Report On NYPD Body Camera Program Shows Police Union Doesn't Speak For Officers, Mostly Full Of Shit

from the we-speak-for-all-of-our-officers,-but-mostly-for-our-worst-ones dept

The NYPD's long-resisted body camera program has been instituted on a limited basis. The NYPD's Office of the Inspector General has released a report detailing the first several months of a voluntary pilot program by the NYPD, which went into effect ahead of the camera program ordered by Judge Scheindlin after declaring portions of the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program unconstitutional.

In an effort to limit possible privacy violations, the NYPD instructed officers to use cameras in every encounter involving reasonable suspicion and their personal discretion in other cases. Unfortunately, this reliance on officer discretion led to many officers interpreting the somewhat-vague instructions as "reasonable suspicion only." Because of this, many situations warranting recorded footage went without.

Ultimately, OIG-NYPD has found that NYPD’s reliance on a “reasonable suspicion” standard for when activation of BWC’s [body-worn camera] is mandatory is too restrictive to fully capture the wide range of police-community encounters. Reasonable suspicion may also be an impractical threshold given the dynamic nature of law enforcement-related situations. Critical events often transpire before an encounter rises to the level of reasonable suspicion, and an officer may find it difficult to initiate a recording while an event is unfolding.

To that end, the OIG recommends a two-pronged approach to recording encounters, broadening on one end and narrowing it on the other.

Because the “reasonable suspicion” standard for BWC activation presents multiple challenges, NYPD should broaden the situations where BWCs should be activated, including all street encounters or all investigative contacts.

But…

Prior to any expansion of the BWC program, NYPD should work with New York City’s five District Attorney’s Offices to consider general prohibitions and restrictions on recording when officers become aware they are interacting with certain classes of individuals. These may include victims of sex crimes, abused children, undercover officers, confidential or citizen informants, and witnesses.

The OIG suggests notifying citizens an interaction is being recorded, but also warns this directive cannot be the final word on the subject as many encounters will make this notification either unnecessary or impractical.

The report also dives into the issues presented by the footage itself -- who controls it, when it can be released, and who gets to view it and when. First, it advocates for open access to the footage by supervisors, but not solely for misconduct-trolling operations.

Supervisors should have general access to footage for emergent investigative and quality assurance purposes. However, NYPD should make it a clear violation of policy for any supervisor to arbitrarily review footage solely to uncover violations or to use BWC videos to selectively discipline officers for minor infractions.

The report also recommends something that's highly unlikely to be adopted by the police union, which has fought body cameras since day one.

NYPD should prohibit pre-statement review of BWC recordings for internal or external investigations regarding officer misconduct. Officers should be restricted from viewing footage of an incident when they are a subject or a witness in an internal or external investigation until after the officer has provided an official statement.

This directly clashes with most police union contracts/officers' "bill of rights" which generally give officers involved in certain incidents (mainly shootings) access to all evidence (which would include their own recordings) and a "cooling off" period of two or three days before answering questions about the incident. This recommendation would disrupt any "rights" currently in place for NYPD officers. If this manages to survive a challenge from the union, it would be a large step towards preventing narratives from morphing to fit captured footage.

The report points out that the objections raised by the New York police union (Policemen's Benevolent Association) prior to the institution of the program haven't been echoed by the police officers themselves.

In response to OIG-NYPD’s inquiry, the PBA has argued that any requirement for officers to activate their BWC’s will place them in danger by forcing them to manage more tasks than they are accustomed to undertaking during dynamic enforcement encounters, and causing them to hesitate while activating their BWCs. They also contend that the BWCs themselves may be the targets of theft or increased violence by perpetrators. NYPD officers surveyed by OIG-NYPD, however, denied the claims raised by the PBA, noting the ease with which the cameras can be activated either by tapping a large button or sliding a panel on the front of the camera. While they expressed some concerns about newer officers’ ability to police effectively while making decisions regarding when BWCs should be activated, they stated that their experience allows them to focus on citizen encounters without hesitation, while integrating the task of activating their BWCs whenever possible.

The baselessness of the "increased violence by perpetrators" claim is further illuminated later in the report while discussing officers' announcements to suspects and citizens that a recording is in progress.

Several of the officers participating in the Volunteer BWC Pilot Program who were surveyed by OIG-NYPD stated not only that they regularly, if not always, issue notifications to members of the public that a BWC is in use, but that such notifications were successful in quickly calming tense encounters, in particular traffic stops, and deterring verbal abuse against officers. Indeed, no officer surveyed recalled an instance in which a citizen’s knowledge that a BWC was in use further angered the person or escalated the encounter.

Also, unlike the PBA, which has regularly pushed for officers to have access to all information (recorded or otherwise) on hand before answering questions about alleged misconduct, the NYPD officers involved in this voluntary pilot program felt no need to have access to body camera recordings.

NYPD officers interviewed by OIG-NYPD did not themselves appear particularly concerned about having the ability to review their recordings in any context. Only one officer reported reviewing footage after capturing it, with the majority stating that their experience with policing and their personal knowledge of incidents they handled obviated the need to review their BWC video.

For what it's worth, the suggestions resulting from this trial period point towards greater transparency and accountability. The results also show police officers are far less concerned about the issues raised by the PBA than the union would have city officials believe. This indicates the police union doesn't really represent a majority of NYPD officers. It really only represents the worst of them -- the officers who benefit the most from decreased transparency and accountability.

