenades... And (Apparently) Verizon's Fiber Optic Installs

from the semantic-ninja dept

We've been covering how Verizon has swindled a long line of states and cities into giving the company all manner of subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for uniform fiber deployment that never happens (or only partially happens). While fourteen Mayors recently wrote Verizon to complain about its dubious behavior, New York City has been the most vocal critic of late, after a June audit showed that Verizon completely failed to live up to a 2008 franchise agreement with the city promising 100% FiOS coverage to all five city boroughs by 2014. Verizon accomplished about half of that.

New York City held a hearing last week intended to hold Verizon accountable, but ran face first into a telco well-versed in semantic dodgeball. You see, by refusing to define the word "passed" in its agreements, Verizon can get away with claiming it serves a house with fiber -- provided fiber gets somewhere, vaguely close to its intended target. As it has done countless times before, Verizon leaned on this ambiguousness when trying to defend the company's behavior to city officials:

Verizon reps Leecia Eve and Kevin Service stated at the hearing that Verizon has unquestionably met its promise to "pass" all households in the five-borough area, which essentially means extending the fiber so that a building could theoretically then be connected to the network. As one councilmember pointed out, that's like installing water pipes but not hooking them up to individual apartments: the water's flowing on by, but no one can actually drink it.

But it was Verizon spokesman Kevin Service who stole the show, with some award winning tap dancing during the hearing:

"We consider it to be passed if we're within the realm of substantial fiber placement," Service said when pressed on how the term is actually defined. "I'm not a lawyer, but here's what I would say: we're passed if, when we get the request for service and have the necessary rights of way, what we have left to do does not create a delay in bringing service to that customer. Under that Kevin Service Definition, we've passed every household."

In other words, Verizon claims that all of these houses it failed to reach actually have fiber if you squint your eyes and look at it just the right way. Understandably, customers somewhere "within the realm of substantial fiber placement" probably aren't impressed by Verizon's explanation, even though the spokesman goes the extra mile and tries to bizarrely name his bullshit definition after himself. In contrast, however, New York City's full audit (pdf) found that there were 42,000 outstanding requests for FiOS installation, 75% of which were outstanding for more than a year. For many of them, the fiber "passes" their homes -- sometimes up to a mile away.

While the city now claims it's exploring its legal options, those options are likely to be limited. The previous city administration signed off on this deal after closed door negotiations, not only ignoring calls for transparency and public input at the time, but thirty years of precedent when it comes to Verizon's failure to hold up its end of the bargain.

Filed Under: broadband, close, fiber, installs, kevin service, new york city, nyc, promises
Companies: verizon

NYPD Sergeants Assoc. Using Flickr To Publicly Humiliate Homeless To Play Politics With Mayor De Blasio

from the cheap-shots dept

Let's say you're a leader in an association for NYPD sergeants. Now let's say you're, like, super aware of some of the changes and backlash against the NYPD that has occurred recently, chiefly concerning policies for policing the public, charges of racist and violent practices, and the insistance that the city government find ways to keep officers accountable for their actions. You know the city is looking into NYPD officials deleting information on illegal summons quotas. You know of the concern over the fact that the NYPD has pissed off so many black men that black men kind of don't want to join their ranks. And you're especially aware of the trend of greater protections for the public filming police doing their jobs and the crackdown on the crackdown of the photographers. What do you do?

Psshh, start a Flickr account solely for the purpose of poor-shaming the homeless to try and embarrass the Mayor, right?

The Sergeants Benevolent Association is spearheading the effort, emailing a letter to members Monday urging them and their families and friends to take pictures to document the decline of the city.

“As you travel about the city of New York, please utilize your smartphones to photograph the homeless lying in our streets, aggressive panhandlers, people urinating in public or engaging in open-air drug activity, and quality-of-life offenses of every type,” says the letter from SBA President Ed Mullins, a major critic of Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Yes, Mullins (and the ironically named Sergeants Benevolent Association) then takes those photographs and uploads them to its Flickr account, because apparently the best way to make a political point to a political opponent is to publicly shame the least able to defend themselves. Should you not wish to view this material, something for which I wouldn't blame you, the pictures almost uniformly show homeless and vagrant folk in their own misery, often captioned with such wonderfully sympathetic thoughts as "Quality Of Life For The Mayor" and "Peek A Boo" and "Homeless Takeover NYC." The idea of shaming the homeless, who might be homeless for any number of reasons, is deplorable. As are Mullins' excuses for doing so.

Noting that more cops are being recorded on the job, Mullins wrote, “Shouldn’t accountability go both ways? We, the ‘Good Guys,’ are sworn to protect our citizens. Shouldn’t our public officials be held to the same standard?” he said.

