Tuesday, May 7, 2013

'Frisk' Testimony Shows No Worry About Misuse (The Chief / Civil Service Leader) and Other Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 NYC Police Related News Articles

 

Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 — Good Afternoon, Stay Safe

 

- - - - -

 

NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk (Search)

 

Despite Racial Components
‘Frisk’ Testimony Shows No Worry About Misuse

By MARK TOOR — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’

 

 

Testimony last week by witnesses defending the city’s stop-and-frisk program showed problems with the way stop-and-frisk policy was administered and supervised at the ground level.

 

Sgt. Joseph Marino testified about Police Officer Kha Dang, whom he supervised when he was an anti-crime Sergeant in Brooklyn’s 88th Precinct. Mr. Dang was the leader in stop-and-frisks among Mr. Marino’s officers in the third quarter of 2009. But Mr. Marino said he did not become aware of that until the class-action suit started, even though Mr. Dang drove him much of the time.

 

 

Wrong Kind of Perfect

 

Mr. Marino said 91 percent of the people Mr. Dang stopped were black. The 88th Precinct is 43 percent black. Mr. Marino said he was never concerned that the percentage of blacks stopped by Mr. Dang was so far above the precinct’s population. “In certain areas it’s not as diverse, and in certain areas where crimes are taking place you might not have the diversity that you see on this paper,” he said.

 

Nor was he concerned that Mr. Dang had found no weapons in any of his 127 stops for the period, and had issued just one summons and made only six arrests from the stops.

 

He said he recalled the precinct Integrity Control Officer speaking to him about inadequate memo-book entries describing stop-and-frisk incidents, but did not remember discussing the problem with Mr. Dang.

 

 

Didn’t See Conflict

 

Mr. Marino was testifying during the fifth week of Floyd vs. New York, a class-action suit brought by city residents who charge they were illegally stopped and frisked on the basis of their race or ethnicity, rather than the legal standard requiring reasonable suspicion that they were armed or involved in a crime.

 

Inspector Stephen Cirabisi, commander of the 114th Precinct in northwest Queens, said he believed it was fine for a Sergeant to investigate a discourtesy complaint about an officer he or she supervises.

 

His previous command, the 107th Precinct in Flushing, had the lowest possible score on an NYPD audit of memo-book documentation in 2007 and 2008. He conceded that he never gave orders that officers should write a more-complete description of a stop-and-frisk in their memo books than they wrote on the UF-250 forms, which describe each stop-and-frisk encounter.

 

Mr. Cirabisi said he did not recall any discussion at Compstat meetings over the fact that young black and Latino men make up 87 percent of the stops.

 

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, asked him about discrepancies between the race and ethnicity of people stopped and the race and ethnicity in victims’ descriptions of suspects in crimes.

 

 

Disparity Not Alarming

 

Whites made up more than 25 percent of those described as suspects but only 19 percent of those stopped. Blacks and Latinos made up around 75 percent of those stopped but only 67 percent of suspects. Mr. Cirabisi said the data gave him no concerns that his officers were making stops on the basis of racial profiling rather than reasonable suspicion.

 

City attorneys continued their assault on the credibility of Police Officer Pedro Serrano, who had testified for the plaintiffs. Mr. Serrano had taped the commander of the 40th Precinct in The Bronx, Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack, telling him to stop young black males in the Mott Haven section of the precinct.

 

“I have no problem telling you this,” Mr. McCormack said on the tape. “Male blacks. And I told you at roll call, and I have no problem telling you this, male blacks 14 to 21.” The Police Department said the quote was taken out of context from a longer conversation during which Mr. Serrano was appealing his performance evaluation. The department said Mr. McCormack’s point was that Mr. Serrano did not know how to identify which people to stop.

 

 

Calls Cop ‘Mediocre’

 

Sgt. Stephen Monroe, who supervised Mr. Serrano and nine other Police Officers on the 4-to-12 shift, said he would rate Mr. Serrano’s performance as “mediocre.”

 

“For an officer to have his amount of time, which was eight years, he called me regularly to most of his jobs to supervise him or answer questions that I felt that he should already know if he had patrol experience,” Mr. Monroe said. He said he had told Mr. Serrano that he needed to step up the number of stop-and-frisk encounters he initiated.

 

However, Mr. Monroe admitted during cross-examination that he did not know how Mr. Serrano compared with the other officers under his supervision in number of stops, number of summonses issued, arrests or radio runs.

 

After testifying, Mr. Serrano was transferred from the 40th Precinct to a Manhattan precinct and put on the midnight shift.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

New York Police Use of Stop-and-Frisk Drops
Plummet in Disputed Tactic Tracks Overall Decrease in Crime

By TAMER EL-GHOBASHY and MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The Wall Street Journal’ / New York, NY

 

 

The number of stop-and-frisk reports filed by New York City police fell 51% in the first three months of this year compared with the same period last year.

 

The decline comes as the crime-fighting tactic undergoes a high-profile challenge in federal court and emerges as a central issue in this year's race to succeed Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

 

From Jan. 1 through March 31, officers conducted 99,788 stop and frisks, compared with 203,500 during the same period in 2012, according to New York Police Department data. It wasn't clear how many of those encounters resulted in a subject being frisked after a stop.

 

"Staffing and other factors, including training, have had a bearing on the number of stops," said chief NYPD spokesman Paul Browne. "But the bottom line is that the total number of stops in any given quarter reflects what the police officers on duty during that quarter observed."

 

Speaking generally, he said the number of police assigned to Operation Impact, a program that assigns rookie officers to patrol high-crime areas, tends to have the greatest impact on the number of stops. He said those officers are "in a better position to observe suspicious activity."

 

The figures were released Friday to the New York City Council and reviewed Monday by The Wall Street Journal.

 

They also showed that the reduced stops in the first quarter of 2013 resulted in a 43% decline in weapons recovered compared with the same period in 2012.

 

Overall crime is also down 2.7% this year through April 28 with murders leading the way with a 30% decline compared with the same period last year, police data show.

 

The stop-and-frisk tactic, under which officers stop, question and sometimes frisk people they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime, has been the subject of a civil trial in federal court in Manhattan.

 

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of several individuals, claims the policy violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which prohibits illegal searches and seizures, as well as the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is often invoked to fight laws seen as racially discriminatory.

 

The center seeks a federal monitor to ensure the department complies with any court-ordered changes to the policy.

 

Stop-and-frisk has absorbed criticism because since 2002 when more than 85% of those stopped were either black or Latino, and nearly 90% of those stopped were released without being charged.

 

Attorneys representing the city and the police have argued that the tactic focuses on areas where crime is highest and that the percentage of minorities stopped is consistent with the percentage of crime suspects who are minorities. The NYPD and Mr. Bloomberg have cited the policy as an important factor in the drop in crime city-wide.

 

Data from the first quarter of this year has been consistent with previous years: Black and Hispanic people accounted for the vast majority of stops.

 

African-Americans were the subjects of 56% of the stops and were 65% of the violent-crime suspects identified by alleged victims, according to the NYPD data. Hispanics were the subjects of 30% of stops and were 27% of violent-crime suspects.

 

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, a group that has sued the city in the past over stop-and-frisk, said the new data was "encouraging" and was a challenge to the Bloomberg administration's assertion that wide-ranging use of the practice helps reduce crime.

 

"I think it's significant to note that while stop and frisk numbers have gone down, crime has also gone down," Ms. Lieberman said. "It's important that we ensure that we get to a point as a city where the prospect of being stopped for doing nothing wrong is an aberration not the expected course of events in your life if you are a person of color."

 

Stop-and-frisk has taken center-stage in this year's race for mayor, with most Democratic candidates saying the policy needs to be changed.

 

On Monday, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, rivals for the Democratic mayoral nomination, engaged in a sharp exchange regarding a web advertisement Mr. de Blasio released Friday that linked Ms. Quinn to comments made last week by NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly on ABC's "Nightline."

 

Mr. Kelly said African-Americans represented 53% of those stopped by the NYPD. "So really, African-Americans are being under stopped in relation to the percentage of people being described as being the perpetrators of violent crime," Mr. Kelly said. "The stark reality is that crime happens in communities of color. They are being disproportionately victimized."

 

Mr. de Blasio's new ad quotes Mr. Kelly saying African-Americans were "under stopped" and reminds voters that Ms. Quinn has often said she would retain him as commissioner if she became mayor. "We need a fresh start," the ad states.

 

Asked about the ad, Mr. Browne, the police spokesman, said, "Regrettably, race baiting hasn't lost its appeal for a pol behind in the polls."

 

Ms. Quinn said Monday the ad "showed a certain level of desperation." When asked if she agreed with Mr. Kelly that African-Americans were "under stopped," she declined to comment.

 

Mr. de Blasio criticized Ms. Quinn for declining to answer the question. "We can't depend on Speaker Quinn to reform stop and frisk if she won't acknowledge there is a problem," he said.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD Use Of Stop And Frisk Declines, As Does The Number Of Shootings

By Anthony M DeStefano — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013  ‘New York Newsday’ / Melville, L.I.

 

 

The number of people questioned under New York City's controversial stop-and-frisk policy dropped by 51 percent in the first quarter of 2013 compared with the same period last year, newly released police statistics show.

 

For the first quarter of 2013, police carried out 99,788 stop and frisks, compared with 203,500 for the same period in 2012. NYPD spokesman Paul Browne noted on Friday that the first quarter of 2012 had the highest number of stops ever recorded for a three-month period, making this year's percentage drop-off higher.

 

Police have previously noted that a large influx of new officers into anti-crime patrols helped in part to increase the number of stops in the first quarter of 2012. Since then, the number of officers put into such patrols has been reduced and stops have been trending downward. Law enforcement sources said that in response to criticism the NYPD has increased supervision of stop and frisk activity.

 

The latest numbers also show that there was an 11 percent increase in stop-and-frisk activity in the first quarter of this year compared with the last quarter of last year -- when stops dropped to 89,620 -- as police had to deal with the impact and devastation of superstorm Sandy, officials said.

 

"The last quarter was somewhat down because of Sandy," Browne said on Friday.

 

Police historian Tom Reppetto said Monday he believed that this year's lower numbers compared with early 2012 showed that the NYPD has been modifying its practices.

 

"I think certainly with all of the criticism they are refining it more, that is only natural," said Reppetto. "Nobody has ever claimed that every stop and frisk is perfect."

 

The big drop in first-quarter stops affected the number of weapons seized by police. Officers confiscated 49 percent fewer firearms in the first quarter of 2013 and 43 percent fewer weapons of all types, according to the NYPD. However, the total number of shootings so far this year is down 22.4 percent, something officials attribute to an anti-gang offensive.

 

In an analysis of data provided Friday to the New York City Council, the NYPD also noted that blacks and Hispanics were the subjects of 86 percent of stop and frisks in the first quarter of this year, a percentage which has been in line with previous trends over the years.