Filed Under: body cameras, nypd, pba, police, union

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

Trademark-Trolling County Government Ordered To Pay $40,000 In Legal Fees

from the you-can't-put-a-price-tag-on-free-speech...-oh-wait dept

Abusing IP law to shut down criticism isn't just for little people. Even governments do it. The County of Union, New Jersey, attempted to quiet a vocal critic by claiming her use of the county's seal violated its trademark.

[Tina] Renna produces a public access television show in Cranford, NJ, called the “Union County Citizen’s Forum.” The show displays on-air a graphic illustration depicting the Seal of the County of Union with a spotlight shining on it. The illustration symbolizes the self-proclaimed mission of the show to shine a critical light on the workings of the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders….

The County Attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Township of Cranford warning it to stop displaying the County of Union seal, except in broadcasts of Freeholders’ meetings. According to the County, Renna’s use of the Seal infringes the County’s trademark rights under the Lanham Act.

Except the claims were bogus and the county played fast-and-loose with the facts surrounding its trademark registration. [Ruling pdf link]

On July 10, 2010, Defendant applied to trademark the Seal. See id. On October 18, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) denied Defendant’s trademark application, finding that 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b) prohibited registration of a United States municipality’s insignia. See id. at *4. Defendant did not appeal the USPTO’s decision within the six-month deadline. Therefore, the USPTO issued a Notice of Abandonment of Defendant’s trademark application on May 16, 2011. See id. at *5. On March 21, 2012, the USPTO rejected Defendant’s untimely appeal, and issued a second Notice of Abandonment of Defendant’s trademark application.

On September 17, 2010, the cease-and-desist was issued, noting the trademark (correctly) as being "pending." But a follow-up letter -- sent after Renna's legal representative informed the county that it could not actually trademark its seal (citing the law listed above) and after the county's registration had been rejected by the USPTO -- shows this local government wasn't above lying to get its way.

In response, Defendant sent McKusick a letter dated April 21, 2011. In the Second Letter, defense counsel claimed the “Seal is in fact now trademarked,” and that Plaintiff’s display of the Seal thus violated both federal and state trademark law.

Judge Michael Hammer calls out the county for its deception.

Notably, the Defendant sent the Second Letter approximately four months after the USPTO had denied its trademark application. Therefore, it implausible that the Defendant did not, or could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the Seal was not a registered trademark. At oral argument on the summary judgment motions, Defendant’s counsel could not explain that obvious contradiction.

So, what happens to lying, trademark-trolling government agencies who get caught trying to shut down critics with bogus claims? Well, they get to pay legal fees. $40,000 worth of legal fees. Awards like these are rarely handed down, but Judge Hammer notes that the county's deception and intimidation tactics makes this one of those "exceptional cases."

After considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that this case is “exceptional.” Arguably, Defendant legitimately believed that the Seal warranted the same protection as a legally protected mark. Still, there is a significant disparity in the merits of the parties’ respective litigation positions in this case. The record demonstrates that Defendant litigated this case by asserting that Plaintiff violated a registered trademark, which Defendant knew, or should have known, did not exist… Nonetheless, the Defendant, as the District Court described it, “doubled down” and continued to assert trademark violations based largely on federal and state statutes that, by their terms, did not provide trademark protection for the Seal.
[...]

Second, as the District Court noted, the Second Letter “carried the misleading implication that [the Seal was trademarked when] the opposite was the case.” Indeed, when Defendant sent the Second Letter, the USPTO had denied Defendant’s trademark application, and issued a Notice of Abandonment because Defendant did not timely appeal the USPTO’s denial.

Third, as the District Court emphasized, it is “hard to discern any purpose, other than general intimidation, for [Defendant's] citation of [a] criminal statute in an official communication to a citizen, even one represented by counsel.”

Importantly, the court (in its earlier decision in favor of Renna [pdf link]) also notes that even if the registration was valid, Renna's use of the seal was still protected.

A company may feel put upon by statements about itself that it considers inaccurate. But trademark law is not the solution to that problem; “trademark infringement protects only against mistaken purchasing decisions and not against confusion generally.” “[T]rademark rights do not entitle the owner to quash an unauthorized use of the mark by another who is communicating ideas or expressing points of view.” Were we to ignore the expressive value that some marks assume, trademark rights would grow to encroach upon the zone protected by the First Amendment. Simply put, the trademark owner does not have the right to control public discourse whenever the public imbues his mark with a meaning beyond its source-identifying function.

If a private company isn't allowed to deploy its IP rights to shut down criticism, quite obviously a government entity shouldn't be allowed to, either. Especially when doing so means attempting to shut down protected speech.

Renna is clearly using the County Seal in an expressive manner. That expression, moreover, is political expression, entitled to the highest degree of constitutional protection. Consider that the First Amendment prohibits a State from criminalizing the desecration of the United States flag as a form of political protest. Should a county, by means of an artful extension of trademark law, be permitted to quash political expression that uses its Seal? I think such an extension would be both unwarranted and Constitutionally risky.

Because of its deceptive attempt to intimidate Renna into removing a non-trademarked county seal (while citing trademark law), the county is now handing $40,000 of its constituents' money over to one of its most vocal critics. If that's not a misuse of public funds -- especially when you add in the money spent by the county to pursue the lawsuit against Renna -- and authority, then I don't know what is.

Filed Under: new jersey, tina renna, trademark, trolling, union