Can We At Least Make Sure Antitrust Isn't Deliberately Designed To Make Everyone Worse Off?

from the a-small-request dept

For decades here on Techdirt I've argued that competition is the biggest driver of innovation, and so I'm very interested in policies designed to drive more competition. Historically this has been antitrust policy, but over the past decade or so it feels like antitrust policy has become less and less about competition, and more and more about punishing companies that politicians dislike. We can debate whether or not consumer welfare is the right standard for antitrust -- I think there are people on both sides of that debate who make valid points -- but I have significant concerns about any antitrust policy that seems deliberately designed to make consumers worse off.

That's why I'm really perplexed by the push recently to push through the “American Innovation and Choice Online Act” from Amy Klobuchar which, for the most part, doesn't seem to be about increasing competition, innovation, or choice. It seems almost entirely punitive in not just punishing the very small number of companies it targets, but rather everyone who uses those platforms.

There's not much I agree with Michael Bloomberg about, but I think his recent opinion piece on the AICOA bill is exactly correct.

At the heart of the bill is an effort to prevent big tech companies from using a widespread business practice called self-preferencing, which is generally good for both consumers and competition. Think of it this way: An ice-cream parlor makes its own flavors and sells other companies’ flavors, too. Its storefront window carries a large sign advertising its homemade wares. In smaller letters, the sign mentions that Haagen-Dazs and Breyers are available, too. Should Congress force the ice-cream store owners to advertise Haagen-Dazs and Breyers as prominently as their own products?

That’s essentially what this bill would force a handful of the largest tech companies to do. For instance, Google users searching the name of a local business now get, in their search results, the option of clicking a Google-built map. But under the bill’s requirements, the search results would likely have to exclude the Google map. Similarly, Amazon would likely be prevented from promoting its less-expensive generic goods against the biggest brand names.

Lots of businesses offer configurations of products and services in ways that are attractive to customers, often for both price and convenience. Doing this can allow companies to enter — and potentially disrupt — new markets, to the great advantage of customers.

Yet the bill views such standard business conduct as harmful. It would require covered companies — essentially Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook and TikTok — to prove that any new instance of preferencing would “maintain or enhance the core functionality” of their business. Failure to comply could lead to fines of up to 15% of a company’s total U.S. revenue over the offending period.

Now, I think there's a very legitimate argument that if a dominant company is using its dominant position to preference something in a manner that harms competition and the end user experience, then that can be problematic, and existing antitrust law can take care of that. But this bill seems to assume that any effort to offer your own services is somehow de facto against the law.

And whether or not that harms these companies is besides the point: it will absolutely harm the users and customers of these companies, and why should that be enabled by US competition policy? The goal seems to be "if we force these companies to be worse, maybe it will drive people to competitors," which is a really bizarre way of pushing competition. We should drive competition by encouraging great innovation, not limiting how companies can innovate.

Even if you don't think that the "consumer welfare" standard makes sense for antitrust, I hope most people can at least agree that any such policy should never deliberately be making consumers worse off.

Filed Under: amy klobuchar, antitrust, competition, consumer welfare, innovation, michael bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg Comes Down On The Wrong Side Of The Crypto Wars: Supports Backdooring Encryption

from the you're-wrong dept

This is perhaps not surprising, but still disappointing. Former NYC mayor and current billionaire media/tech company boss Michael Bloomberg has come down on the wrong side of the "going dark" encryption fight. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed (possible paywall link) he scolds tech execs for daring to side with Apple over the FBI and the Justice Department on the question of backdooring encryption. Bloomberg does not appear to actually understand the issues at play.

The fireworks and parades this weekend will give Americans a chance to celebrate the nation’s independence from England and show their love of country. But true patriotism involves more than flying the flag—and more than paying taxes and casting ballots. It requires putting America’s needs above individual interests when national security and public safety are at stake.