 

Stop-and-frisk activity by the NYPD is the subject of an ongoing federal trial in which a judge is trying to determine if the NYPD has illegally targeted blacks and Hispanics for street stops. The NYPD insists that it doesn't racially profile. The issue is a major law enforcement topic in the mayoral campaign in which candidates either want to do away with the activity or reform it. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has drawn his own line in the sand, insisting that he will not cut back on stop and frisks and argues that it has helped the city achieve record-low homicides and serious crimes like burglary, as well as reduce shootings

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Stop-and-frisk numbers are down… And so is crime
New figures challenge claims by Bloomberg and NYPD chief that the tactic is a necessary crime-stopper

By Natasha Lennard — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘Salon Magazine’ / New York, NY

 

 

As the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk tactic continues to be challenged in a landmark federal court case, new statistics suggest that the controversial and racially skewed practice may not even serve to lower crime rates. According to new figures released by the NYPD, flagged by the Wall Street Journal, the number of stop-and-frisk reports filed by New York City police fell by just over 50 percent in the first three months of this year compared with the same period last year. Meanwhile, WSJ notes “overall crime is also down 2.7 percent this year through April 28 with murders leading the way with a 30% decline compared with the same period last year, police data show.”

 

Without conflating correlation with causation, the concurrent drop in stop-and-frisks and crime at the very least prompt skepticism over recent claims made by both Mayor Bloomberg and police commissioner Ray Kelly supporting the tactic, as currently deployed, as a necessary crime-stopper. As Capital New York’s Azi Paybarah noted Tuesday:

 

The low crime numbers bolster the Bloomberg administration’s already solid crime-fighting credentials, but the concurrent reduction in stop-and-frisk (under pressure) weakens one element of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s argument against critics of the policy. Bloomberg had warned that curtailing stop-and-frisk would mean “guns would be everywhere in our city.”

 

Most of the Democratic candidates for mayor favor a reduced form of stop-and-frisk.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Razzle Dazzle
To Tout NYPD Reforms, Must Admit to Mistakes

By RICHARD STEIER — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’
(Op-Ed / Commentary)

 

 

What the New York Post would later that day describe as “a thunderous standing ovation from the police chiefs and other brass present” for Mayor Bloomberg’s April 30 speech defending them against criticism over the stop-and-frisk program did not remotely rattle the windows or shake the walls at 1 Police Plaza.

 

At least a couple of seconds passed between the end of his address and a response from the troops that was closer to respectful than exuberant applause, and they stood up a few seconds later to mark his exiting the second-floor auditorium rather than to express their enthusiasm.

 

The sound that animated the Post’s account (which was actually deleted from its print edition the following day, by which time an editorial and a bellowing columnist had brought the noise) was not thunder but an agenda on the march, one that has placed the paper’s coverage in lockstep with that of the Daily News. They’ve contended that the complaints about stop-and-frisk are being stirred up by what Mr. Bloomberg referred to as “special interests,” a bag in which he groups the New York Civil Liberties Union with the National Rifle Association. This doesn’t strike him as wildly disproportionate, because both organizations have opposed him on public-safety issues and therefore are menaces to the city as he knows it.

 

 

‘Hard to Believe, But You’re Under Attack’

 

After noting how much lower the city’s murder rate was in 2011 compared to other cities, with a corresponding lower rate of fatal shootings by police, the Mayor declared, “And yet even with that incredible record in reducing crime, saving lives, and making neighborhoods far safer—while at the same time reducing incarceration and reducing police shootings—it’s hard to believe, but the NYPD is under attack, probably because this is an election year.”

 

Actually, the criticism of the department was arguably greater last year, when it was first learned that in 2011 about 685,000 stop-and-frisks had been conducted. Mentioning that would have undercut the Mayor’s point, however. So would stating that Police Commissioner Kelly and his top commanders for the past year have been addressing that criticism by reining in a program that had gotten wildly out of control. Year-end statistics showed a 22-percent drop in stop-and-frisks during 2012, and over the final nine months of the year they were down nearly 40 percent compared to the preceding 15-month period.

 

Making the legitimate case that the NYPD had cleaned up its act, however, would acknowledge that something had needed cleaning, and Mr. Bloomberg seems to lack the contrition gene. You don’t build on your legacy by admitting errors, although it certainly appears as if his administration has tacitly adopted the “watch what we do, not what we say” mantra preached by John Mitchell, President Nixon’s first Attorney General.

 

The Mayor’s message to the troops offered not a hint of subtlety, however, unless you count his not naming City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and fellow Democratic mayoral hopefuls as part of the gang of assailants.

 

“The attacks most often come from those who play no constructive role in keeping our city safe, but rather view their jobs as pointing fingers from the steps of City Hall,” Mr. Bloomberg told the assembled commanders. “Some of them scream that they know better than you how to run the department. Some have even sued the NYPD and demanded a Federal monitor over NYPD operations.”

 

 

'Wrong About Profiling'

 

He continued, “They’ve also drafted politically driven legislation that is a reaction to two NYPD practices: stop-question-frisk, and counterterrorism intelligence-gathering. In both cases, opponents argue that the NYPD is targeting people because of their race or ethnicity. In both cases, they could not be more wrong.”

 

He and Mr. Kelly may believe that in their hearts. But the City Council bill proposing creation of an Inspector General to monitor the NYPD came about in no small measure because the two men rebuffed repeated requests by one of its sponsors, Councilman Jumaane Williams, for a meeting at which he wanted to convey his concerns about how stop-and-frisk was being carried out. Their snub left him with no choice but to propose legislation that at the very least has thrust the issue to the front of the political conversation and forced Ms. Quinn to express her own reservations about the program, even at the risk of angering Mr. Kelly.

 

This was a good thing for the Police Department as well, if the testimony of recently retired Chief of Department Joseph Esposito at the Federal stop-and-frisk trial is to be believed. He stated that he had never heard any individuals claim they were stopped by cops based strictly on the color of their skin. If the longtime top uniformed cop knew nothing of such allegations, it suggests a certain cloistering of the top brass inside 1 Police Plaza that left them ignorant of what was happening on those streets of the city where the stops occur most often.

 

Mr. Bloomberg mentioned that a majority of the patrol force consists of minority officers, and reiterated the fact that the overwhelming number of people committing violent crimes here are black and Latino, as are the great majority of their victims. This justifies the disproportionate number of people of color who are subjected to the stops. It does not, however, give the cops license to stop every person of color of a certain age that fits within the parameters of those committing the crimes; that’s why that practice is called profiling, and why it is illegal.

 

 

Quotas Blur Standard?

 

Somewhere over the years, the legal standard for such stops of “reasonable suspicion” got blurred, and critics of the way stop-and-frisk was carried out—a group that includes the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Pat Lynch—contend a primary factor was the NYPD’s use of quotas for stop-and-frisks and the inclusion of them in officers’ performance ratings.

 

Chief Esposito during his trial testimony defended this by contending that about 10 percent of cops are “lazy” and would be content to sit in their patrol cars eating donuts unless they were prodded into action by such “performance goals.”

 

This argument probably sounds convincing enough to please the tabloid editorialists, but its lack of intellectual rigor was exposed last year by Mike Bosak, a retired Sergeant who maintains a daily blog on police-related issues and serves as an unofficial NYPD historian. He pointed out that a lazy cop suddenly pressured to stop people in a crime-prone neighborhood is most likely to detain those he believes to be innocent of wrongdoing, since they aren’t the ones who might try to flee or become violent.

 

Captains’ Endowment Association President Roy Richter, who as the representative of most of the department’s high-level commanders would normally be expected to support the Police Commissioner’s policies, back in January argued that stop-and-frisk had a fundamental flaw in its linking continued overtime tours to cops making stops during them, giving officers a financial incentive to be “suspicious people.”

 

 

Bar Association’s Concern

 

On the same day that the Mayor addressed police brass, a similar reservation was expressed in a report from the New York City Bar Association. It proposed that officers be evaluated based not on the number of stops they conduct but on their effectiveness in detecting criminality.

 

About a year ago, a Post story making the case for why the program works quoted an anonymous cop stating that it had significantly improved recently when officers were instructed to focus on quality stops rather than quantity. Why quantity ever would have been a priority is a mystery, unless that was just a natural consequence of the quotas.

 

Mr. Bloomberg falsely stated in his speech that the profiling bill would prevent the NYPD from transmitting information about a suspect’s race to cops on the street. He also said that by making it easier to sue the city on the grounds of profiling, it would place all cops “under threat of going to trial for doing their jobs—or, they may avoid doing their jobs in order to avoid going to trial, making all of us less safe.” But that risk already exists—mitigated by the fact that the city routinely provides free legal representation unless it believes a cop has done something truly egregious—and could just as easily be cited as the reason that stop-and-frisk quotas increase the likelihood that law-abiding citizens will be subject to frisks without justification.

 

It does not serve the Mayor’s political interests to note that while murders fell a remarkable 19 percent last year, stops dropped by 22 percent. In stating that homicides for the first four months of this year are down 32 percent, he said nothing about whether stops have continued to decline as well. (The NYPD three days later reported that through March 31, there had been 99,788 stops—less than half the number for the same period in 2012.) But his warning against changes that could force “police officers to spend their days testifying in court, instead of being out on the street preventing crime and catching criminals” could be turned around to ask whether we really want them making dubious stops when they could be focusing their energy on dealing with those who offer a greater likelihood of being criminals.

 

 

A Low Batting Average

 

Not every person whose actions rise to the level of reasonable suspicion will turn out to be guilty of wrongdoing. But the 12-percent strike rate for cops during the explosion of stops to 685,000 in 2011 is such an abysmally low batting average that it can’t be the product of informed police instincts. Mr. Bosak remarked that during the 1970s it was rare that anti-crime cops left their cars to confront someone without it resulting in an arrest. Those were seasoned cops in an elite unit, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect that cops exercising good judgment rather than reacting to quotas would turn out right at least 25 percent of the time.

 

Mr. Bloomberg was correct when he stated, “There is no doubt that stops are a vitally important reason why so many fewer gun murders happen in New York than in other major cities—and why we are the safest big city in America.”

 

But most critics of stop-and-frisk don’t want the program scrapped; just revamped so that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens aren’t being swept up in a police net merely because they live in crime-prone neighborhoods. The idea that a bigger program had to be a better program should have died during the last administration. The 1999 fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo by four Street Crime Unit officers working together for the first time that night and with no supervisor present exposed the folly of a massive and hurried buildup of that unit engaged in—despite the warnings of its commander—at the direction of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and his Police Commissioner and Chief of Department.

 

Mr. Kelly not long after beginning his second tour as Commissioner scrapped the SCU—no doubt because of the stigma attached to it since the Diallo shooting—but continued its mission of searching for and seizing illegal guns. The NYPD has been able to get thousands of them off the street over the past decade-plus, and the lack of negative impact from the sharp reduction in stops over the past year suggests it will continue to do so.

 

 

A Not-Incompatible Goal

 

Someone less invested in not admitting mistakes than Mr. Bloomberg might have used his address last week to argue that many of the reforms being sought for the NYPD have already been implemented and are reflected in the sizable decline in stops after a steady rise in them over the previous decade. Ms. Quinn in responding to his speech and the not-so-veiled shot at her, defended the bill to create an NYPD IG by saying, “I believe that we can—that we must—have both safe streets and stronger police-community relations.”

 

Mr. Kelly has made clear he believes the two aren’t mutually exclusive, even while implying last summer that a shortage of cops that neither the Mayor nor Ms. Quinn had appropriately addressed in budget talks forced him to use less-friendly enforcement strategies.

 

The Mayor’s decision to hunker down and portray himself and top police brass as being forced to defend themselves against unjust assaults by those less concerned about keeping the city safe may reflect an uncomfortable truth about the steps his administration has taken to end the more-onerous aspects of stop-and-frisk: that this occurred only because of the outside pressure that he was railing against.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’ Editorial:

 

Shira Scheindlin is going to sink the NYPD’s stop-question-frisk program
Manhattan federal judge has set up the cops for a fall

 

 

The civil rights lawyers who filed the lawsuit challenging the NYPD’s stop-question-frisk program were bolstered by a strategist who had no business offering advice: the very judge presiding over the case.