Except the two things aren't remotely equivalent. The public photographing the police performing their duties while serving that very same public isn't the same as snapshotting a 3rd party whose lives are already miserable to take political shots against the Mayor. Frankly, these are the kinds of things said by those with head injuries, not those leading a police association. More specifically, Mullins claims this is being done in response to pending city legislation that would require police to obtain permission to search a suspect if they don't have probable cause for an arrest. You know, that thing that's already in the goddamn Constitution? Yeah, that's why he's encouraging police to publicly shame the homeless.

Get a grip, guys...

Filed Under: bill de blasio, homeless, mayor, nyc, nypd, photographs, police, seargents benevolent association, shaming

NYC Mayor De Blasio Realizes His Plan To Kneecap Uber Was A Disaster, Backs Down

from the so-much-for-that dept

Earlier this week, we noted that NY City mayor Bill de Blasio appeared to pick a fight with Uber that he couldn't possibly win. The plan was to create a taxi medallion-like system for car hailing apps like Uber and Lyft, but which would cap the number of such cars that could be on the road. The PR campaign against this effort was tremendous (obviously, some of it pushed by Uber and Lyft -- but much of it by the happy users and drivers on those platforms). De Blasio and his staff apparently believed that there really wasn't popular support for these platforms, which was just wrong. As the negative publicity continued to mount, including having various celebrities weigh in on how stupid the plan was, it appears that de Blasio has backed down and agreed to drop the plan, at least for the time being.

The agreement brings a temporary end to a fractious struggle that had consumed City Hall for several days, and inundated parts of the city with mailers, phone calls, advertisements and even celebrity endorsements.

Under the agreement, according to three people familiar with the agreement, the city will conduct a four-month study on the effect of Uber and other for-hire vehicle operators on the city’s traffic and environment.

To save face, the mayor's office is also claiming that this is a "victory" because Uber agreed to share some data with the mayor's office about usage of the platform. However, this is pretty clearly a victory for Uber, its drivers and the people who use the service. There are some legitimate questions about how these companies operate and what they mean for the cities and residents where they exist, but this move, from the beginning, was clearly about paying back taxi cab companies who had supported de Blasio's election, rather than any legitimate concern for the city.

Filed Under: bill de blasio, car hailing, medallions, nyc, rid sharing, taxis
Companies: lyft, uber

NYC Mayor Picks Fight With Uber That He Cannot Win

from the and-will-lose-big-time dept

NY City Mayor Bill de Blasio has apparently decided to pick a fight with Uber -- a move that has already backfired and appears to be getting worse by the day. He's been pushing a proposal, obviously put together in support of legacy taxicab owners, that would limit the number of such car-hailing drivers allowed in the city. Basically, it would take the ridiculous taxi medallion system and apply it to these new services, limiting supply, keeping prices high and not serving the public very well at all. Uber responded forcefully last week by adding an amusing "de Blasio" feature to its service, showing riders how much longer they'd have to wait for a car if the plan moves forward.

The story is getting more and more attention, and it's becoming clear that this has become personal for de Blasio, for reasons that are unclear. He can't win this fight and it's only making him look worse and worse. Not only that, but he is apparently threatening other "business" groups to "stay out" of the fight, threatening retaliation if they didn't stay away:

Mayor de Blasio bullied business groups to stay out of the Uber debate in the weeks leading up to the City Council vote this week on controversial bills to curtail new licenses for e-hail cars.

Deputy Mayor Tony Shorris called Partnership for New York City’s Kathy Wylde and the Association for a Better New York’s Bill Rudin to alert them to the bills — and to threaten them to stay on the sidelines, sources said.

“Their message is, ‘This isn’t your fight. Stay out of this and we’re not going to bother you,’ ” said a political source familiar with the outreach. The implication was that if the groups defied the mayor, City Hall would “limit your business opportunities,” he said.

Meanwhile, it appears that the out of touch de Blasio and his staff have absolutely no clue how widely Uber is used and how popular it is, insisting that it's just a small group of tech elites who use the service:

City Hall doesn’t buy the notion that Uber is growing fast enough for a cap to disrupt the service.... And the mayor’s circle also doesn’t believe that Uber is broadly popular, or represents anything most New Yorkers care about.

“It’s a boutique side issue,” said a top City Hall ally. “There’s a small set of excited tech people who are reading Mashable and might think the mayor isn’t innovative enough.”

How can one be mayor of New York City and not realize that how people get around the city is a major issue to the public, and that Uber is increasingly one of the preferred ways of getting around. Furthermore, it appears that de Blasio's people are misreading their own data to argue that this cap on drivers makes sense.