Generations of Americans have honored that principle, risking their lives to preserve a nation “conceived in Liberty,” as Lincoln remarked in his Gettysburg Address, “and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Today, 1.3 million men and women serve in the military on active duty, often in dangerous situations overseas. Yet here at home, some executives in an industry that thrives on freedom—technology—are resisting government efforts to safeguard it. They are dangerously wrong.

Note the false framing here. Bloomberg is setting up the argument that backdooring encryption for the sake of the FBI/DOJ is "good for national security and public safety." He's wrong. It's not. It's not even close. It actually puts many more people at risk, because the only way to backdoor encryption effectively is to break that encryption and put everyone who uses it at much more risk. Yes, it means that the FBI/NSA won't be able to track some people, but it's a very small number of people, and they have other ways to track them without undermining the security of everyone else.

The freedom that Americans enjoy requires shared sacrifices, and not only by soldiers. “We the people” impose limits on our personal liberty to protect ourselves and those around us. We are free to speak our minds, but we cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. We are free to travel without restriction, but driving a vehicle requires a license, and boarding a plane requires official identification. We are free to smoke tobacco, but today in most states we cannot do so indoors.

This is also dangerously wrong. We've discussed this many times before, but the lame "we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater" line is simply incorrect. It's based on an ignorance of the actual law in that space (the court case where this statement was made is no longer the accepted standard under the law). It's also just a weak excuse for someone who is about to strip away other rights. It's basically a warning sign of someone who doesn't have a strong argument for why they want to strip away rights, so they'll make a misleading and incorrect statement claiming that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater (even though, in most cases, you actually can).

We also limit our right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” but it also explicitly authorizes warrants based on probable cause. Every day, judges approve warrants authorizing searches of homes, cars and computers. Even our bodies can be subject to search warrants, as drunken-driving suspects learn when they attempt to refuse a blood test. Those suspected of other crimes may have their calls tapped and mail opened—all with the safeguard of an independent judiciary certifying the public need, to protect both our liberty and safety.

This is an especially intellectually dishonest move. He goes from "fire in a theater" to arguing that we already "limit our right to privacy" because judges issue warrants. But this is different. The 4th Amendment directly includes the warrant exception, unlike the First Amendment which includes no exception. And, really, many people question a lot of things that Bloomberg finds acceptable violations of privacy. That's not a huge surprise though. After all, as mayor, Bloomberg was a major supporter of the unconstitutional stop and frisk program that the police used under his watch... until a court threw it out. Of course, he also was against any transparency of his own administration or of the NYPD.

When Apple refused to unlock a cellphone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists (and owned by his public employer), many in the tech industry came to the company’s defense. They argued, in effect, that they shouldn’t be forced to cooperate with a search warrant for one of their products, even though failure to comply could put more innocent lives at risk. Thankfully, the government was able to unlock the phone on its own. But next time, the public may not be so lucky. Imagine if the government is in possession of a cellphone that it has reason to believe contains information about an imminent hijacking—or an effort to detonate a dirty bomb. Should we allow the manufacturer to refuse a court order to unlock it?

This, again, totally misrepresents the situation. The issue was not the court order to unlock, but the fact that based on the encryption used on the phone, the only way to "unlock" it was to create a revamped operating system that undermined a number of key security features -- which would likely create much more risks for everyone. This was not a question of just turning a key as Bloomberg implies. The issue was not whether the government could just force a company to "unlock" an encrypted phone, but rather whether or not it could force them to build technology that deliberately undermines security.

And, really, this stupid game of "but what about the next time..." is ridiculous. THERE IS ALWAYS SECRET INFO THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT. And it's not the end of the world. There is information in people's heads. There is information that they already destroyed. And somehow, law enforcement survives. The fact that some information may get scrambled by encryption is like that other kind of info. It's not the end of the world. In fact, we deliberately designed our legal system with the recognition that law enforcement does not have an automatic right to every bit of information.

Of course not. We are a nation of laws, and no industry is above them. The Constitution doesn’t carve out an exception for tech companies.

This is the most frustrating line in the article, because it's complete bullshit. No one is arguing they're above the law. Exactly the opposite. They're questioning whether or not having a valid warrant would then require tech companies to construct a new tool to deliberately undermine security. Being "above the law" is doing things like deliberately hiding documents and emails from the public despite being legally required to reveal them. Being above the law is doing things like refusing to accept a decision of the City Council against your unconstitutional policies. Those were things that Mayor Bloomberg did. What the tech companies are doing is not above the law at all.

Yet Apple responded to the investigation with a troubling announcement: In the future, phones will be designed to prevent even Apple from opening them, just as the makers of some messaging services have already done. Such a move would be an unprecedented rejection of public authority and a potentially catastrophic blow to public safety. The prospect of criminals and terrorists communicating with phones beyond the reach of government search warrants should send a shiver down the spine of every citizen.

This is again a misrepresentation of reality. Apple had already said that the phones would be designed that way well before this investigation. And the reason they did so was not to "reject public authority," but rather because it's a better way to protect public safety. Don't ask me, ask the NYPD who used to go around telling people to encrypt their phones to make them less appealing to thieves, who steal thousands upon thousands of those devices all the time, often seeking to get the info that's on the devices.

Google, Facebook, Snapchat and WhatsApp are all working to increase encryption in ways that will make it impossible for the courts and law-enforcement officials to obtain their users’ data. They argue that if they are forced to comply with government requests for data, terrorists will simply choose open-source encryption apps instead. But lone wolves are not always that sophisticated. Those that are may have no regard for investigations following their death. And for those that do want to cover their tracks: Why should we help them?

Again, the efforts they're making are not to keep law enforcement out, they're to keep criminals out. It's about protecting the public. And, as for "lone wolves" not always being "that sophisticated," that's exactly why this shouldn't be a huge concern. Because as we've noted time and time again, unless you're really good, you're probably going to make a mistake when you try to encrypt stuff, and you'll leak out plenty of info for law enforcement. So if they're really not that sophisticated, none of this is actually a problem.

It’s true that encryption may make it harder for repressive regimes to crack down on dissent, but it also makes it harder for democratic societies to protect themselves against terrorists and criminals. We can work to undermine repressive regimes in ways that do not compromise our own safety, and we should expect tech leaders to help lead the way.

Again, this is misrepresenting why encryption is so important. It DOES NOT make it harder for democratic societies to protect themselves against terrorists or criminals. It does the exact opposite, by providing the tools for people to better protect themselves against both of those things.

It’s worth remembering that the U.S. taxpayers, beginning under President Eisenhower, funded the R&D that led to the development of the internet and other technological advances without which these companies would not exist. And while many of them claim to be concerned about their customers’ privacy, let’s also remember that many turn around and sell their customers’ personal information to advertisers. If anyone thinks they are more concerned about privacy than profits, I have a bridge to sell you.

Again, this is not the actual argument. Bloomberg is throwing out so many strawmen, you'd think that they were on clearance. The fact that the government helped fund the development of some of these technologies is kind of irrelevant. It also helped fund plenty of research into encryption as well. So what? That doesn't mean we should undermine it all and make us all less safe. And, the whole "but companies sell your info to advertisers" point is a complete red herring. Having stronger encryption actually gives individuals more ability to take control over their own info and prevent that kind of thing. Sure, companies are mostly interested in their own profits, as, I assume, is Bloomberg's own company. But that's why they're building better encryption as well. Because they know that making their customers safer and keeping them from having devices stolen or hacked creates a better product.

When America entered World War I, Thomas Edison devoted most of his time to naval research. His work led to various military inventions and improvements, including instruments to detect torpedoes. It is perhaps too idealistic to expect Silicon Valley’s best minds to give up their jobs to serve the government in the fight against terrorism. But a little cooperation shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Lots of people in Silicon Valley are proactively helping in the fight against terrorism. It's complete bullshit to argue that because we think that working encryption is necessary, people are refusing to help the government. The whole point is that breaking encryption doesn't help stop terrorism. It doesn't help stop crime. It puts us all at more risk.

It's too bad Bloomberg doesn't have anyone working for him who could have explained this to him before he sounded off so ignorantly in the WSJ. But, really, if Bloomberg thinks that tech companies need to build compromised, backdoored encryption, here's a solution: he can put some of his billions towards building just such a product, and see what the market thinks of it. If he's right and this is what the public needs to be safe, won't he be making tons of profits? After all, where else is he getting that bridge he wants to sell us...

Filed Under: backdoors, crypto wars, encryption, michael bloomberg, security, silicon valley, technology

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

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

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

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

Mayor Bloomberg Loves Security Cameras Everywhere... Until His Police Are Ordered To Wear Them

from the gobsmackingly-awful dept

Lawyers representing the city of New York have filed a request for a stay of Judge Scheindlin's decision and court order pending appeal. Scheindlin found components of the NYPD's stop and frisk unconstitutional in her decision and ordered several remedies, including the installation of independent oversight, changes to the UF250 (stop and frisk) form, an overhaul of the stop and frisk program itself and mandatory lapel cameras for police officers.

The six-page filing delivers pretty much the same talking points Bloomberg and Kelly have deployed since day one: stop and frisk lowers the crime rate, minorities will be hurt if it goes away, even the tiniest bit of disruption or oversight will throw 35,000 NYPD officers into complete disarray, etc.

The letter projects a certain confidence that Scheindlin has completely blown this decision. One would think projecting a little contrition would go over better, but experience has shown that Bloomberg (especially) and Kelly aren't much for contrition.

First, defendants have a substantial likelihood of success on appeal. Defendants contend, inter alia, that: (l) the District Court erred in finding violations under the Fourth Amendment; (2) the District Court erred in finding violations in Floyd under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) the District Court erred in finding any actionable widespread pattern or practice, deliberate indifference or causation under Monell v, Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S 658 (1978). Finally, the injunctive relief ordered in Floyd, is not narrowly tailored or clear enough to address found wrongs, particularly as it has no discernible end point or standards.to measure success.

So, that's the opening salvo. From that point on, the arguments for the stay are based on the assumption that the city's appeal will overturn the decision. A portion of the "irreparable harm" stems from the fact that the NYPD will be forced to train its officers not to violate constitutional rights and, if the decision is reversed, retrain them to go back to violating constitutional rights. It would seem that officers, especially long-term ones, would easily lapse back into the old ways, but that's the argument.

[N]ot only will defendants be harmed by having to train on what they believe are errors of law, should defendants later prevail on the appeal, the officers will have to be retrained again, undoubtedly leading to severe and possibly irreparable disruption and confusion among the rank and file. Similar issues arise with regard to changes in monitoring, supervision, discipline and changing the UF250 form, as they are premised on the same errors of law.

Obviously, this is an insurmountable hurdle. With a bit more foresight, the city might realize that these issues with the stop and frisk program aren't just going to go away, even if this decision is overturned. There's something seriously wrong with the way the program is handled, and the NYPD is still going to be facing a lot of litigation in the forseeable future.

Whatever the expenses of retraining (and possibly "re-retraining" back to the old way), they should be easily outweighed by the department paying out fewer settlements to abused citizens. New York spent over $700 million on settlements in the last year alone, which covered suits claiming negligence, police abuse and property damage. It expects that total to rise to over $800 million per year by 2016. If following the orders results in only a 10% drop in settlements, that gives the city between $70-80 million to work with.

Keep that number in mind as we dig into a longer chunk of the city's "irreparable damage" narrative.

[T]he public interest at stake in staying the Remedies Order is no less than the creation of an environment that may stem and reverse the long-standing record of crime reduction in this city, As that crime reduction has been most heavily felt in minority communities, it is those communities that will suffer the most.

Here we have the "minorities will be hurt" argument. More debunking of that one is available here. And to address those who will show up and claim (as Bloomberg himself has) that the NYPD's targeting of minorities tracks with murders by racial makeup, here's why that argument is wrong.

Minorities may commit 88.5% of the murders in New York and stop and frisk, over the past decade, has stopped minorities 88% of the time. That may seem like it's tracking almost perfectly. But stop and frisk doesn't utilize probable cause or reasonable suspicion and does not target only suspected murders. To use this logic to claim minorities are not being unfairly targeted is to claim "88% of murderers" and "88% of the general public" is the same number. It isn't. Stop and frisk targets anybody, but especially "anybodies" who aren't Caucasian, plain and simple. To believe that curbing stop and frisk will "hurt minorities" is to believe that 88% of all minority New Yorkers are murderers.

Finally, the cost to the taxpayers to implement the open-ended and broad-sweeping Remedies Order is against the public interest when the liability foundation for the reforms has not been tested, when body cameras (and their concomitant logistics, like storage, retrieval, etc.) have never been used on as a large a scale as contemplated by the Remedies Order, and when no end date or monetary limit of any kind has been established for the Monitor - and the personnel he is permitted to hire, including experts. Moreover, should the City ultimately prevail on appeal, those scarce public funds will have been expended to no purpose.

Here's where the $700-800 million a year in settlements comes back into play. The cost associated with the Monitor and related personnel is likely minimal as compared to damages paid. But the argument about costs related to cameras is treated like it's an unknowable (but presumably incredibly large) expense.

First of all, the cameras are not being deployed on as large a scale as the filing makes it sound. Scheindlin's orders specify a rather narrow range of officers:

I am ordering the NYPD to institute a pilot project in which bodyworn cameras will be worn for a one-year period by officers on patrol in one precinct per borough -- specifically the precinct with the highest number of stops during 2012.

This means five to seven (Brooklyn and Queens are split into North and South divisions) total precincts will use cameras. There are 34,500 uniformed officers in the NYPD at last count. Using even the friendliest math (five boroughs) brings us to 6,900 officers per borough. There are 77 precincts in New York City, which gives us roughly 90 450 officers per precinct. We'll round up because we can likely assume precincts with the most stops also contain the most officers. We'll give these precincts a generous 120 500 officers. 120 500 officers, 5 boroughs = ~600 ~2,500 officers needing cameras.

A Wall Street Journal article on the subject of police cameras quotes Fort Worth, Texas' investment as $85,000 for 50 cameras and storage, or $1,700 per camera. If we assume every officer gets one and no one shares, we end up with a total investment of $1,020,000 4,250,000*. Compare that to $700-800 million in settlements, or the estimated $70-80 million saved by a 10% reduction in litigation due to officer body cams. That's not a prohibitive expense, especially when other departments utilizing these cameras have seen dramatic dropoffs in both excessive force incidents and citizen complaints.

*[Math: how the f**k does it work? Thanks to Jake and John Fenderson for correcting my mangled math in the comment thread below.]

But all of the city's lousy arguments pale in comparison to this statement, which is breathtakingly audacious considering the on-record statements of both Bloomberg and Chief Kelly.

Finally, implementing a body camera pilot project itself poses significant harm in terms of time, resources and possible impingement on privacy rights of the public.

The "privacy rights of the public?" The city is suddenly concerned about that? From what I can tell, this is a newfound concern that emerged only after Judge Schiendlin ordered cameras to be worn by officers. At no point in the past have either Bloomberg or Kelly ever expressed any concern about the public's privacy.

Here's Chief Kelly, shortly after the Boston Bombing.

“I'm a major proponent of cameras,” Kelly said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table.”

“The people who complain about it, I would say, are a relatively small number of folks, because the genie is out of the bottle,” Kelly said. “People realize that everywhere you go now, your picture is taken.”

Oh, I see. Privacy is "taken off the table" for citizens if the camera is anywhere else but on the lapel of a cop's uniform. "Everywhere" only means places cops aren't wearing cameras. Now, suddenly, there's a privacy concern because, and only because, a cop might find himself creating some damning footage. Screw Kelly. If privacy's "off the table," it's off the table for EVERYONE.

In 2010, the NYPD had only 500 cameras up-and-running. In its quest to turn New York into the next "Ring of Steel," the department upped that to nearly 3,000 cameras by the end of 2011. Kelly loves cameras. But not on his guys.

Bloomberg is the same. Here's his post-Boston Bombing pull quote.

The Boston bombing is a terrible reminder of why we've made these investments—including camera technology that could help us deter an attack, or investigate and apprehend those involved," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this past week. He added the network now has the ability to "alert police to abnormalities it detects on the street, such as an abandoned package that is left on a corner."

Bloomberg will throw money at cameras, privacy be damned. But he's suddenly worried about privacy and costs if any of the cameras are to be worn by police.

And let's not forget that back in 2007, Bloomberg was so "concerned" about New Yorkers' privacy that he proposed a city wide program to allow citizens to shoot video and photos of perceived criminal acts and immediately upload them to the police department.

If nothing else, I would hope that this request for a stay pending appeal would be greeted with invitations for Bloomberg and Kelly to eat their words on the public's privacy. This is the nastiest, most self-serving hypocrisy the city's dished out yet -- a faux "concern" entirely based on protecting its own.

Filed Under: appeal, civil liberties, michael bloomberg, nyc, privacy, ray kelly, stop and frisk

Mayor Bloomberg Vetoes Veto-Proof Stop And Frisk Bills Because He's Mayor Bloomberg

from the pointless-flexing-of-rapidly-atrophying-political-muscle dept

NY mayor Michael Bloomberg is on his way out, Police Chief Ray Kelly is on the defensive, and stop and frisk is on the ropes, having recently been declared unconstitutional. Kelly and Bloomberg were both very upset by the decision, with Bloomberg himself promising the streets would run red with the blood of slain New Yorkers if the NYPD was unable to routinely violate the Fourth Amendment.

So, there's one major blow to Bloomberg and Kelly's minority harassment stop and frisk program. Of course, that decision is being appealed, which will stave off any return to normal, non-constitution-violating policework for the time being. In the meantime, the NYPD has a more pressing problem.

Two bills recently passed by the New York City Council target stop and frisk as well, by scaling back police powers and installing an Inspector General to ensure the NYPD doesn't violate the public's rights. Bloomberg, of course, threatened to veto these bills and then boldly went ahead and did exactly that, briefly pausing to tell council members that he'd be throwing tons of campaign dollars at anyone who wanted to switch sides. The only problem with Bloomberg's plan was that both bills arrived on his desk with enough "yea" votes to be veto-immune.

Now Bloomberg's angry all over again, assuming he stopped being angry at any point during the last couple of weeks. The council pointed out that stop and frisk unfairly targeted minorities, which it does. 88% of those stopped over the past 10 years have been minorities. Here's a map of last year's 532,911 stop-and-frisks color-coded by race and geolocated by Damien Spleeters. (Guess which race is represented by the color blue. If you can't figure it out, click through to this post from the Village Voice for the answer key. Complicating matters is the fact that red represents whites and orange represents Hispanics.)

The data and the district court have come to the same conclusion: stop and frisk unconstitutionally targets minorities. And yet, Bloomberg's statement on the targeted program echoes Chief Kelly's bizarre defense of stop and frisk from a week ago:

Mr. Bloomberg disagreed, claiming “minority communities across our city” would suffer, the Post reported.

“The City Council adopted legislation that will make it harder for our police officers to protect New Yorkers and continue to drive down crime,” he said.

Just how will the minorities "suffer" from this lack of harassment? Too much freedom of movement? Hands going soft and uncalloused from the lack of contact with nearby surfaces? The disruption of day-to-day routine? Future minority youths being constantly annoyed by their parents' stories about how back in THEIR day, the walk to school was up against the wall BOTH WAYS?

As for "continuing" to drive down crime? Well, while New York's violent crime rate has declined significantly since highs in the late 80s-early 90s, the murder rate -- a statistic both Bloomberg and Kelly have promised will skyrocket if stop and frisk is curtailed -- has remained relatively flat over the last decade. If this program is so successful in getting guns off the street and curtailing violent crime, one would expect steadier trend downward. At best, the program is maintaining the status quo. Murder rates in New York are still above the national average (per 100,000 persons), along with robberies and assaults. Property crime has decreased dramatically but you wouldn't know it from Bloomberg's go-to defense of the program. According to Bloomberg, killing off stop and frisk will kill off thousands of New Yorkers, and whoever takes his position next year will be the new mayor of Murderville, USA, a position currently held by Rahm Emanuel.

One final point: Bloomberg and Kelly are both surveillance fanatics who harbor the desire to turn New York City into London in terms of number of cameras per square foot. Surveillance proponents like these two often make light of the public's concerns, offering up the much abused phrase, "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear."

When it comes to appointing an Inspector General to do a bit of internal surveillance on the NYPD, both the mayor and police chief are vehemently against it. Why? Public servants surely have no "expectation of privacy," especially if the surveilled public doesn't. And certainly the mayor's faultless personal army has nothing to fear from some additional oversight… at least not if it doesn't have anything to hide.

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

Gun Runner Uses Instagram Account To Sabotage Own Criminal Enterprise, And Bloomberg Still Thinks It's A Win For Stop And Frisk

from the I'm-beginning-to-wish-the-term-'Bloomberg-Terminal'-was-a-headline-i dept

The largest gun bust in New York City's history is the culmination of two factors: regular police work and one stupid criminal. 19 indictments and 254 guns seized -- and it all started with an aspiring Brooklyn rapper who started selling guns out of his studio.

Neno Best, another hip hop artists who seemingly believes "Scarface" is a blueprint for success rather than a cautionary tale of unchecked excess, began uploading videos and photos of guns and cash to his Instagram account. These were spotted by NYPD narcotics officers (don't Instagram your drug purchases, kids) who passed it on to undercover agents who soon were all over Best and his studio visitors.

When criminals use social media to brag about their exploits, the police are never far behind. There's an entire body of work just here at Techdirt that testifies to that fact. Best's attempt to outdo the TSA's collection of Instagrammed guns brought down an entire criminal enterprise. There was plenty of solid investigative work along the way as well, as NYPD undercover officers tracked suspects as far south as South Carolina.

What this isn't, however, is what Bloomberg is trying to spin it as: a stop and frisk triumph. The mayor desperately needs a win chalked up in this column as a circuit court and his own city council have turned against the (officially) unconstitutional program. But even for this avid police statist, the following statement is a stretch. (CAUTION: linked article contains autoplay video because USA Today's web team is presumably composed of misanthropes and sociopaths.)

Bloomberg also provided a transcript of a comment attributed to suspect Campbell in a wiretap that indicated the city's controversial "stop and frisk" policy made selling weapons in the city more difficult: "I can't leave until you come, cause I can't take them (guns) to my house, to my side of town cause I'm in Brownsville (a section of Brooklyn). So we got like, whatchamacallit, stop and frisk."

Yeah. This hastily applied bit of post hoc narrative directly follows Bloomberg's statement that court-ordered wiretaps helped identify the suspects. All this shows is that a court-ordered (i.e., compliant with the Fourth Amendment) wiretap caught someone deciding not to move guns around the city at one point in time. This had nothing to do with capturing these suspects -- the wiretaps did all the heavy lifting. It didn't even make it that much tougher to sell the weapons -- Campbell just needed to wait for a ride.

In Bloomberg's mind, a gun runner deciding to keep the illegal guns in one place momentarily is a win for stop and frisk. This is just as lousy as Kelly's post-circuit court decision press conference statement that pursuing a suspect that was already running from the police (because he had just dropped a duffel bag full of heroin into his vehicle's trunk) was a victory for stop and frisk.

In the first, the statement is caught on a court-ordered wiretap as part of an ongoing investigation. In the latter, the patrolling officers had plenty of probable cause. Neither situation involved grabbing a random person and patting them down.

If anything, both instances show that regular, constitutionally-compliant police work still captures plenty of criminals. And both instances undercut their defense of the program, something neither official seems to realize.

Filed Under: gun running, instagram, michael bloomberg, neno best, nyc, stop and frisk