 

Court transcripts have come to light showing that Manhattan Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin not only nudged the attorneys to mount the action, she also told them how to make sure that she personally would resolve their claims.

 

That was an invitation too good for the civil rights activists to resist, and their wisdom in taking Scheindlin’s counsel has been borne out time and again as she issued extraordinarily favorable interpretations of the evidence and the law.

 

To prevent lawyers from steering cases into specific courtrooms, the courts assign matters to judges at random. There’s one exception. If an attorney believes that one suit closely parallels another, the attorney can mark it “related” and the judge handling the first case can decide whether to take the new matter.

 

In 1999, the civil rights lawyers filed a claim of stop-and-frisk violations by the department’s since-disbanded street crime unit. Scheindlin got the case, and the parties settled in 2003.

 

The same attorneys attempted to revive the case in 2007 based on charges that the NYPD in general was abusing stop-and-frisk. Scheindlin saw no legal grounds for reopening that particular suit, but then she suggested a new course to them:

 

“If you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don’t you bring a lawsuit?” she urged.

 

This was not Scheindlin’s place, nor was her next suggestion: “You can certainly mark it as related.”

 

Translation: If you want me, you got me. All you have to do is say your new case is related to a closed case and I’ll take care of your suit.

 

Helpfully, she even noted the filing fee: “For $350, you can bring that lawsuit.”

 

Scheindlin has since grabbed two additional stop-and-frisk cases as “related” matters and guided them with rulings that have left little doubt of bias against the police. Most revealingly, she credited the cops only with “presumably sincere” efforts to fight crime in housing projects.

 

Scheindlin wanted the case. She took the case. She built the case. And now she’ll decide the case. Good luck with that, NYPD.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Alleged Manufacturing of Marijuana Arrests

 

‘Lied About Circumstances’
Suit Claims Cops Made Bogus Marijuana Arrests

By MARK TOOR — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’

 

 

The conventional wisdom is that manufacturing is on the decline in New York City, but a group of lawyers says there is one sector where it is still healthy: police officers “manufacturing misdemeanors” in order to meet stop-and-frisk quotas.

 

The attorneys filed a Federal civil-rights suit May 2 on behalf of five New Yorkers who say they were stopped and searched. In each case, the officers found a small amount of marijuana that is a non-criminal violation to possess but a misdemeanor to display in public view. The suit charges that in each case the person stopped was arrested for displaying the marijuana once it was brought into the officer’s sight. Violations generally result in a summons rather than an arrest.

 

 

‘A Full-Blown Ordeal’

 

“By lying about the facts, and claiming the marijuana is in ‘public view,’ the NYPD turned what would have been for most New Yorkers a minor incident into a full-blown ordeal,” the attorneys said in a statement.

 

“Thousands of individuals in New York City, and in The Bronx in particular, have been unnecessarily forced to endure the humiliation, burden, damage and negative collateral consequences of being falsely charged with a misdemeanor crime, put through the criminal-justice system and compelled to return to court multiple times—all for a crime these men did not commit and, which, shockingly, the charging police officers knew they did not commit,” according to the complaint.

 

“Black and Latino men in low-income neighborhoods have overwhelmingly borne the brunt of the NYPD’s marijuana-arrest practices,” the complaint says. Eight-seven percent of those stopped are young black and Latino men.

 

The charge that cops contrive marijuana arrests during stop-and-frisk encounters is not a new one. City Council Members and others rallied in 2011 to criticize the practice, which they said had resulted in the arrest of thousands. Further, they said, marijuana arrests in 2010 totaled 50,383, costing $75 million a year. More than 80 percent of those arrested were black or Latino, though Federal studies show most marijuana users are white.

 

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly issued an order Sept. 19, 2011, telling officers that any display of marijuana that is the result of a police order rather than “undertaken of the subject’s own volition” should result in a summons rather than an arrest. Drug-legalization advocates said the number of arrests dropped briefly, then rose again.

 

 

Cuomo Out to Decriminalize

 

U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, then an Assemblyman, introduced a bill in the State Legislature that year to decriminalize the display of marijuana. Governor Cuomo took ownership of the bill, but has been unable to win legislative passage. The Republicans who are part of the majority coalition in the State Senate feel that passing it would signal that Albany is soft on crime.

 

The lawsuit cites the case of Maurosol Felix, 42, who is ill and smoked marijuana “occasionally” to relieve the pain. When he was stopped and searched March 6, 2012, officers found a small amount of marijuana. When he was arrested, the complaint said, one officer told him, “Don’t take this personally, I have a quota to make.”

 

“The arresting officer lied about Mr. Felix’s conduct, claiming that Mr. Felix had marijuana in public view, and wrongfully charged Mr. Felix with a misdemeanor crime,” according to the lawyers’ statement. “As a result, Mr. Felix was subjected to the full—humiliating—arrest process and forced to spend nearly two days in jail. Moreover, he had to fight his case in court, in order to avoid the harsh penalties, including up to three months in jail, that a marijuana misdemeanor entails.”

 

The other four plaintiffs were “illegally stopped, over-charged, unjustifiably subjected to a full arrest, and charged with a misdemeanor—a significantly stricter penalty than New York law intends or allows,” the statement said.

 

“Each of our clients acknowledges that he possessed a small amount of marijuana on his person, for private use, which under New York law may be a violation,” said one of the attorneys, Katherine Rosenfeld. “What they object to—and what violates their rights—is being stopped and charged with a more serious misdemeanor crime, based on the complete fabrications of police officers, apparently in the service of the NYPD’s insatiable drive for more arrests at any cost.”

 

The plaintiffs’ lawyers are from Bronx Defenders and the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady.

 

A spokeswoman for the city Department of Law said, “We have not been served yet, but it’s important to keep in mind that these are merely allegations at this point—and nothing more.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Bloomberg's Defense of the NYPD

 

Accuse Him of Offering ‘False Choice’
Mayor Warns Police Critics: Quit Playing Politics With Public Safety

By MARK TOOR — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’

 

 

Defending his part in creating what he calls “the safest big city in the nation,” Mayor Bloomberg April 30 derided the growing number of mayoral candidates, lawmakers and civil-rights advocates who want to rein in the department’s stop-and-frisk practices and add new, independent layers of oversight.

 

He told an audience of NYPD Chiefs on April 30, “The attacks most often come from those who play no constructive role in keeping our city safe, but rather view their jobs as pointing fingers from the steps of City Hall. Some of them scream they know better than you how to run the department. Some have even sued the NYPD and demanded a Federal monitor over NYPD operations.”

 

 

Quinn: Safe and Fair

 

Some of the candidates and others he attacked by implication fired back with strong language of their own. “I believe that we can—that we must—have both safe streets and stronger police-community relations,” said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is leading in the race to replace Mr. Bloomberg and recently angered him by declaring support for a bill that would create an Inspector General for the NYPD.

 

In addition to disparaging the class-action lawsuit that questions whether the NYPD is administering stop-and-frisk in a constitutional manner, the Mayor savaged two bills pending before the Council, one on the Inspector General and another that would bar police officers from profiling based on race, ethnicity, gender, immigration status, gender expression, homelessness and a number of other conditions. The latter bill would allow people who believe they were profiled to sue in the state courts (although not for monetary damages).

 

He spoke in strong, almost apocalyptic language: “...[T]he law-enforcement agencies we work with on counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering might be less willing to share information with us if they were concerned that it could be released outside the Department to an Inspector General or the City Council...God forbid terrorists succeed in striking our city because of a politically-driven law that undermines the NYPD’s intelligence-gathering efforts.”

 

 

‘We’ll Pay Terrible Price’

 

“...If the bills pass, they will make our city less safe and innocent people will pay a terrible price,” he said. “My message is simple: Stop playing politics with public safety.”

 

As has Ms. Quinn, another mayoral candidate, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, criticized Mr. Bloomberg’s “overuse and misuse of stop-and-frisk...Mayor Bloomberg offers a false choice between public safety and our basic constitutional rights. We can have both, but only with the common-sense accountability and protections Mayor Bloomberg so strenuously opposes.”

 

“It’s a lot easier to trash the NYCLU than to acknowledge the widespread dissatisfaction the community feels with an NYPD that acts like it’s above the law and accountable to no one,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which Mr. Bloomberg compared to the National Rifle Association in its effect on public policy.

 

City Councilman Jumaane Williams, who with Councilman Brad Lander is lead sponsor of the Inspector General and profiling bills, said Mr. Bloomberg’s address was “entrenched in his skewed reality of policing and unreflective of the communities most affected by his policies. What the Mayor offered New Yorkers today was a pep rally for his failing proposition that our city has to choose between...saving lives and protecting our constitutional rights.”

 

 

‘Saved Thousands of Lives’

 

Mr. Bloomberg told the assembled ranking officers that his policies, and their hard work, had saved thousands of lives since he took office. “Last year, by cutting the murder rates to a new record low, we saved 96 lives compared to the year before, and since 2002, we’ve saved 7,364 lives compared to the decade before.”

 

He said the bills would open up the NYPD to “micromanagement” by state judges and an Inspector General. The IG bill “would make it harder for the Police Commissioner to maintain unity of command and harder to enforce accountability, because there would be an appearance of a rival power,” he said.

 

“Whose policies should an officer on the street follow—and how would he or she know that their partner would be following the same procedures when bullets start flying?” he continued “With confusion comes deadly consequences to police officers and to the public that they are sworn to protect.”

 

 

Fears Trials Will Chill Cops

 

The NYPD is the only city agency not overseen by an Inspector General. “I clearly have more faith in our police officers’ ability to follow leadership than he does,” Mr. Williams said of the Mayor. He pointed out that Inspectors General at the CIA and FBI “have not harmed Federal counter-terrorism efforts.”

 

The Mayor expressed similar concerns about the profiling bill, which would allow lawsuits in state court. “If this bill passes, all officers will be under threat of going to trial for doing their jobs—or, they may want to avoid doing their jobs in order to avoid going to trial, making us all less safe,” he said.

 

But Patrick J. Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, said Mr. Bloomberg never addressed a larger issue: the dwindling number of cops on the street and the way they are managed. The number of officers has declined from nearly 41,000 in early 2001 to 34,500 today.

 

“The real problem is the lack of staffing and quotas,” he said. “Because there are 7,000 fewer officers on our streets, the department is pressing those on patrol to do more, and that has led to the establishment of quotas for police actions. Stop, question and frisk is an effective tool when left to the discretion of an individual police officer.”

 

 

Cites ‘Disparate Impact’

 

An NYCLU spokeswoman said that while the bill does not allow suits seeking monetary damages, it does permit “legal action...seeking injunctive and declaratory relief (i.e., changes to policy, training, etc. to address the problem) and declaratory relief (having a judge declare NYPD policies and practices unconstitutional). It is a way to challenge policies and practices that the NYPD engages in that have a disparate impact on certain communities.”

 

Further criticizing the profiling bill, Mr. Bloomberg said, “The legislation is based on the false allegation that the NYPD disproportionately stops young men of color. But as you know, stops are made based on descriptions of suspects and suspicious activity only.”