And, of course, it's not just the riders that should concern de Blasio, but the many people now making a living as drivers for these various services.

When running for mayor, de Blasio got strong support from the taxi drivers -- and many are seeing this as his repayment of that debt. But, going against what the public wants -- especially when it comes to helping get people around more efficiently -- seems like a huge miscalculation on the part of de Blasio. Even for people who think that Uber's practices are problematic (and this move impacts all the other companies in the space as well...), it's hard to see de Blasio's move as anything but trying to raise prices and limit options for the public for no good reason at all.

Filed Under: bill de blasio, limits, medallions, nyc, on demand, transportation
Companies: lyft, uber

Audit Reveals Verizon Tried To Corner NYC Broadband Market By Striking Exclusive Landlord Deals

from the you-knew-I-was-a-snake-when-you-picked-me-up dept

As we recently noted, New York City only just woke up to the fact that the lucrative 2008 Verizon franchise deal the city thought would bring fiber broadband to 100% of all five boroughs, has only resulted in Verizon cherry picking about half of the city's residents. Of course as we pointed out, if the city had actually bothered to read the closed-door agreement struck with former Mayor Mike Bloomberg (or listened to a few local reporters at the time), leaders could have noticed at any time that it contains oodles of loopholes allowing Verizon to wiggle over, under and around most of the obligations contained therein.

While most people know by now that taking subsidies and tax breaks for fiber that never gets delivered is Verizon's MO in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (ok, well everywhere), the city only just appears to be realizing the scope of Verizon's shenanigans. In addition to discovering that Verizon failed its build out obligations, analysis of the NYC Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications' audit (pdf) indicates that Verizon also tried to cajole landlords into exclusivity deals that may violate FCC rules:

"[T]wo of the interviewees’ statements supported the first property manager’s statement that Verizon was not completing NSIs because they wanted exclusive agreements for certain buildings before completion of the NSI," according to the audit report. "For example, one property manager from a well-known firm complained that Verizon would not complete the NSI at a building on Sutton Place unless 100 percent of the apartment dwellers committed to Verizon FiOS. This property manager also said only two of the eleven multiple dwelling properties he managed had Verizon FiOS and that installations took anywhere from six months to two years."

So yeah, in addition to pretending that homes "passed" with fiber were "served," Verizon actually refused to wire a lot of properties unless everybody in the building could be forced to only exclusively use Verizon services. This is something the FCC banned in a 2007 order (pdf) that's subsequently been held up during court challenges by cable providers. Verizon has long denied that it does this; in fact the telco has consistently tried to claim that landlords are solely to blame for the company's uneven deployment. This go-round, Verizon is blaming the city's findings on "miscommunication" (when it hasn't tried to dismiss the findings entirely as the unsubstantiated rabble rousing of labor unions).

But that's not all. In the week after the city's audit was made public, a number of competitors have come forward to complain that Verizon's been blocking access to key city infrastructure as well. In other words, Verizon's refusing to serve millions of people, but making it impossible for anyone else to do so either. If you've followed the municipal broadband debate, that's effectively the same logic the mega-ISPs have displayed on a national level, and this kind of behavior by incumbent ISPs (especially if you watched the ILEC/CLEC wars of the late 90s and early aughts) is a major contributor to the nation's utterly mediocre rankings in most broadband metrics.

Having watched telco lawyers get away with this stuff for the better part of fifteen years, it's clear to me few municipal leaders are actually reading the franchise agreements that they sign, and fewer still seem familiar with the laundry list of childhood fables warning them about just these kinds of business transactions.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, exclusive deals, landlords, nyc
Companies: verizon

NYPD Union Turns On President Pat Lynch For Using Two Officers' Deaths To Fight A Pointless War With The Mayor

from the every-tragedy-is-an-opportunity dept

Pat Lynch, the president of New York City's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA), has always been a cop's best friend, especially the more questionable ones. In the wake of Eric Garner's death at the hands of an NYPD officer, Lynch was quick to deflect criticism by pointing fingers at the person who captured the incident on video.

The New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the largest union representing NYPD officers, said in a statement that it was “criminals like Mr. Orta who carry illegal firearms who stand to benefit the most by demonizing the good work of police officers.”

Lynch also opposed efforts (supported by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton) that might make his officers more accountable, ignoring evidence collected elsewhere because it didn't agree with his belief that cops shouldn't be watched. Oh, and the real problem is that the city is too quick to hand over money to victims of police misconduct.

We are reserving our decision on body cameras until we see some real evidence of their effectiveness and impact on the officers who carry them. The Public Advocate cites the $152 million that the city spends on lawsuits against police officers but what she fails to say is that the city refuses to fight even the most ridiculous and baseless of the claims. Instead, they settle these ridiculous suits when they should fight everyone of them to conclusion which would effectively put an end to quick buck lawsuits against our officers.

As the situation eroded after the killing of Eric Garner, Lynch continued to support the NYPD's every action. When two officers were killed in their cars by a gunman, Lynch used this tragedy to widen the divide between the police and the policed. During memorial services for the slain cops, attending officers turned their backs on Mayor De Blasio for his daring to suggest his mixed-race son might have more to fear from the city's stop-and-friskers than whites.

Lynch further leveraged this tragedy with his explicit support of the NYPD's "work slowdown." Unfortunately, this non-enforcement of bullshit charges failed to return the city to its murder-a-minute heyday of the 70s and 80s, instead highlighting the fact that only going after more dangerous criminals was actually a fairly good way to police a city.

But even though Lynch has done his most to be a cop's best friend, it's becoming clear that many cops are no longer returning his affections. Union members are finally realizing that Lynch doesn't really serve his members' interests. He only serves himself.

Back in January, a union meeting devolved into shoving matches and screaming as members began to express their displeasure with Lynch's preference for grandstanding, rather than taking care of his officers.

A police union meeting sparked an uproar Tuesday when officers blasted union president Pat Lynch over his demand that Mayor Bill de Blasio apologize to the NYPD, police sources said.

The war of words took place at the end of the two-hour meeting at Antun’s in Queens Village when union delegates from the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association began shouting at Lynch, demanding to know what came out of a recent meeting with the mayor, a law-enforcement source said.

Lynch accused the mayor of having "blood on his hands" after the slaying of two NYPD officers, while refashioning their corpses into his personal pulpit. But his officers don't care whether or not De Blasio apologizes for his statements on the Garner case. What they actually want is what almost all officers want: safety.

The officers at the union meeting wanted answers from Lynch about getting heavier weapons, better bulletproof vests and new patrol cars, the source said.

Lynch values being very publicly right above almost anything else. His officers just want to feel that what happened to two of their own won't happen to them. Lynch not only doesn't care about the rank-and-files' priorities, he's not above using their deaths to further his career.

Critics of Patrick Lynch have accused the fiery union leader of campaigning for reelection on the backs of murdered cops — including the use of a somber photo at a memorial for the slain officers…

The latest controversy stems from a new campaign video showing the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in uniform at a makeshift memorial honoring Liu and Ramos.

The 1-minute, 4-second video, which a Lynch spokesman said was not authorized by the campaign, begins with a backdrop of stars and the words: “Team Lynch 2015.”

[...]

In one image, Lynch is delicately laying flowers at the foot of the memorial.

“Thousands of cops went to that memorial and he gets his picture taken and uses it,” the delegate said. “ None of the other cops had their pictures taken. Only the politicians . . . so that makes him worse than the politicians.”

"Authorized" or not, it's not making Lynch any more friends in the department, something he kind of needs if he's going to continue to hold this position of power. And as for the authorized aspect of the video, various PBA spokespeople seem to be offering contradictory statements.

The pictures in the video are not meant to elicit the sympathy vote, spokesman Al O’Leary said. “(They are) just the most recent photos available of him in uniform,” he explained.

Why someone from Lynch's camp would feel compelled to defend images from an unauthorized video, much less make statements about the intent of the photos that supposedly weren't picked by Lynch's office, is puzzling. Then there's the fact that the video first surfaced on PBA treasurer Joseph Alejandro's Facebook page, which would at least suggest endorsement of the content. (Which has since been removed for -- of all reasons -- copyright claims by the NY Daily News over images used in the video.)

Whether or not Lynch specifically authorized this video no longer matters. He will suffer the backlash from its publication just the same. He no longer has control of the union and he has really no one else to blame. While the PBA will undoubtedly continue to defend its officers from criticism and accountability, it likely won't be Lynch heading it up. It's the union that isn't, one whose "leadership" cares more about press appearances and political warfare than ensuring its members are better protected and equipped.

At the end of the day, cops (rightly or wrongly) just want to make it home alive. And while Lynch is certainly quick to deploy the unofficial First Rule of Policing in defense of his officers' misconduct, he has no interest in actually backing up his stated concern for officer safety with any practical actions. Lynch's eventual exit will be welcomed, even if his replacement may be the same sort of self-centered political animal. Lynch managed to turn two tragedies into nothing more than a pointless, public shouting match with the Mayor's office that did nothing at all to serve the officers whose wages he receives a cut of.

Filed Under: bill bratton, bill de blasio, nyc, nypd, pat lynch, pba, union