 

This assertion has been contradicted by U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, who said in granting class-action status to Floyd vs. New York a year ago that there was “overwhelming evidence” that thousands of young black and Latino men have been stopped without cause.

 

 

Say Quotas Cause Profiling

 

U.S. Supreme Court rulings require that police be able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is involved in a crime or in possession of a weapon. Civil-rights groups say quotas imposed by the Police Department have required officers to default to racial and ethnic profiling. Eighty-seven percent of those stopped are black and Latino. Only 12 percent of those stopped are arrested or given summonses.

 

“The fact of the matter is that racial profiling is already against the law,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “In fact, I signed that bill into law.” Proponents of the proposed bill say the law he signed is so sloppily written as to make it unenforceable. Also, the new measure would cover groups not included in the current law, such as transgenders and homeless people, who, according to advocacy groups, are often stopped and harassed by police without cause.

 

Mr. Bloomberg made a questionable assertion about how the profiling bill could tie the hands of police officers. “What the bill would do is to preclude the NYPD from using key information, including gender, age and race to identify suspects,” he said. “Think about this: if an officer is told by a witness that a 20-something white man wearing a blue windbreaker was seen shooting a gun, the officer under this bill could only use the color of the windbreaker as a lead.”

 

 

Ignore Racial Description

 

“This means the law would require the officer to ignore all the information provided by the witness except the color of the windbreaker, and the officer would have to stop 80-year-old black women if they’re wearing blue windbreakers,” he continued. “Even more absurd, if they stop someone who perfectly fits the description provided—a 20-something white man wearing a blue windbreaker—and that person turns out not to be the shooter, that person could sue the NYPD.”

 

The NYCLU said he had mischaracterized the bill. “The law would make it clear that a person’s race, religion or other characteristic alone cannot be the only basis that leads to a law-enforcement action such as a stop-and-frisk, a spokeswoman said. “So if the cops get a description of a 20-something white guy in a blue windbreaker, they can’t stop every white person within miles. They can only stop people who fit the description—20-something white guys (not 70-year-old black women).”

 

“Mayor Bloomberg has blatantly lied...suggesting that characteristics like race and gender could never be used for identification purposes,” Mr. Williams said. “The legislation is clearly designed to prevent lazy or subjective policing of historically-disenfranchised communities.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

For The Record
By RICHARD STEIER — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’

(Op-Ed / Commentary)

 

 

In his address aimed at inspiring Police Department brass (or venting his spleen at various and sundry critics April 30), Mayor Bloomberg named names only when it came to specific entities rather than people, singling out the New York Times, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the New York Civil Liberties Union for criticism.

 

The Times earned his ire for both its editorials critical of the stop-and-frisk program and its failure to cover the murder of 17-year-old Alphonza Bryant a week earlier. “After his murder, there was no outrage from the Center for Constitutional Rights or the NYCLU,” the Mayor said. “There was not even a mention of his murder in our paper of record, the New York Times. All the news that’s fit to print did not include the murder of 17-year-old Alphonza Bryant.”

 

His voice rising, he added, “Do you think that if a white 17-year-old prep student from Manhattan had been murdered, the Times would have ignored it? Me neither.”

 

Times columnist Joe Nocera had belatedly written about Alphonza in a blog and offered a link to the Daily News story about the young man’s death.

 

Andrew Hawkins in Crain’s Insider blog pointed out that Mr. Bloomberg’s own media company hadn’t mentioned Alphonza either, noting that while Bloomberg.com is focused primarily on business and political news, “it did run a story Friday about sexual abuse at an elite private school in the Bronx.”

 

It’s not unusual for the Times, “paper of record” or not, not to cover some crime stories, leaving them to the tabloids. That was even more so a half-century ago, when a stodgier management seemed anxious not to trouble its readers with lurid accounts of violence.

 

This had one ironic by-product after a professor at Columbia University, Wolfgang Friedmann, was stabbed to death by a neighborhood teenager on Sept. 20, 1972. The Times, which had a close relationship with the university, put its considerable resources to work in producing comprehensive accounts of the incident and the lives of both the victim and the accused.

 

This led some pundits to blame—and they weren’t joking—the paper for creating fears that a crime wave was sweeping New York by exposing its sheltered readers to some grim urban reality. How those readers stayed unaware of problems in that area after years of “Tonight Show” jokes about Central Park muggings before Johnny Carson and Co. picked up stakes and moved to California that same year eludes us, but then again, Mr. Bloomberg once told us that before becoming Mayor he had never read the Times’s metro section.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Editorial: Bluster Minus Substance

By RICHARD STEIER — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’

 

 

In lashing out at critics of the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program during a speech at Police Headquarters April 30, Mayor Bloomberg focused heavily on the recent murder of 17-year-old Alphonza Bryant in The Bronx. He did so both to accuse the New York Times of a racial bias for not initially covering the crime and to argue that stop-and-frisk is designed to prevent such murders through aggressive efforts to take guns off the street.

 

But the young man’s mother, Jenaii Van Doten, at a time when she might have been expected to be calling for extreme measures to curb gun violence, offered a considerably more-nuanced view of the program that is in sync with that of many of its critics.

 

In a Daily News article two days later that appeared under her byline, Ms. Van Doten stated, “I support stop-and-frisks. I’m open to anything that gets guns off our streets. The policy works sometimes but not all the time. I’m not a lawmaker, but the stops need to be better targeted at real criminals.”

 

She made clear what she meant by recounting an incident in which her son had been stopped by cops a couple of months earlier after he went with friends to pick up sandwiches at a neighborhood grocery. She said he called her from the store to say that cops wanted them to come outside. When he told the officers he was on the phone with his mother, she said she heard one of them tell him, “I don’t care, get the f--- off the phone.”

 

She went on, “They told them to come out of the store and get up against the wall. They searched them and then they left. The cops never said what it was for.”

 

Ms. Van Doten continued, “Stop-and-frisks are random. Does it apply to every child that wears a hoodie? It should be modified—it’s not working the way they intended. Out of so many stop-and-frisks, how many people stopped have handguns?”

 

In those few paragraphs, she concisely summed up the misgivings many people have about the program. A cop using an obscenity to get a kid off the phone with his mother is hardly acting worthy of the nickname “New York’s Finest.” By her account, the officers gave no explanation of why the teens were being subjected to a stop-and-frisk. And it is long past clear that for too long too many cops were making “random” stops, rather than abiding by the legal standard that a reasonable suspicion existed that the person or persons they targeted had either engaged in a crime or was likely to based on behavior. There was too great a disparity between the number of cases in which “suspicious bulge” was cited as the reason for the stop and those where a weapon was actually found for it to be a credible reason for the escalation of stops to 685,000 in 2011 and a further rise to 203,000 in the first three months of 2012.

 

How do we know this? Because a short time later, a cop who favored the program told the New York Post that he and his colleagues had received new marching orders to focus on “quality” stops rather than quantity.

 

The results since then have been striking. Over the final nine months of last year, stops declined by nearly 40 percent over the previous 15-month period. And three days after the Mayor’s speech, the NYPD disclosed that stops during the first three months of this year numbered 99,788—less than half the total for the same period in 2012, even while crime declined by 2 percent, with murder down a stunning 30 percent.

 

Neither the Mayor nor the NYPD has admitted that the program had spiraled out of control in subjecting residents of high-crime neighborhoods to excessive stops, but those numbers tell a pretty powerful story. They suggest that the huge jump in stops in recent years had been counterproductive, leaving officers wasting their time rousting too many innocent people and in the process alienating many in the minority communities where most of the stops take place.

 

It’s not clear whether Mr. Bloomberg was lashing out last week to defend Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who has become an issue in the mayoral campaign because of the controversy over stop-and-frisk. It’s just as likely he was thinking about his own legacy. But when the department’s own actions seem to acknowledge a problem and a good-faith effort to address it, some humility on the subject from the Mayor would be refreshing.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’ Editorial:

The cops stand alone

 

 

At a moment when our nation is reeling from a terror attack, a forum on Islamic issues for New York mayoral candidates has just made one shameful fact plain: Not one Democratic candidate is willing to stand up for America’s most successful police force the way Mayor Bloomberg did recently — unreservedly, with passion, and without political correctness.

 

The sounds of silence echoed through NYU Sunday, where assorted candidates were asked whether police surveillance of Muslim communities is unconstitutional. John Liu characteristically gave the most outrageous response by answering yes. Then again, it’s no surprise that not even the knowledge that the Tsarnaev brothers hoped to bring their carnage to New York would lead John Liu to reconsider treating the police as anything but the enemy.

 

But Liu wasn’t the only one. His predecessor as comptroller, Bill Thompson, labeled the police program “disgraceful,” adding that as mayor he would “definitely not” allow it. Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio hedged. Republicans were invited but none showed. If GOP candidates are prepared to back the NYPD on this issue, they passed on a good occasion to do so.

 

Yes, that might have taken some courage before a forum sponsored by the Arab American Association of New York and the university’s Islamic Center. On the other hand, the forum was an excellent opportunity to clear up the record for an audience that is being told by people such as Liu that police are spying on them because they are Muslims. In truth, the NYPD program is about helping cops protect the law-abiding Muslim majority by gaining a better understanding of their communities.

 

We note that Police Commissioner Ray Kelly brings this message to Muslims himself during visits to mosques. How tragic for New Yorkers that given the chance at NYU on Sunday, none of the candidates there had the backbone to do the same.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Grippo, Chan, Dowd Top NYPD Promotion List; Many Lieuts.

By MARK TOOR — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’

 

 

The Police Department promoted 146 uniformed and civilian employees April 26, including a Deputy Commissioner and two Chiefs, one with three stars and one with two.

 

Vincent D. Grippo was designated Deputy Commissioner of Management and Budget. Mr. Grippo comes to the NYPD from the Department of Buildings, where he served as Chief of Staff. In that post, he was instrumental in coordinating DOB’s response to Superstorm Sandy.

 

 

Key Role at DoITT

 

He also worked for the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, coordinating large contract and franchise negotiations, including a new telecommunications agreement for the 911 system. He was promoted there to Chief of Staff. Before that, he was Special Assistant to the Taxi and Limousine Commissioner.

 

He holds a bachelor’s in history from Boston College and a master’s in history from the University of Virginia.

 

Thomas F. Chan was promoted to three-star Chief of Community Affairs. Mr. Chan, who has been a police officer for 31 years, had been the two-star commander of Patrol Borough Brooklyn South. Before that, he had been in charge of the School Safety Division.

 

He has also commanded the 5th Precinct and Manhattan South Detective Operations. He served as adjutant of Patrol Boroughs Manhattan South and Staten Island, and as executive officer of Patrol Borough Queens North, Patrol Borough Manhattan South, and the 5th and 7th Precincts. Other assignments included Highway Units 1 and 2 and the Traffic Division.

 

Mr. Chan, 55, holds a Bachelor of Science degree in hospital administration from St. John’s University. Before joining the Police Department, he worked as a city paramedic.

 

 

Dowd Makes Asst. Chief

 

Charles F. Dowd, the commander of the Communications Division, was promoted to Assistant Chief. He has also commanded the 77th and 88th Precincts, and served as executive officer of the 83rd Precinct. Other assignments since he joined the department in 1979 have included the 9th, 68th, 75th and 106th Precincts, as well as the 79th Precinct Detective Squad, Detective Borough Brooklyn and the Narcotics Division.

 

He holds a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from John Jay College. Last August, he was appointed to the Board of Directors of the First Responders Network Authority (FirstNet), which is tasked with building a nationwide public-safety communications system.

 

John F. Burke, commander of the Firearms Suppression Division, was promoted to Inspector. He has also commanded the Drug Enforcement Task Force, and served as executive officer of the 10th and 13th Precincts. Other assignments since he joined the Department in 1990 have included the 9th, 23rd and Midtown North Precincts; Patrol Borough Manhattan South; Manhattan North Narcotics East; the Narcotics Division’s East Harlem Initiative and the Organized Crime Control Bureau.

 

He holds a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from John Jay College and a law degree from New York Law School. He is also a 2013 graduate of the Police Management Institute at Columbia University.

 

Also promoted to Inspector was Thomas J. Burns, commander of the Employee Relations Section. He has also served as the executive officer of the 60th and 68th Precincts, and the Employee Relations Section.

 

He joined the Housing Police Department in 1985, and his other assignments included Police Service Areas 1 and 2, Transit District 34, Patrol Borough Brooklyn South and the Latent Print Section. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Saint Joseph’s College and a master’s in public administration from Marist College.

 

 

Uniformed Promotions

 

Deputy Inspector: Kevin M. Maloney, Thomas J. McGrath, Chris D. Morello and Joseph B. Veneziano.

 

Captain: Philip Aversano, Winston M. Faison, John T. Ganley, Christopher J. Giambrone, Emmanuel Gonzalez, Kenneth J. Harsch, Rosalind D. Knox-Ritter, John A. Mastronardi, Roberto Melendez, Gilbert A. Morales, Liju P. Thotam and Kenneth J. Winters.

 

Lieutenant: Ashraf K. Ahmed, Andrew R. Arias, Michael J. Braccia, Perry R. Brijmohan, Tony R. Brown, Arsenio Camilo, Peter L. Cassiere, Bruce P. Ceparano, Jonathan K. Cermeli, Gregory T. Clifford, Sean G. Collins, William P. Conway, Antonio Fidacaro, Scott J. Forster, John P. Gazzola, Rohan D. Griffith, John R. Guzzo, Richard M. Healey, Gabriel M. Healy, Peter Hsieh, Timothy A. Jenkins, Christopher G. Kennis, Mary J. King, Joseph R. Kopack, Jimmy S. Koutroumanos, Jason M. Lunsford; Ari L. Maas, Caren L. McCormick, Joshua M. Mendez, John Montaperto, Michael E. Moran, Daniel N. Mufaddi, Eynat Naor, Dominick M. Nasso, Bryan D. Natale, Courtney B. Nilan, Christopher S. Oberding, Ahmad Y. Othman, Angeline A. Ozuna, Hector M. Perez, David J. Poggioli, Ronald C. Ramos, Yaser Salim, John M. Sloan, Thomas P. Smith, Glenn A. Termine, James A. Trabulsy, Sean M. Walker, Michael P. Zanleone and Jun J. Zhen.

 

Detective Second Grade: Steven A. Balsamo, Anibal N. Batista, Patrick Bubb, David K. Buxbaum, Simon T. Chan, Michael A. Connor, Jenimarie Garcia-Cruz, Garnett C. Golding, John Hastings, Mario Inguaggiato, Eric T. Laschke, Antoin N. Malloy, Manuel Rodriguez, Jimmy Schmalenberger, Maureen S. Sheehan and Robert J. Soricelli.

 

Detective: Ade T. Ajasa, Richard H. Browne, Darlene Y. Cain-Rowe, Javier M. Cordero, Hector E. Deleon, Lynne R. Denice, Dorrin O. Ferguson, Thomas H. Heimink, Danielle M. Kenny, Brian T. McCabe, Tricia Moretti, Christopher J. Retos, Anny Y. Rivas, George M. Velez, DeShawn C. Ware and Sandra D. Williams.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Judge Orders BCB To Reconsider Case On Detectives’ Pay

By MARK TOOR — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’

 

 

The Detectives Endowment Association has won another round in a long-running battle with the city over salary discrepancies for officers promoted to Detective between Aug. 1, 2004 and March 31, 2006.

 

The disparity resulted from a 2008 arbitration award that gave experienced Police Officers higher salaries than newly-promoted Detectives. The DEA brought the case to the city Board of Collective Bargaining, which rejected the union’s grievance more than a year ago.

 

 

$11G Apiece At Stake

 

Acting State Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey D. Wright ruled April 8 that the BCB must reconsider its decision that the Detectives are not entitled to back pay, which the DEA said would average $11,000 per member.

 

Justice Wright wrote that the DEA “offers uncontradicted proof that, over an extended course of collective-bargaining time, the parties were careful to observe that a promotion meant no loss of wages. The pattern is unequivocal, uninterrupted, and creates a reasonable expectation that the practice will continue. Therefore, the city’s failure to negotiate in good faith the wage discrepancy, is an improper employment practice.”

 

Any departure from past practice must be negotiated, Justice Wright wrote. He called the BCB’s decision “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.”

 

The union’s president, Michael J. Palladino, said in an interview, “It was a very positive decision for the DEA.” He said Justice Wright’s ruling practically ordered the BCB to decide in favor of the union.

 

 

‘Encouraged, But...’

 

“I’m really encouraged by the court’s decision, but we haven’t won anything yet,” he noted. “I expect the city to appeal, and if the appeals court affirms this decision, then that is something to get excited about.”

 

John Schowengerdt, an Assistant Corporation Counsel at the city Department of Law, saw it differently.

 

“This decision conflicts with an earlier decision issued in a nearly identical case brought by the Sergeants Benevolent Association, in which Justice [Joan] Lobis correctly rejected the SBA’s attempt to circumvent the terms of their contract, similar to the Detectives Endowment Association’s actions in this case,” he said in a statement. “We are evaluating all our legal options with respect to this decision.”

 

Last November, Justice Wright dismissed the city’s bid to have the DEA’s lawsuit thrown out.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Homi of Queens Transit Bureau Senior Admin Assistant Sylvia Scott

 

‘Son kills’ honored cop aide

By LARRY CELONA — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’

 

 

Last year’s civilian Employee of the Year for the NYPD Transit Bureau was stabbed to death by her deranged son hours after he was released from a mental-health facility, according to law-enforcement sources.

 

Lonnie Scott, 35, was arrested yesterday and charged with murder after admitting he killed his mom Sylvia in their Queens apartment, police sources said.

 

The unstable young man was admitted to the hospital on Sunday after he called 911 and told police he had kidnapped his mother, the source said.

 

But Sylvia Scott told police that she was fine and that her son needed psychiatric help.

 

Police took the man to a hospital in Queens, from which he was later released at 6:30 p.m. Sunday.

 

A source said that police then received a number of inaudible 911 calls from the Scott house early yesterday morning. It was not clear whether police responded to those calls.

 

When worried relatives came to the house, Lonnie Scott told them about the stabbing and they called police.

 

Sylvia Scott was discovered with multiple stab wounds to the stomach at 12:45 p.m. yesterday.

 

She was a senior administrative assistant for the NYPD’s Queens Transit Bureau. She had worked with the department for more than 30 years.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Now Retired:   Sgt. Jannet Velez and P.O. Camille San Filippo

 

Clerk Didn’t Summon Help
MTA Must Pay Cops $5.8M for Injuries

By MARK TOOR — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Chief / Civil Service Leader’

 

 

A panel of appeals-court judges ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority last week to pay $5.8 million to two NYPD officers who were injured by a suspect with whom they were struggling at the Times Square subway station in 2002 when a token-booth clerk ignored their request to summon assistance.

 

The two officers initially won their case in State Supreme Court in 2010, but Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lottie Wilkins threw out the $5.6-million verdict, saying that Station Agent Sean Corbin and the MTA were required to help passengers but not police officers. (The $200,000 difference in the payments is interest on the original award.)

 

 

Forced Sergeant to Retire

 

Sgt. Jannet Velez is getting $5.6 million of the settlement because her shoulder was hurt so badly that she was forced to retire after 14 years on the job. Two operations could not restore full motion.

 

Officer Camille San Filippo sustained ankle and shoulder injuries. She retired in 2003 after 20 years.

 

Ms. Velez and Ms. San Filippo were monitoring the area for drug-dealing when they saw a couple performing a sex act. They chased a man who was dressed as a woman into the station. They fought for 10 minutes, with the suspect throwing Ms. Velez down a flight of stairs before escaping.

 

“Upon entering the station, plaintiffs, who were in plainclothes, displayed their shields and asked the station agent, Corbin, to call for backup support,” according to the May 1 ruling by a panel of judges from the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court. “At the time, Corbin was inside a locked token booth that was equipped with an Emergency Booth Communication System (EBCS) that would have enabled him to summon help by pressing a button or stepping on a pedal.

 

“Both plaintiffs were injured when the perpetrator put up a fierce and protracted struggle to resist arrest. Corbin watched the struggle from his token booth and did not activate the EBCS or make any other attempt to summon help.”

 

 

Clerk’s Dubious Excuse

 

Mr. Corbin testified that since officers were already on the scene, he saw no need to call for additional assistance.

 

The five-judge appeals panel ruled unanimously that Justice Wilkins had erred when she said the MTA was not responsible for the safety of police officers. It cited previous cases in which the Court of Appeals had decided that the Transit Authority could be held responsible if employees did not call for help. The judges said those decisions made no exception for police officers.

 

“The Transit Authority also argues that the evidence did not establish that a timely response on Corbin’s part would have prevented plaintiffs’ injuries,” the judges wrote. “We decline to consider this argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Were we to consider the argument, we would find it unavailing.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Escaped Prisoner:   49 Pct. PDS  

 

Cops: Handcuffed perp flees from police and runs into the subway, but is later caught
Thief was being arrested for a new crime. He knocked over a cop and ran underground, setting off massive delays.

By Edgar Sandoval , Barry Paddock AND Rocco Parascandola — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

A handcuffed thief bolted away from cops as he was being led from his home and fled into the subway system Monday — setting off a manhunt and snarling underground service before being apprehended hours later.

 

Vincens Vuktilaj was out on $2,500 bail after being busted Friday for snatching chains off of two elderly women.

 

But cops headed to Vuktilaj’s Harlem home Monday morning after a new victim emerged. The teen turned 18 Sunday.

 

Detectives from the 49th Precinct were leading Vuktilaj out of his home on St. Nicholas Ave., his hands cuffed behind his back, when he knocked over a cop and took off running about 10:15 a.m., police said.

 

Preke Vuktilaj, 50, said his son bolted when someone opened the lobby door. He and two cops chased the teen, who was shoeless and still cuffed, but soon lost him.

 

“I don't know why he ran,” said the father, who works as a porter in the building where the family lives. “I want him to go to school and work, not jail. My son is a very nice kid.”

 

Vincens Vuktilaj was seen entering the 145th St. subway station, cops said.

 

A subway operator later reported spotting the teen in a tunnel between 125th and 145th Sts.

 

As police moved in, the power was cut on several lines.

 

MTA workers sent a rescue train to pick up passengers stuck on a south-bound A train around 119th St. after power was shut down in the tunnels, officials said.

 

Subway service was restored just before 1 p.m. with the suspect still on the loose.

 

Vincens Vuktilaj was finally caught by cops about 3:30 p.m. as he exited the subway station at 135th St. He was still in handcuffs.

 

"I saw cops running down the stairs into the subway,” said John Garcia, 18, who came upon a confused scene. “It was like a movie — there were so many cops in a matter of seconds.”

 

With Rocco Parascandola

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD Handling of Domestic Violence

Edited from:

 

Chilling 911 Call Is One of 700 Domestic Violence Cases NYPD Sees Daily

By Murray Weiss — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013  ‘DNAinfo New York.Com News’ / New York, NY

 

 

Domestic violence remains a complex and thorny crime for the NYPD, and as murder and violent crime rates topple to historic lows — down nearly 75 percent in 20 years — it's becoming an increasing percentage of crime in New York City.

 

The NYPD responded to more than 263,207 domestic-violence calls last year. That’s an average of 700 domestic calls for help every day — or one every two minutes.

 

And that’s just the people who call the police. Experts say victims are generally reluctant to call cops because they are afraid to exasperate an already volatile situation, disturb their children, or, too often, they simply feel trapped.

 

In fact, victims on average suffer seven domestic incidents before they even reach out for the cops.  Some never make that call.

 

Last year, 39 people, most of them women, were murdered by a spouse or partner. That's 9.3 percent of the 419 total murders in 2012. Back in 2008, there were 523 total murders, of which 38 stemmed from domestic violence, or 7.2 percent.

 

The NYPD has an array of proactive measures to combat domestic violence that reflects a sea-change in the way it deals with the issue.

 

Each precinct has a domestic-violence prevention officer as well as investigators who visit homes and help in arranging court referrals, shelter alternatives, orders of protection and medical care. Most importantly, they will automatically arrest someone if they believe a crime has been committed.

 

In days past, officers were less aggressive in hauling in suspected abusers.

 

In addition to the cops, the city has family centers at the District Attorneys' offices in Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx that provide additional critical services: legal counseling and assistance on immigration issues, job training, health care and financial assistance.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Clinton Foundation Teams With NYPD To Fight Prescription Drug Abuse

By Unnamed Author(s) — Monday, May 6th, 2013; 10:35 p.m. ‘NY 1 News’

 

 

The Clinton Foundation is teaming up with the NYPD and local colleges to fight prescription drug abuse.

 

Former President Bill Clinton says the partnership will focus on 18 to 26 year olds because that age group has seen a major increase in abuse.

 

As part of the arrangement, the NYPD will send officers to increase awareness among students.

 

"This is insane to have the brightest of our young people dropping out under conditions of which either their addiction is not being treated or their misuse is out of ignorance," Clinton said.

 

"There's a tendency on people's part to think somehow that they're safer because we have them as a result of a prescription," Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

 

Meanwhile, at another forum in midtown, Clinton announced he's teaming up with Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "C-40" group of international mayors.

 

The project will develop a common approach to measuring risks associated with climate change and help cities prioritize projects.

 

The event also featured remarks from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

CIVIL SERVICE: NYPD blasted for unfairly punishing union officer after minor crash with another city vehicle
District Council 37 vice president Marvin Robbins was forced to work 11 days directing traffic after his NYPD truck was hit and damaged by a Dept. of Transportation vehicle

By Reuven Blau — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

A member of the city’s labor board slammed NYPD brass for retaliating against a union officer after his stationary department car was hit by another city driver.

 

The Board of Collective Bargaining ruled that the NYPD unfairly took action against Marvin Robbins, a vice president with District Council 37 Local 983, due to his union advocacy. That included yanking his overtime and placing a disciplinary letter in his file tied to his union leave time.

 

In a partially dissenting opinion, board member Charles Moerdler ripped the entire proceeding, and blamed the NYPD for blowing gobs of taxpayer money and resources to attack Robbins.

 

“This proceeding aptly illustrates what foolishness and waste of precious taxpayer resources bureaucracy breeds,” Moerdler said in an addendum to the 43-page decision.

 

The case started after Robbins was punished and ordered to direct traffic for 11 days when a group of 25 bosses ruled he was “partially at fault” for the July 20, 2011 accident. The normal punishment is 10 days.

 

By all accounts, the crash occurred as Robbins was heading southbound on Crotona Parkway in the Bronx where he spotted two city Department of Transportation vehicles double-parked, one behind the other.

 

He didn’t think he could pass them safely, so he chose to sit and wait. But several cars began to pile up behind him.

 

Seeking to clear space, one of the DOT drivers then told Robbins that he’d try to move his car closer to the sidewalk so he could squeeze past.

 

But as he reversed, the DOT vehicle hit Robbins’ NYPD truck and cracked its passenger-side mirror.

 

Police bosses seeking to crack down on crashes brought up the accident the next day at a formal meeting.

 

Inspector Michael Pilecki voted that Robbins was “at fault” for the accident, but a group of other supervisors overruled him and decided the union official was only “partially at fault.”

 

As punishment, Robbins was ordered to serve 11 days of so-called intersection traffic duty.

 

The BCB ruled that was a fair punishment for the crash and believed the NYPD explanation that the extra day was merely an administrative mistake.

 

“We cannot find that there is a factual basis to conclude that Robbins was treated disparately for intentional, retaliatory reasons,” the board ruled.

 

But Moerdler blasted that conclusion.

 

In his scathing dissention, he noted that the damaged side view mirror “consumed countless hours” and led to the five-day hearing.

 

“And this vast array of talent, paid from taxpayers’ funds, have all been deployed to heap vengeance upon Marvin Robbins in consequence of damage to a rear view mirror of a (DEPARTMENT) vehicle that he was driving, but which then was standing still, when hit by another city vehicle that was backing up,” he said.

 

While the board ruled the NYPD retaliated against Robbins in certain instances, Moerdler couldn’t believe the majority didn’t find in his favor regarding the minor car accident.

 

“Frankly, I am appalled that any action taken by the NYPD...in connection with its sorry performance here can receive any sanction, much less credibility. I would grant the union’s petition in its entirety and would publicly chastise the senior NYPD...employees who lent themselves to the disgraceful conduct detailed in the majority decision.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Bloomberg 2nd Amendment Nightmare

 

New York City gun giveaway planned by Armed Citizen Project
The nonprofit's founder, Kyle Coplen, wants to give New Yorkers in high-crime areas a $200 shotgun and free weapons training, provided that they pass background checks.

By Ginger Adams Otis AND Christina Boyle — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

Forget gun buybacks — now get ready for a gun giveaway.

 

The man behind an effort to put free shotguns in the hands of homeowners says he’ll dole them out in the Big Apple by the end of the year — and the lawmen may not be able to stop him.

 

“We’re coming — and we’re going to get shotguns into the hands of responsible citizens,” said Kyle Coplen, who founded the nonprofit the Armed Citizen Project in January.

 

“When criminals fear the citizenry, it deters crime,” the 29-year-old added.

 

His privately funded group wants to give New Yorkers in high-crime areas a $200 shotgun and free weapons training — assuming applicants pass all the legal background checks.

 

“You need a permit ... so obviously you won't be able to do it here,” Kelly told the Daily News on Monday.

 

“I don't think that's ever (been) proven, the notion that increasing the number of armed citizens is somehow going to reduce crime,” added Kelly. “I don't think that bears the test of experience or logic because it just hasn't proven to be the case.”

 

The NYPD says the fee to apply for a shotgun permit is $140.00, plus a fingerprinting charge of $91.50.

 

The agency can deny permits to those who fail background checks, have a criminal history, have a poor driving record, or have committed other infractions. It also can say no if investigators decide an applicant “lack(s) character.”

 

Coplen said he’ll ask New Yorkers for donations to help low-income city applicants who can’t afford permits on their own.

 

“I guess the Bloomberg administration doesn’t want poor people to be able to defend themselves. I guess that right is left to the elites,” Coplen said about the pricey permits.

 

He wasn’t worried that the NYPD would rubber-stamp rejections on applicants linked to his group.

 

“That’s a legal fight I’m definitely willing to engage them on,” he said.

 

Armed Citizen Project has already given guns to 35 homeowners in the gritty Oak Forest suburb of north Houston.

 

With Daniel Beekman

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

This Dude Wants to Hand Out Free Shotguns to New Yorkers

By John Surico — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013  ‘The Villiage Voice’ / Manhattan

 

 

When it comes to guns, New Yorkers know a thing or two. In August, people traded in 509 guns at a gun buyback program in Queens for cold hard cash; in September, monetary prizes were handed out in exchange for 85 guns in total over in Bushwick. This was followed a few months later with the signing of Governor Cuomo's gun control bill, as New York became the first state to actually do something about guns in a post-Newtown America.

 

And then we found out about this guy.

 

Kyle Coplen is the founder of the Armed Citizen Project. The mission of the organization is in its name: Coplen's group believes that the hoi polloi should be just as strapped as the police. By doing so, he argues that crime will slowly dissipate since, well, everyone will both figuratively and literally have a gun to their heads.

 

Coplen believes that the residents of New York City, under the anti-gun oversight of Bloomberg, Kelly and Cuomo, need guns in their hands more than ever. His plan? To give out free shotguns and training to learn how to use said shotgun to whoever wants one.

 

Now, this pipe dream is, of course, going to hit a few clogs.

 

First off, all the applicants are going to have to pass background checks, all of which have been expanded under Cuomo's bill. Then, of course, there are licensing fees: it's $140 for a shotgun license, plus $91 for a fingerprinting scan. Oh, and the shotguns are $200 a pop. And, to fund these expenditures, Coplen's privately funded non-profit will ask other New Yorkers for donations.

 

However, the NYPD has some authority to deny gun licenses If an applicant fails a background check or has a criminal history. Also, if the applicant even seems to "lack character," a license can be revoked. But if all those applicants were simply subsidiaries of this group, that could be a discrimination case waiting to happen.

 

"I guess the Bloomberg administration doesn't want poor people to be able to defend themselves. I guess that right is left to the elites," Coplen told the Daily News.

 

His goal is to have the program up and running by the end of the year. So... yeah, this guy exists.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

New Jersey

 

Jury about to decide if former Passaic County sheriff retaliated against officer over challenge to ID cards
(Retired NYPD Det. and Alleged ‘Psycho’ Jerry Speziale)

BY  KIBRET MARKOS — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013  ‘The Bergen Record’ / Hackensack, N.J.

 

NOTE:  Coo-Coo; Coo-Coo:  To the best of my knowledge Speziale was psycho-ed out of the NYPD and is not allowed to carry a firearm in New York State.  He is now a Deputy Superintendent of the NY/NJ Port Authority P.D.  Go figure!  - Mike Bosak

 

 

A jury in Hackensack is scheduled to begin deliberations Tuesday to determine whether former Passaic County Sheriff Jerry Speziale retaliated against a female officer when she raised questions about the issuing of police-type ID cards to civilians.

 

Capt. Lori Mambelli and her attorney, Charles Sciarra, said during the trial that such ID cards were often issued to civilians and to Speziale’s political fundraisers. Mambelli, who testified at length during the three-week trial, said she informed her supervisors about the problem, and in some cases refused to make the ID cards. She said, however, that she was later overruled by members of Speziale’s command staff who said the orders to make the ID cards came straight from the sheriff.

 

Mambelli said she was transferred to various departments after she made the complaints about the ID cards. She now seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

 

Speziale, who also testified during the trial, denied that he instructed anyone in his department to improperly issue ID cards.

 

Albert Buglione, who represents Speziale and the Sheriff’s Department, said Mambelli was a staunch supporter of Speziale when he ran for sheriff in 2001, and also supported him when he ran for reelection in 2004 and 2007. He said Mambelli was promoted twice within that time — from sergeant to lieutenant to captain —  and now makes $150,000 a year as one of the highest ranking officers in the department. Buglione said Mambelli wanted to be promoted to the position of chief, and turned against Speziale and the department when someone else got that position.

 

Speziale has since resigned as the sheriff and now works as a deputy superintendent at the Port Authority Police Department.

 

Mambelli’s lawsuit was initially filed in Superior Court in Paterson but was moved to Hackensack because the case was mired in Passaic County politics.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

U.S.A.

 

IN-DEPTH: Tiny uniform cams next big thing in policing
'Videos don't lie' - but they don't come cheap, either

By Janice Morse — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The Cincinnati Enquirer’ / Cincinnati, OH

 

 

Just as “cruiser cams” did, tiny cameras worn on officers’ uniforms can make a big difference in police work – if public safety agencies can afford the pricey little gadgets.

 

Cincinnati’s former police chief, Thomas Streicher, calls the devices “the next giant step in the evolution of policing.” Some models are as small as a cigarette lighter and can be worn on sunglasses, caps or lapels.

 

“Five years from now, I can’t imagine being in this field and not having this equipment,” said Streicher, now a public-safety consultant.

 

But the cameras, which several local departments said they’d like to consider – Covington police have been using them for two years – cost more than shrinking police budgets can bear.

 

High-end versions can cost $1,000 per officer, plus data-storage fees. Less-expensive units run as little as $100 or so.

 

But Streicher’s convinced that the value of recording every police-citizen interaction far outweighs the cost.

 

“Identifying, collecting and preserving the best evidence about every encounter between the police officer and the community is a duty. It’s an ethical, legal and moral responsibility,” Streicher said. “You can’t afford not to have it.”

 

Ensuring that justice is served is the main reason to buy the cameras, says Delhi Police Chief Jim Howarth, who listened to a presentation Streicher made about the body cams April 9 at Scarlet Oaks training center in Sharonville.

 

Howarth, president of the Hamilton County Association of Chiefs of Police, says so far body cams haven’t yet become a topic of discussion. He suspects that’s because of budget constraints.

 

But after Streicher’s seminar, “it’s more on my radar now,” he said.

 

“The videos don’t lie,” Howarth said. “The biggest positive would be to see any incident through the eyes of the officer.”

 

In fact, the units could save money in the long run, Streicher contends.

 

Officers and citizens tend to treat each other better if they know they’re being videotaped, studies have shown. After one year with the body cameras, police in Rialto, Calif., saw an 88 percent drop in complaints against officers – and a 59 percent drop in use-of-force instances.

 

Such evidence suggests video technology can cut not only the number of lawsuits filed against police but any settlements paid out as well, Streicher said.

 

And if courts allow videos to replace officer testimony in some cases, that could cut overtime costs. In Cincinnati, as much as 65 percent of overtime comes from “officers sitting in court waiting for a case to be called,” Streicher said, amounting to $4.5 million a year.

 

If Cincinnati devoted $2 million to equipping its force with body cams, the investment would more than be justified, Streicher argues.

 

Despite the advantages, Streicher and other advocates concede that widespread acceptance of the body cams could take time – and will require navigation of thorny legal, technical and practical issues.

 

Scott Greenwood, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, predicts that the tiny cameras will “be another disruptive technology when it comes to policing and enhancing accountability.”

 

Nearly two decades ago, when dashboard-mounted cruiser cameras, or “dash cams,” began popping up in police agencies across the nation, rank-and-file officers bristled, Greenwood said. “They called them ‘indict-a-cams’ because they thought they were going to be used to play ‘Big Brother’ to monitor what officers were doing,” Greenwood said.

 

What happened instead: “Officers realized that dash cams usually supported what officers said was going on. And they vindicated them sometimes, when people would make false allegations about misconduct or discourtesy. So there was a sea change in opinion from line officers in acceptance of those cameras,” he said.

 

The shift took a few years.

 

Since then, most Americans have equipped themselves with cellphones that take photographs and videos. “We know now that these devices are everywhere,” Greenwood said, “and for better or worse, that’s the reality.”

 

As for officers being outfitted with body cams, “there are mostly positives,” he said, “because we know most of what happens in policing isn’t in front of a cruiser, and there might not be a better witness than the video camera.”

 

The biggest concerns surround privacy, he said, because officers would be shooting videos inside people’s homes. And safeguards would need to be in place to make sure that images aren’t misused.

 

“You don’t want these videos to be uploaded to YouTube,” Greenwood said.

 

The biggest potential problem: “If officers are required to have these (cameras) ‘on’ all the time, there may be conversations they don’t want to record,” he said, such as discussions about family matters. So privacy concerns surround not just the public but also the officers who will be ordered to wear and use the cameras, Greenwood said.

 

Cincinnati police learned first-hand about those considerations.

 

They experimented with an early version of the cameras around 2008, about three years before Streicher retired.

 

In contrast to reluctant attitudes that greeted the cruiser cams’ Cincinnati debut in 2001, officers were eager to give the body cams a try, Streicher said.

 

A number of older officers had retired, and “there was an infusion of younger officers who were more receptive to the technology and knew the value of it,” Streicher said.

 

Still, he chuckled when recalling that one officer reported with chagrin: “There I am (in the bathroom) and I realized, ‘I’m recording myself!’”

 

To avoid such potentially embarrassing recordings, some newer models of the cameras are equipped with a “privacy” mode.

 

In Covington, police started using lapel cameras in 2011, thanks to a $10,000 donation from a businessman.

 

Covington Police Chief Spike Jones is a fan – sort of.

 

“The cameras, when they work, are wonderful,” Jones said. “Unfortunately, the version that was purchased a number of years ago didn’t turn out to be the rugged model we’d hoped it would be.”

 

The units were “very fragile,” he said, and “very susceptible to the effects of the weather.”

 

“If you get in a foot pursuit and they fall off or they get wet, that’s it,” Jones said, adding that he’s trying to buy upgraded models to equip his 102-officer force.

 

“The officers themselves want them; they’re asking for them,” he said.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Gun lovers download printable gun 50,000 times on its first day — and NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly is alarmed
Untraceable gun alarms lawmakers and law enforcers. 'The Liberator' can be sneaked onto planes.

By Christina Boyle AND Bill Hutchinson — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

The first downloadable gun has gone viral.

 

The plastic firearm that can be churned out on a 3-D printer and easily assembled was downloaded at least 50,000 times Monday, according to the self-described anarchist who made it available for free online.

 

Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed, a collective of gun advocates, said the most downloads were done in Spain followed by the United States.

 

The prospect of terrorists getting hold of the guns by clicking a computer mouse chilled NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly to the core.

 

“It’s something that obviously is a concern,” Kelly said. “It’s something that the federal government should look at.”

 

Rep. Steve Israel (D-L.I.) is writing legislation to tighten the reins on the printable guns.

 

Kelly’s biggest fear is that the gun — called the “Liberator” — will easily sneak past metal detectors and then onto commercial airplanes and into secure buildings.

 

“If that capability exists anywhere it can exist all over the country,” Kelly said.

 

But Cody didn’t seem to care.

 

“Policemen aren’t paid to understand constitutional law or suggest policy,” Cody told the Daily News after being informed of Kelly’s comments.

 

He also didn’t seemed concerned about the guns falling into the wrong hands.

 

“The U.S. government puts guns in the hands of terrorists — then waxes about the children,” he said.

 

For now, printing out the gun’s 16 components is not as easy Cody’s group makes it sound; the high-tech printers needed for the job are super expensive and not readily available.

 

And some companies that own the machines are refusing to print out the guns on principal.

 

“We have checks and balances in place throughout the printing process to ensure that these items are not printed,” said Elisa Richardson, spokeswoman for Shapeways.com, a 3-D printing company in Long Island City.

 

“Additionally, any files containing such content will be promptly removed and those respective users will be notified immediately,” Richardson said. “Shapeways does not hold a firearms license, nor intend to.”

 

To get around existing federal laws against undetectable firearms, Defense Distributed requires that a six-ounce piece of steel be inserted in the gun. The only other piece of metal in the gun is a firing pin which is a simple nail.

 

But law enforcement officials believe nefarious people are downloading the guns and will simply leave out the metal slab and not insert the firing pin until they’re ready to attack.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

3-D gun upload goes live

By ANTONIO ANTENUCCI and KATE SHEEHY — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’

 

 

The Texas group that made the first fully functioning plastic handgun using a 3-D printer uploaded a chilling how-to for others to do the same on its Web site yesterday.

 

Touting “design tweaks’’ made to its “Liberator’’ handgun based on the results of test-firing last week, Defense Distributed provided step-by-step instructions and three-dimensional photos.

 

“It’s a concern because it involves technology, and as we’ve seen, the technology can develop very quickly,’’ NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said yesterday.

 

“The fact that this is workable now is something I submit the federal government should be looking at because if it’s a problem, it’s a national problem, it’s not localized.”

 

He said he was unaware of any such guns having hit the streets of New York yet.

 

The gun — which fires regular ammo and can be equipped with a silencer — has drawn particular scrutiny because it can fool metal detectors.

 

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) ripped Defense Distributed for having posted the weapons blueprint online.“This is a reckless and irresponsible thing to do, and it puts Americans at increased risk of violence from criminals and even terrorists,’’ said Schumer, who is pushing legislation to make it illegal for anyone to manufacture the plastic parts for the gun.

 

Defense Distributor founder Cody Wilson said in a statement, "I accuse my critics of misrepresenting their intentions."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

F.B.I.

FBI Agents Association endorses Rep. Mike Rogers to be bureau’s new leader

By Sari Horwitz — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The Washington Post’ / Washington, DC

 

 

The organization that represents more than 12,000 FBI special agents on Monday endorsed a Republican congressman to be the bureau’s new leader, as the Obama administration steps up its search for a successor to Director Robert S. Mueller III.

 

The FBI Agents Association released a statement of support for Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.), a former agent, and urged President Obama to nominate him when Mueller’s term ends in September.

 

“His unique and diverse experience as a veteran, FBI agent and member of Congress will allow him to effectively lead the men and women of the bureau,” Konrad Motyka, president of the FBI Agents Association, said in an interview. Motyka said the association’s representatives met with Vice President Biden’s staff about two weeks ago to push for Rogers’s nomination.

 

Rogers, who has served as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee since 2011, said he was “humbled” by the endorsement of the FBI agents group and would be interested in the job.

 

“I am honored to have the confidence of the men and women of the FBI’s special agent community,” Rogers said. “The next generation of FBI leadership must recognize how essential special agents are to the bureau’s core mission.”

 

Rogers joins an unofficial list of people under consideration for the FBI’s top job, according to several current and past administration officials. One of the leading candidates is Lisa Monaco, who oversaw the Justice Department’s National Security Division before becoming Obama’s counterterrorism adviser in March. If chosen, Monaco would be the first woman to head the bureau in its 105-year history.

 

Other contenders for the job are said to include James B. Comey, deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration and Neil H. MacBride, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Lewis D. Schiliro, a former FBI agent who served in a top post in the bureau’s New York Office and is now a homeland security official in Delaware, has also garnered some support.

 

Although he enjoys the support of the FBI agents’ organization, Rogers could face political obstacles to a nomination. He has been openly critical of the administration’s handling of counterterrorism investigations, and of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in some cases.

 

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the search or the people who are being considered.

 

Officials said the administration wants to find a successor soon so the person can be vetted, nominated and confirmed before Congress goes on summer recess. In the early stages, the process has been coordinated by the Justice Department, but Biden’s office will also be involved in the search.

 

The next FBI director will take over the agency in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, the first large-scale terrorist attack in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. The new director will also step into an agency with a more complex and demanding mission than the agency Mueller took over just before the Sept. 11 attacks. Mueller had led the bureau’s evolution from a traditional crime-fighting agency to one focused on preventing terrorist attacks.

 

Motyka said the FBI agents organization believes that Rogers’s background as a former agent sets him apart from the other candidates.

 

“The best person to lead us is someone who has been inside the organization and has served as an agent,” Motyka said. “Agents are essential to the bureau’s primary mission of protecting our country from a wide array of threats.”

 

Rogers, a 1985 graduate of Adrian College, was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army through the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps at the University of Michigan. He was an FBI agent from 1989 to 1994 before being elected to the Michigan Senate in 1995.

 

Monaco has also served in the FBI, although not as an agent. She worked as a counselor and deputy chief of staff to Mueller in 2007 and served as his chief of staff from 2007 to 2009.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Task Force Aims to Lighten Criminal Code
Bipartisan Congressional Initiative Targets Bloated Federal Provisions Cited by Critics for Driving Up Incarceration Rates

By GARY FIELDS and NEIL KING JR. — Monday, May 6th, 2013 ‘The Wall Street Journal’ / New York, NY

 

 

WASHINGTON—Congress plans this week to create a new, bipartisan task force to pare the federal criminal code, a body of law under attack from both parties recently for its bloat.

 

The panel, which will be known as the House Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force of 2013, will comprise five Republicans and five Democrats. It marks the most expansive re-examination of federal law since the early 1980s, when the Justice Department attempted to count the offenses in the criminal code as part of an overhaul effort by Congress.

 

Rep. Bobby Scott (D., Va.) said he expected the committee to work through consensus. "We've been warned it's going to be a working task force and it means we'll have to essentially go through the entire code," he said.

 

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R., Wis.) a longtime champion of overhauling the code, will lead the task force. He is expected to reintroduce a bill he has tried to get through several congresses that would cut the size of the criminal code by a third. "Overcriminalization is a threat to personal liberty and an expensive and inefficient way to deal with a lot of problems," he said.

 

In a city with deep political divisions, the expansion of federal criminal law has created a coalition of allies from opposite sides of the aisle, including the conservative Heritage Foundation, the libertarian Cato Institute, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Bar Association. Legal experts estimate there are 4,500 criminal statutes and tens of thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties, including prison. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts figures some 80,000 defendants are sentenced in federal court each year. In recent years, states have reversed years of steady increases by reducing their prison populations while the number of people held at the federal level has continued to climb. Federal lawmakers and legal experts attribute part of the continuing increase to the rise in criminal offenses and regulations that carry prison time and the creation of laws that don't require knowledge of wrongdoing.

 

Democrats have long opposed the growth of parts of the system, blaming mandatory minimums for the increase in the federal prison population, especially the rise in African-American inmates.

 

For Republicans, the encroachment of federal law into areas that could be handled by the states is a top concern.

 

Unifying both sides is the number of defendants who can receive criminal punishment for what are often technical violations and the budgetary strains brought about by a ballooning federal prison population.

 

Other committee members include Rep. Raul Labrador (R., Idaho) and Rep. Karen Bass (D., Calif.). Recommendations made by the task force will be taken up by the House Judiciary Committee, Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R., Va.) said in an interview.

 

Mr. Goodlatte, an ex-officio member of the task force, said Congress creates 500 new crimes per decade, often with weakened or nonexistent standards as to whether the crime had to be intended. Mr. Goodlatte said as a result the U.S. has weakened a long-standing legal principle known as mens rea, Latin for a "guilty mind," which means the person must know they are doing something wrong before they can be found guilty.

 

"There is the issue of freedom and liberty," he said. Mr. Goodlatte said other questions include whether the federal government is moving into areas better handled by state criminal laws.

 

Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee and an ex-officio member of the task force, said in a written statement that the "unduly expansive criminal provisions in our law unnecessarily drive up incarceration rates."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

California

 

Privacy advocates sue LAPD, Sheriff's Department
Two groups are seeking release of license plate information collected by the agencies from small cameras in patrol vehicles.

By Joel Rubin and Richard Winton — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The Los Angeles Times’ / Los Angeles, CA

 

 

Privacy rights groups on Monday filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County's two major law enforcement agencies after they refused to turn over information collected by electronic license plate scanners, the suit claimed.

 

The Los Angeles Police Department and L.A. County Sheriff's Department have made use of the plate-reading technology for several years. Typically mounted on patrol vehicles, the small cameras continuously scan license plates and check them against criminal databases in search of stolen cars and cars registered to known fugitives.

 

Police and sheriff's officials have lauded the technology, saying it snares far more stolen vehicles than officers can on their own. And because the cameras record the exact time and location of a scanned car, police also see the devices as a potentially powerful tool for detectives trying to retrace the whereabouts of someone suspected of a crime — even if it is several months or years after the car was scanned.

 

In filing the suit, however, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation raised concerns that the license plate information collected and stored by the two departments invades people's privacy.

 

Peter Bibring, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, said his group has no objection to police using the cameras to search for stolen vehicles but wants the LAPD and Sheriff's Department to quickly erase any data on cars and drivers not connected to any crime.

 

"This technology has led to police maintaining data on every resident of Los Angeles that they manage to scan … even law-abiding residents, and that's a real concern," Bibring said in an interview with The Times.

 

Bibring called on the two departments, which help set standards among police agencies in Southern California because of their size, to rewrite their policies to ensure that information on law-abiding drivers is destroyed within a few weeks of its capture by the scanners. "There is little value of keeping it for six months or a year or two years. But there are big risks to privacy," he said.

 

Currently, the Sheriff's Department keeps data collected by the cameras indefinitely, said spokesman Steve Whitmore. LAPD Lt. Andrew Neiman declined to comment, citing the lawsuit. City rules on record retention, however, indicate that such information is kept for five years.

 

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck declined to comment, saying he had not yet read the lawsuit. However, he has spoken out before on the need to collect and store license plate data.

 

"As an investigative tool, it has unlimited potential," Beck said in an article published on the website Govtech.com. "That will be its strongest use … being able to track vehicles — where they've been and what they've been doing — and tie that to crimes that have occurred or that will occur."

 

Similarly, Whitmore defended the practice, saying license plate data helped solve at least one slaying case. Months after the 2010 shooting death of a man in Long Beach, five people were arrested in connection with the killing. Detectives were able to crack the case, Whitmore said, in part because shortly after the killing, a sheriff's license plate reader happened to capture a van believed to have been used in the killing near where the shooting occurred.

 

The Sheriff's Department has 77 vehicles outfitted with the plate readers, although only about 45 are currently in operation while the others undergo upgrades to improve data storage capabilities, Whitmore said. Also, the sheriff uses 47 other cameras in fixed locations across the county, he added. Neiman estimated that about 100 LAPD vehicles are equipped with the scanners — a dramatic increase from 2008 when the department had only about a dozen.

 

The technology is used widely by police. According to a 2012 report by the Police Executive Research Forum, 71% of police departments reported using license plate scanners.

 

The lawsuit filed Monday stems from requests the two groups made under the state's Public Records Act for one week's worth of license plate data collected by the two agencies. Both departments refused, saying the information was investigative material and therefore did not need to be released under the records act. Bibring said attorneys for the two groups will try to convince a judge otherwise.

 

"Nothing will demonstrate to people the threat to their privacy as clearly as the release of this data," Bibring said.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Homeland Security

 

U.S. Hopes Russian Aid in Inquiry on Boston Bombings Signals Future Collaboration

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT — Tuesday, May 7th, 2013 ‘The New York Times’
(Edited for brevity and generic law enforcement pertinence) 

 

 

WASHINGTON — Despite years of differences on how to approach the terrorist threat, Obama administration officials said Monday that the American authorities investigating the Boston Marathon bombings were working effectively with their Russian counterparts.

 

Since the bombings three weeks ago, Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, and President Obama have spoken twice on the phone and pledged deeper cooperation. In a striking sign of collaboration on the investigation, Russian intelligence officials have taken the extraordinary step of sharing secret transcripts of a phone call they intercepted in which they learned that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had extremist beliefs, according to United States law enforcement officials.

 

“On the logistics and communications to facilitate what the F.B.I. is doing, we have seen a very cooperative Russian government, because they understand we have a common interest in getting the full details in this investigation,” said a senior United States official. Like other officials, he would not speak on the record about the continuing criminal investigation.

 

The cooperation on Boston stands in contrast to the experience of the United States and Russia in recent years on other counterterrorism matters, in which collaboration has often been hampered by miscommunication, sluggish bureaucracies and mistrust between intelligence services, which have prevented extensive information sharing.

 

In 2011, the Russian authorities provided a warning to the F.B.I. and C.I.A. that Mr. Tsarnaev had changed drastically, embraced radical Islam and planned to travel to Russia to join underground groups. Despite repeated requests from the bureau for more information, however, none was provided. Only after the bombings did Russian officials inform the F.B.I. about the phone calls and provide the transcripts.

 

Because the 2011 warning concerned an ethnic Chechen, American officials initially saw any possible threat as being directed at Russia, which they said may have lent less urgency to the issue. By many accounts, the Russian authorities kept close tabs on Mr. Tsarnaev when he spent six months in Dagestan, and they knew he had been trying to meet with militants, but when he returned to the United States, the Russians sent no new warning to their American counterparts.

 

“There was no message or implication that this was our problem,” one senior American law enforcement official said.

 

Thomas de Waal, an expert on the Caucasus region at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that in addition to recent strains, “we’re talking about Russian security agencies that are the heirs of the K.G.B., whose whole existence was predicated on suspicion of the U.S.”

 

He added, “These are two of the world’s largest security bureaucracies, each with its own internal feuds among agencies.” So it is unrealistic to expect them always to work seamlessly together against terrorism, he said.

 

The differing perspectives on the threat have been an obstacle to deeper cooperation. “We’re focused on Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and the Sahel; they’re focused on the North Caucasus,” one former American official said. “A few Chechens and others have made it into Al Qaeda in South Asia, and we are always worried about the radicalizing churn in Chechnya and Dagestan. But there is not much basis for a deeper collaboration, because much of that churn is caused by Russian human rights violations of the local population.”

 

Such views have long infuriated Mr. Putin, who considers the crushing of Chechnya’s independence movement in two wars since 1994 to be a victory over international terrorism, not against a people seeking the right to self-determination. Since Mr. Putin came to power, the United States and many European countries have granted asylum to Chechens who fled the wars.

 

“I have always felt outraged when our Western partners, as well as your colleagues from the Western media, referred to our terrorists who committed brutal, bloody, appalling crimes on the territory of our country as ‘insurgents,’ ” Mr. Putin said in a televised town hall meeting on April 25, in which he was asked about cooperation after the Boston bombings. “They were hardly ever referred to as terrorists. They provided assistance to them, information support, financial and political support — sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly.”

 

Referring to his counterparts in the West, he added: “We always said that they shouldn’t make empty declarations that terrorism is a common threat, but make real efforts and cooperate with each other more closely. But now these two criminals have provided the best possible proof that we were right.”

 

Scott Shane contributed reporting.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

                                                          Mike Bosak

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment