35,000 is ¾ what the NYPD manpower was on 9/11.
B
Friday, May 3rd, 2013 — Good Afternoon, Stay Safe
- - - - -
Mayor Sets Line On Police Force
Mayor Bloomberg Wants to Keep Number of NYPD Officers Constant at About 35,000
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The Wall Street Journal’ / New York, NY
Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to keep the number of New York City police officers constant at roughly 35,000, despite calls from several mayoral candidates and other elected officials who say there's an urgent need to bolster the force.
Mr. Bloomberg on Thursday released a $69.8 billion budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning July 1, his final budget after nearly 12 years at City Hall. The mayor proposed no tax increases and repeatedly stressed that the city cannot afford to give retroactive pay increases to its nearly 300,000 employees.
The budget relies on an unanticipated windfall of roughly $800 million in income tax revenue, fueled by a one-time boost in capital gains taxes, and another $200 million in higher-than-expected revenue from corporate taxes. The release of the mayor's executive budget sets in motion a two-month negotiation with the City Council.
The mayor proposed accelerating the hiring of 500 police officers in the NYPD's July class, increasing the number of officers who will hit the streets that month to roughly 1,200 from the 700 he recommended in his preliminary budget plan. Those additional officers are needed, the administration said, due to high attrition levels among officers hired in the early 1990s.
But the mayor ignored demands to increase the NYPD's headcount. Democratic mayoral candidate William Thompson has proposed increasing the police force by 2,000 officers, and last week council Speaker Christine Quinn, another mayoral hopeful, urged the city to hire 1,600 more.
"When somebody says let's add another 1,000 cops, the police commissioner would love it, but I'm not so sure the teachers would love it because you got to decide do you want a teacher or you want a cop, sanitation worker or a firefighter?" Mr. Bloomberg said.
NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly signaled he'd favor more officers, but said, "That's the $64,000 question: Can you pay for additional police officers?"
Mr. Thompson said that instead of "sending more inexperienced officers into the highest crime areas, we need to put 2,000 more cops on our streets so that we can deploy the most skilled officers to the toughest neighborhoods."
Ms. Quinn praised the mayor for accelerating the hiring of officers in July; through a spokesman, she declined to comment on his decision to keep the headcount steady.
Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, another Democratic mayoral candidate, criticized Mr. Bloomberg for not increasing taxes, as he's proposed. "Right now, we have a mayor who would rather let early education and after-school programs for the neediest families wither on the vine than ask the wealthiest New Yorkers to pay a dime more," he said.
A number of candidates and elected officials said they're concerned there aren't any reserves for labor contracts. Contracts with all of the city's unions have expired.
Joe Lhota, a GOP mayoral hopeful, said, "While the lack of a labor reserve is a problem, the budget is straightforward, includes no tricks and provides the next mayor an opportunity for transformative change."
The proposed budget includes the shuttering of 20 fire companies and a number of cuts to libraries and social services, much of which the council is expected to restore.
_______________________________________________________________________
Bloomberg, contradicting the candidates, says New York doesn't need more police
By Dana Rubinstein — Thursday, May 2nd, 2013; 2:44 p.m. ‘Capital New York’ / New York, NY
Mayor Michael Bloomberg today challenged the notion, endorsed by some of this year's mayoral candidates, that New York City needs more police officers.
"Of course I believe it's the optimum level," said the mayor today, in response to a question from the Journal's Michael Howard Saul. "I've been doing it ... Just think of what you're saying. Do you really think that I'm deliberately putting the city in danger? I don't think so. And I think the results, people are probably pretty happy with it. I know your boss is, incidentally."
"And your boss is happy with it too," Bloomberg said to Bloomberg News reporter Henry Goldman.
The issue arose during the mayor's budget address, after radio reporter Bob Hennelly asked him if he'd wished he'd tried to reform the city's health care contracts earlier in his administration.
After contesting the very notion that his administration hadn't been quietly laboring toward that end all along, Bloomberg said, "The bottom line is we have only a certain amount of money. And if we have to pay higher health care costs, it comes out of something else. So when somebody says, 'Let's add another 1,000 cops,' the police commissioner would love it, but I'm not so sure that the teachers would love it, because, you gotta decide, you want a teacher or you want a cop."
Despite the city's record-low crime rate, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is running for mayor with Bloomberg's tacit blessing, and former comptroller Bill Thompson have called for enlarging the police force.
Public Advocate Bill de Blasio has said the city can't afford it.
In a reporter scrum following the mayor's remarks, WCBS's Marcia Kramer asked police commissioner Ray Kelly if technology had somehow diminished the need for as many boots on the street.
"Oh, I think we're doing a more efficient job at policing, yes, and technology has helped," he said, adding, "I would like to have both, but I understand you have to pay for it in some fashion. And that's the $64,000 question. Can you pay for additional police officers."
_______________________________________________________________________
Sergeant Jannet Velez and P.O. Camille San Filippo Take Beating, Sue Civilian For Failure to Help and Win
Two cops win $5.8M because token booth clerk failed to call police when the cops were being beaten up
MTA had argued clerks must only call for help when a passenger is being beaten. But appellate court says that's too narrow a view of the law.
By Barbara Ross AND Corky Siemaszko — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’
Metropolitan Transit Authority has been ordered to pay $5.8 million to two female cops who were beaten-up by a man in drag in a Times Square subway station while the token booth clerk looked on — and didn’t lift a finger to help.
The unanimous ruling by a panel of Manhattan appellate judges Tuesday was vindication for former officers Jannet Velez and Camille San Filippo.
“It’s been a long time coming,” said lawyer Brian O’Connor, who repped the former officers.
The pair had initially won the case in 2010, but a Manhattan judge overturned the jury verdict, saying clerk Sean Corbin and the MTA were obligated only to help passengers under attack, not cops.
“(Velez and San Filippo) were both really pleased with the decision and the fact that the court acknowledged that the Metropolitan Transit Authority needs to protect police officers, firefighters and anyone else in the subway system.”
Velez, 35, a sergeant who had been on the job for 14 years, was severely injured when the man she was struggling with landed on her after they tumbled down a set of subway stairs.
A mother of two who lives out of state, Velez is getting $5.6 million of the settlement because she had to quit her job in 2004 because of her career-ending injuries, which included multiple tendon tears in her biceps, rotator cuff and other parts of her dominant shoulder. Two operations could not restore her to full mobility.
“She loved being a police officer,” said O’Connor. “She comes from a family of cops. Both her brother and father were officers. It was a big deal to her.”
San Filippo, 47, sustained minor ankle and shoulder injuries in the fight. She retired in 2003 after 20 years on the job.
Neither woman could be reached for comment. There also was no immediate comment from the MTA, which can appeal the ruling but is unlikely to do so because it was unanimous.
Velez and San Filippo were on plainclothes patrol in June 2002 when spotted a man in women’s clothing performing a sex act on another man on the street.
They chased the frisky fellow into the station and as they raced past the booth they yelled at Corbin to call for backup. He didn’t.
Instead, Corbin watched what the judges called a “fierce and protracted struggle” from the safety of his locked booth and made no “attempts to summon for help,” the ruling states.
“All he had to do was press a button,” O’Connor said.
Velez and San Filippo sued in 2004 and at trial Corbin testified he did nothing because the cops appeared to have the upper hand. But a jury ruled in the officers’ favor in 2010 and awarded them $5.8 million in damages.
The MTA appealed, and one week later, a Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lottie Wilkins shocked the ex-cops by throwing out the jury verdict.
Wilkins based her decision on a 1986 ruling that the MTA was only liable to protect passengers.
The appellate judges said Wilkins was viewing the 1986 decision too narrowly “had no application here because the plaintiffs were police officers.”
“This was error,” they ruled.
_______________________________________________________________________
NYPD's Alleged ‘Manufactured Marijuana Arrests’ and Profiling
Blacks Say NYPD Racially Profiles in Bronx
By ADAM KLASFELD — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The Courthouse News Service’ / Pasadena, CA
MANHATTAN (CN) - New York City police racially profile black people to "manufacture" marijuana offenses against people, five Bronx residents claim in Federal Court.
Lead plaintiff Maurosol Felix sued New York City, NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, two deputy inspectors, a captain, nine officers and 14 Officer Does.
They claim the NYPD trumped up minor marijuana violations as misdemeanors, charging them with crimes the "men did not commit and which, shockingly, the charging police officers knew they did not commit."
The lawsuit comes after a widely publicized trial on the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy, which allegedly targets black people.
The plaintiffs in this case, as in the stop and frisk case, claim that the NYPD holds officers to an illegal quota system for such arrests.
Under New York law, a person who carries less than 25 grams of marijuana cannot serve jail time on a first offense and faces a maximum fine of $100 for a violation.
But the plaintiffs claim that police "manufactured misdemeanors" against them by writing up the violations under a statute that punishes possession of marijuana that is "burning or open to public view," which can lead to pre-arraignment and post-trial incarceration and inclusion in a criminal database.
Felix, 42, claims he used the drug medicinally to relieve "a host of illnesses."
As he walked out of a convenience store, defendant Officer Cintron spotted something suspicious in his hand, which was just food, Felix says in the complaint.
Cintron's partner, defendant Officer Edwin Jerez, got out of the car and snuck up from behind him, Felix says.
"Without provocation or justification, defendant Jerez used his body to forcefully and painfully pin Mr. Felix down on the NYPD vehicle," the complaint states.
During a "warrantless, illegal and unjustified search," Cintron found a small amount of marijuana in the inside of his coat pocket, Felix says.
Defendant Officers Guagliardi and Concepcion arrived and put him into a van, according to the complaint.
Felix claims that Guagliardi turned to him during the ride to the 46th Precinct and said, "Don't take this personally. I have a quota to make."
He claims that several Bronx police officers testified about pressure to meet stop-and-frisk arrest quotas in the Floyd v. City of New York class action.
NYPD data submitted as evidence in that case showed that 87 percent of street stops targeted blacks and Latinos.
The Felix plaintiffs claim statistics for marijuana possession "burning or open to public view" arrests are even more racially lopsided.
"From 2003 through 2011, 87.0 percent of people arrested and charged under § 221.10 for possessing marijuana 'burning or open to public view' in New York City were either black or Latino," the complaint states. "Conversely, only 10.2 percent were white. The disparity is even more acute in the Bronx, where the DCJS records show that 95.4 percent of all persons arrested and charged under §221.10 were either black or Latino. Meanwhile, studies show that between 2002 and 2009, among persons between the ages of 18 and 25, a greater percentage of whites used marijuana than either blacks or Latinos."
As in the Floyd case, all of the plaintiffs are black and Latino men who claim police racially profiled them because of pressure to meet quotas.
"As a result of this quota system, and the perverse incentives it imposes, some NYPD officers have developed a policy, practice and custom of lying on criminal complaints - including plaintiffs' - so as to 'justify' charging a misdemeanor rather than a violation," the complaint states.
Plaintiff Angel Sanchez claims his marijuana was so far away from public view that police had to strip him nearly naked to find it.
Sanchez claims he was walking home with a friend when defendant Officer Brian Flynn and two unidentified colleagues approached them.
The officers told his friend to "keep walking," then Flynn slammed Sanchez against a gate, according to the complaint.
Sanchez says that Flynn kept asking, "Where is it?"
Finding nothing, they handcuffed him anyway, drove him down the road and started a strip search, according to the complaint.
"Defendant Flynn kicked Mr. Sanchez's legs apart, opened Mr. Sanchez's pants, and pulled his underwear below his genitals.
"Passersby on the street were able to see Mr. Sanchez's genitals, causing him extreme embarrassment.
"While Mr. Sanchez was standing in the street with his genitals exposed, defendant Flynn touched Mr. Sanchez's testicles for an extended period of time.
"In the midst of defendant Flynn's invasive and illegal search, a bag containing a small amount of marijuana fell from the bottom of Mr. Sanchez's pants onto the street," the complaint states.
Flynn wrote that he saw Sanchez stuff a Ziploc bag with marijuana "into his waistband with his left hand in public view," the complaint states.
Charges against all of the plaintiffs were dismissed after lengthy delays, according to the complaint. (The New York Times this week has run a lengthy series on multi-year delays of trials even for trivial offenses in Bronx courts.)
The five plaintiffs demand punitive damages for constitutional violations and negligence.
They are represented by Sam Shapiro and Katherine Rosenfeld with Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady.
Their co-counsel, Scott Levy of the Bronx Defenders, wrote in a statement: "By lying and needlessly placing people in the criminal justice system, the NYPD is losing the trust of Bronx residents. They feel like the NYPD is out to get them, not to protect them. Ultimately, this makes the community feel less safe."
A New York City Law Department spokesperson played down the claims in an email.
"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," the spokesperson said.
_______________________________________________________________________
NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk ‘Search’
Quinn suggests the scope of NYPD stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional
By Azi Paybarah — Thursday, May 2nd, 2013; 1:49 p.m. ‘Capital New York’ / New York, NY
After New York Police commissioner Ray Kelly said in a televised interview that African-American men were "understopped" by police officers, the only Democratic mayoral candidate who wants to keep Kelly running the department in the next administration said she disagreed with the overall notion.
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said she didn't actually hear Kelly's comments, but that the overall number of stop-and-frisks conducted by the city's police force, and the percentage of those stops that actually produced weapons, suggested that the whole thing was counterproductive and unconstitutional.
"Stops at a level of 700,000 that yielded an insignificant number of guns and contraband is too high," Quinn said. "That is a number that has torn police and communities apart."
She added, "I just don't believe stops at 700,000 are happening in a constitutionally sound way."
Quinn was standing outside the Apple store on 5th Avenue, where she unveiled her "ideas app," with which voters can submit ideas to her campaign.
At the event, I asked Quinn how, as mayor, she would go about reducing the scope of the department's stop-and-frisk program.
Quinn said she would improve training, and keep better track of the tangible results of the stops the police conduct.
"You want to make sure the right level of training" and "make sure officers understand the constitutional construct," she said.
She also said, "You need to be looking at what the stops are yielding."
_______________________________________________________________________
New York City Bar tells mayoral hopefuls to reform, not scrap stop-and-frisk
That was the Bar's advice in its "Policy Recommendations for New York City's Next Mayor."
By Celeste Katz And Corky Siemaszko — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’
Fine tune stop-and-frisk to avoid future legal challenges to the NYPD's controversial crime-fighting strategy.
That was the advice Thursday from the New York City Bar in its "Policy Recommendations for New York City's Next Mayor."
"We believe it would be imprudent for the City to await a court-determined outcome of the lawsuits before making changes to avoid the destructive social consequences of these stops," the influential legal group's report stated.
To that end, the Bar recommends the NYPD:
* Improve training so cops are clear on when and how to make legal stop-and-frisks. They also recommend "sensitivity" training, given that most of the complaints have been from minority neighborhoods.
* Measure a cop's performance by the quality of their stop-and-frisks rather than the quantity. "We believe more focus should be placed on the 'hit rate' of the stops, however defined, so that the results of the stops rather than just the number of stops are gauged," the group said.
* Revamp the UF-250 forms that cops need to fill out after every stop-and-frisk.
"Police officers should be required to fill in the narrative box on the form to provide a meaningful description as to the reason for the stop, and this requirement should be enforced," the group said. Simply checking off "furtive movements," for example, as a reason for stopping someone, is not enough.
* Possession of 25 grams of marijuana or less - as long as it's not in public view - was decriminalized in New York State in 1977. But as a result of stop-and-frisk, hundreds of New Yorkers have been busted because cops are forcing them to take the marijuana out of their pockets - and into public view. The Bar recommends striking the "or open to public view" provision of the law.
* Video record all stop-and-frisks. "Police departments around the country regularly are videotaping interactions during vehicle stops," the document states. "Police departments laud the benefits to the departments of this procedure."
The Bar's recommendations come as the NYPD has been battling a federal class action lawsuit brought by four black New Yorkers who claim they were targeted for stop-and-frisks because of their race.
They are seeking to have the NYPD's policy declared unconstitutional and a monitor appointed by the court to keep tabs on how police make stops.
The NYPD denies it targets people for stop-and-frisks because of their race and say the tactic has helped bring down crime.
All three of the GOP mayoral candidates - Joseph Lhota, John Catsimatidis and George McDonald - agree with the NYPD and say the strategy works fine as it is.
Democratic candidate John Liu says it should be scrapped altogether.
The other Democratic mayoral hopefuls - Christine Quinn, Bill DeBlasio, Sal Albanese and Bill Thompson - all want to make fixes to the stop-and-frisk strategy.
"The Bar Association had added promising ideas to the citywide debate on reforming stop-and-frisk," DeBlasio said. "They merit consideration as we work to bring more accountability to the practice."
_______________________________________________________________________
DOA Black Male Shooting Homi Citied By Bloomberg was Subject of S/Q/F
Grieving Mother Tells of Her Son’s Unpleasant Police Stop
By J. DAVID GOODMAN — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Times’
It was the sort of street stop often pointed to by critics of the Police Department as demeaning: a teenage boy, grabbing a sandwich with friends at a corner deli, suddenly confronted by aggressive officers.
The officers demanded the teenagers come outside, and then frisked them against a wall. The boy was on the phone with his mother; an officer cursed at him to hang up.
The boy was Alphonza Bryant III, the 17-year-old whose killing on a Bronx street corner was cited by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as a prime example of why the police tactic of stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking suspects for guns is so important to the city’s safety.
But a description of Mr. Bryant’s unpleasant encounter with police earlier this year, in an essay by his mother in The Daily News on Thursday, provided another example — one that resonated with the department’s critics.
To them, the stop of Mr. Bryant had elements said to be common to police stops of many young minority men: the swooping in by officers in unmarked cars; the profanity; the quick release with no weapons found and no arrests made or summonses issued. (Nearly 90 percent of stops ended this way last year.)
The officers frisked the teenagers and then left, Mr. Bryant’s mother, Jenaii van Doten, said in an interview on Thursday. “He didn’t get a chance to bring out his ID; they didn’t ask him anything,” she said of the encounter, which she partially overheard during the phone call.
It was not clear whether Mr. Bloomberg had been aware of that stop when he talked of Mr. Bryant’s death during a defense of stop-and-frisk practices at Police Headquarters this week.
The mayor’s office declined to comment on her essay or discuss Mr. Bloomberg’s conversation with her on Wednesday, which Mrs. van Doten said had been limited to condolences. “Nothing political,” she said, adding that she found the call comforting.
Mr. Bryant died in a hail of bullets last month in what police officials described as a case of mistaken identity stemming from a gang dispute. Mr. Bryant was not a member of any street gang, the police have said.
“When police stop and ask a 17-year-old a question based on reasonable suspicion of a crime, there is outrage,” the mayor said in the speech on Tuesday in which he was critical of The New York Times for not covering Mr. Bryant’s death. “Yet when a 17-year-old is standing on the corner near his home at 8:15 in the evening and gets shot and killed, there is silence.”
The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, said on Thursday that he had not read Mrs. van Doten’s article but that “any time an officer curses, obviously, we’re not happy with that.” He said the department had a mechanism for dealing with complaints through the Civilian Complaint Review Board. “If there’s any sort of disrespect, then it should be addressed by the process we have in place,” he said.
Jonathan C. Moore, one of the civil rights lawyers behind a federal lawsuit against the department over its street-stop practices, said Mrs. van Doten’s account showed that police stops “happen to everybody, including victims of violence.”
Mrs. van Doten said her son also told her about another time, about 18 months ago, that he had been stopped and questioned by police as he was returning from his school, the Urban Assembly Bronx Studio School for Writers and Artists in the South Bronx.
That time, the officers peppered him with questions, she said, after her son handed over an identification card with a young-looking photograph on it. “They said, ‘Is this you? Is this you?’ ” she said. “He came home and said, ‘You got to change this ID.’ ” The officers did not exit the car in that encounter, she said.
Mrs. van Doten said that she supported the stop-and-frisk practice but that it needed to be modified.
“Back in my teenage time, I used to live on a very, very bad block, but we knew our officers, we knew our mailman by name, we knew everyone in our community,” she said. “I couldn’t tell you an officer’s name except the ones working on my son’s case.”
Nate Schweber, David W. Chen and Joseph Goldstein contributed reporting.
_______________________________________________________________________
A Good Reason to Leave New York
The explicit racism of Stop and Frisk
By Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 ‘The Atlantic’ / Washington, DC
(Op-Ed / Commentary)
I should be blogging more about the travesty that is Stop and Frisk. I'm sorry about that. In the meantime, here is a quote from Ray Kelly that should shiver any African American in New York:
"It makes no sense to use census data, because half the people you stop would be women," Kelly said. "About 70 percent to 75 percent of the people described as committing violent crimes -- assault, robbery, shootings, grand larceny -- are described as being African American."
"The percentage of people who are stopped is 53 percent African American," he continued. "So really, African Americans are being under stopped in relation to the percentage of people being described as being the perpetrators of violent crime. The stark reality is that crime happens in communities of color."
There's are many problems here. Stop and Frisk isn't simply wrong because of the high number of black people caught its net, it is wrong because of what happens afterward. And while the number of marijuana arrests resulting from Stop and Frisk are appallingly high, the number of actual gun arrests are appallingly low:
Stop-and-frisk has removed thousands of guns from the city's streets -- but the NYPD detained millions of innocent New Yorkers to find them.
A Columbia law professor testified Wednesday that just one gun was recovered for every thousand people stopped from 2004 through June 30, 2012.
"The NYPD hit rate is far less than what you would achieve by chance," Jeffrey Fagan said in Manhattan Federal Court.
Testifying in the federal class-action lawsuit against the city and the NYPD's controversial tactic, Fagan said his analysis of paperwork from 4.4 million stops found guns were confiscated at a rate of roughly one-tenth of 1 percent, or 5,940 firearms.
Knives and other contraband were nabbed in about 1.5% of stops, taking 66,000 weapons off the street, the professor said.
And 12% of the 4.4 million stops during that time period -- roughly 528,000 -- led to an actual arrest or a summons, Fagan said.
Almost 90 percent of African Americans and Latinos stopped and frisked on the street were guilty of no crime at all. Effectively Kelly is saying that innocent black people should simply carry the weight, because a small minority of people who happen to have roughly the same amount of melanin have decided not to. This is precisely what racist policy is -- you create a group and then punish all of them for the sins (sometimes real, sometimes imagined) of a few of them. It is Barbara Fields' Racecraft in action -- the concealing of actual racism beneath a banal heading of race.
One could just as easily say that about 70 percent to 75 percent of the people described as committing violent crimes, could also be described as generational victims of racist policies, like the ones Kelly and Bloomberg are promoting. One could just as easily say the vast majority of violent criminals in New York city hail from neighborhoods that have -- over many generations -- been the victims of a national wealth transfer, the remnants of which are with us even today.
We don't say that. Writers and intellectuals on the Left would much rather talk about class. Same as it ever was. But this isn't going away. We aren't going away.
_______________________________________________________________________
On stop-and-frisk, both sides are wrong
Curb the practice without cuffing the cops
By Rev. David K. Brawley AND Rev. Tyrone Stevenson — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’
New York City’s unprecedented crime reduction has been remarkable for its scale and persistence. But our city has the bad habit of either taking its successes for granted or losing sight of why and how progress was made.
Both supporters and critics of recent police practices — stop-and-frisk in particular — have repeated these mistakes. Supporters incorrectly hold the tactic responsible for building a safer city; critics would have us sacrifice the effective response of the NYPD at the altar of reform.
And the federal judge hearing the stop-and-frisk class action case could well make the situation worse by mandating changes that ignore many of the important lessons of the past 23 years.
Start with the facts. The city’s decrease in crime has been twice as large and lasted twice as long as the national trend. The nightmare years of homicide and mayhem — 2,245 murders in 1990 — are over. Just over 400 murders occurred in 2012. There are more than 30,000 citizens walking the streets who would be dead if the old rates had continued.
There used to be agreement about how all this happened. In his book “The City that Became Safe,” Franklin Zimring summarizes the factors leading to New York’s remarkable resurgence.
He outlines how, beginning in 1990, police staffing levels shot up. The use of Compstat helped direct cops to chronic hot spots. Open-air drug markets were shut down and illegal guns became a concerted focus. Precinct commanders were held strictly accountable.
All of these gains were already in place and fully operating when Mayor Bloomberg and Ray Kelly took the baton from Mayor Giuliani’s administration.
The Bloomberg administration deserves great credit for advancing those hard-won gains. But in the process, the mayor and commissioner lost sight of the difference between doing something well and knowing why it is working.
The mayor and commissioner took one limited tool out of the tool kit — the tool of stopping, questioning and frisking individuals — and led officers to use that tool seven times more often than had been the pattern.
Since then, young minority males have been subjected to stop-and-frisk millions of times. In our congregations, we know of young men who have been stopped more than 10 times and frisked repeatedly despite never having done a thing wrong.
This has serious, pernicious consequences.
We believe that the mayor did not — and does not — grasp the fact that crime had already plummeted before the widespread use of stop-and-frisk and that there is no correlation between the expansion of that tactic and the reduction in crime in New York.
As bad as it has been for the mayor to misunderstand his own achievement, the response of some of his critics has been worse. The call for a new inspector general to look over the NYPD’s shoulder, embraced by many candidates for mayor, is misguided.
The reality is, the mayor can order the police commissioner to use stop-and-frisk more prudently, as it was before 2002, right now. The illusion of oversight is no substitute for the direct line of accountability that runs from City Hall to One Police Plaza.
And judicial intervention — which could be the upshot of Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin ruling against the police — would be worse still. Within broad parameters, police on the streets must have the flexibility to make judgments about situations that are often fluid, fast-moving and dangerous.
We bring to their attention examples of aggressive drug-dealing, ruthless behavior against residents and regular gunfire. We count on them to intervene at risk to themselves, and we hold them accountable if they don’t.
Yes, stop-and-frisk is used too much. No, it’s not the place of an inspector general or a judge to fix that — and effectively handcuff our cops in the process.
_______________________________________________________________________
Former Manhattan DA Blasts Proposed NYPD Oversight
By Unnamed Author(s) — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘NY 1 News’
Former Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau is ripping the idea of an inspector general for the city's police department.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Morgenthau says police already have enough oversight, from local DAs to the U.S. Justice Department.
The inspector general would have the authority to recommend changes to NYPD policy, then send reports to the mayor, the City Council, and the police commissioner.
Morgenthau writes, "This would ensure that nothing gets done. Because everyone would have a small share of oversight responsibilities, no one would take full responsibility or have the power to enact policy changes."
The City Council is considering a bill to create an inspector general, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he would veto the measure.
_______________________________________________________________________
How to Undermine New York's Anti-Crime Success
The NYPD already has layers of oversight. An 'inspector general' would damage accountability and policing.
By ROBERT M. MORGENTHAU — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The Wall Street Journal’ / New York, NY
(Op-Ed / Commentary)
COMMENT: I really have a hard time believing that Morgenthau wrote this commentary himself. Ever see him lately - drooling and dribbling all over himself and nodding out. Really embarrassing! The man can't concentrate for more than a minute or two, and he wrote this op-ed piece? Want to buy a bridge? - Mike Bosak
Pending before New York's City Council is a bill that would create an office of inspector general for the New York Police Department. The office would have authority to investigate and recommend changes to the policies, programs and practices of the NYPD.
Pollsters at Quinnipiac University said last month that 66% of New Yorkers surveyed supported the creation of an inspector general for the department. But the poll also found that 60% approved of the job the police are doing and 65% approved of the job performance of NYPD Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, giving him the highest approval ratings of any city official.
While these contradictory numbers are puzzling, other things are not. We know, for instance, where the political impetus for an inspector general is coming from. With a mayoral primary in full swing, and the NYPD under fire for allegedly profiling minorities as part of the "stop and frisk" policy, the politically easy stance is to pile on and demand more oversight of the city's cops.
The people of New York, not the politicians, are the ones on the front lines when it comes to crime, and the public is rightly satisfied with the decrease in crime and the central role of the police in that decline. Yet some of the poll results suggest that New Yorkers are not aware of the negative consequences that would flow from the passage of a bill establishing a so-called inspector general. That buzzword aside, such an official will be an unnecessary bureaucrat who would, almost by definition, impede the NYPD's efforts to keep the city's people safe.
There has been an impressive decline in crime in New York City over the past 11 years under the leadership of Commissioner Kelly. The quantifiable statistics are hard to argue with: Murders were down to 414 in 2012—compared with 587 in 2002—and overall crime has for the most part fallen steadily. The number of murders involving firearms dropped to 240 in 2012 from 434 in 2000—a 45% reduction.
The number of police-involved shootings resulting in injury has also remained low, with 28 incidents in 2011 and 24 in 2010. In stark contrast, Los Angeles (with half the population of New York), Chicago (one-third), and Philadelphia (less than one-fifth) all had more police-involved shootings in 2011 and 2010. Notably, those three cities have police monitors with responsibilities similar to those proposed for a NYPD inspector general.
Furthermore, the number of fatal shootings by the NYPD was lower than those of the police departments in Chicago and Philadelphia. (The LAPD does not release this statistic.) Taken together, these numbers demonstrate that without an inspector general, the police in New York have been more restrained than the police in cities with the oversight of an inspector-general-type office.
The NYPD has also been instrumental in protecting the city from terrorist attacks. The police and partner law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the state police, have foiled 16 terrorist plots in the past decade. After Boston, we should be expressing gratitude to the police. People have forgotten how to say "thank you."
The NYPD's successes in preserving public safety are the result of sound police practices, deployment, training and oversight. Yet even if they were not, the inspector-general bill ignores the fact that numerous agencies and officials already oversee the NYPD.
More than 700 officers are assigned to the department's Internal Affairs Bureau, which reviews allegations of police misconduct and can recommend disciplinary actions. Reports from the public about police misconduct are heard by the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which has a $12 million budget and has the power to subpoena individuals and to conduct trials.
The city's Commission to Combat Police Corruption, which also has subpoena power, examines the policies and conditions within the NYPD that might lead to corruption. New York's Department of Investigation can delve into the NYPD as well, and it already has the authority to appoint an inspector general if the Department of Investigation finds one necessary—which it so far has not.
Beyond that, the NYPD falls within the jurisdictions of five district attorneys assisted by the FBI and two U.S. attorneys. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has the authority to investigate and prosecute police misconduct relating to civil rights.
These watchdogs' monitoring efforts have been effective rather than chaotic because there has always been a clear line of responsibility that ends with the mayor. When NYPD policies or procedures are in need of change, the mayor has authority to quickly implement any revisions.
The creation of an inspector-general's office would diffuse this responsibility and create burdensome red tape. The current proposal would authorize a newly created office to review and make recommendations about NYPD policies. Its written reports would be forwarded to the mayor, the City Council and the police commissioner. This would ensure that nothing gets done. Because everyone would have a small share of the oversight responsibilities, no one would take full responsibility or have the power to enact policy changes.
The bill also requires the police commissioner to respond to any written report from the inspector general within 90 days. If the inspector general receives a flood of complaints and ends up conducting many investigations and writing numerous reports, the burden of preparing responses in such a short span of time would overwhelm the commissioner's office.
As for the issue underlying the inspector-general proposal, a pending case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Floyd v. New York City) is another reminder that the judiciary is already occupying this space with a thorough review of police practices on "stop and frisk." Voters dissatisfied with Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "stop and frisk" policy can also effect change by electing a mayor who opposes the policy.
There is neither room nor need for a new bureaucrat to add his or her opinion on the issue. Those who seek political advantage by embroiling the police department in a political campaign don't serve the public interest.
Mr. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney from 1975 to 2009, is of counsel with the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
_______________________________________________________________________
Intelligence Division C.O. Assistant Chief Thomas Galati
Why Would The Head Of The NYPD's Intelligence Unit Police A Small Protest?
By Christopher Robbins — Thursday, May 2nd, 2013; 3:05 p.m. ‘The Gothamist’ / New York, NY
The NYPD's Intelligence Division, whose Muslim surveillance program was recently profiled in a series of explosive AP reports, had a budget of around $63 million last year. According to the department's recruitment website, the nearly 800 officers working for Intelligence hold advanced graduate degrees in law, physics, and international affairs. The division oversees an array of undercover officers who speak a variety of languages and, to use the mayor's words, "keep this country safe." Its head of day-to-day operations is Assistant Chief Thomas Galati, who was promoted to the post in 2008, and coordinates the NYPD's investigations with the FBI, DHS, and other federal agencies. So why would Chief Galati police a 90-minute march of 100 protesters as it wound around the East Village yesterday?
As we have previously noted, the NYPD's leadership seems particularly inclined to mix things up with protesters. Former Chief of Department Joseph Esposito, the NYPD's second in command, was seen forcefully shoving Occupy Wall Street protesters with his baton. The officer who precipitated the four violent arrests during yesterday's anti-capitalism march was the commanding officer of the 9th Precinct, Deputy Inspector John Cappelmann.
Though he was never far from the scrum, we didn't witness Chief Galati make any arrests. Galati, who in 1989 was awarded the department's third-highest honor, the Medal of Valor, would have been invisible amongst the heavy NYPD presence if it weren't for the two stars on his collar designating his rank. In 2011 Galati received an award from the Anti-Defamation League "in recognition of his courage and dedication to the safety and security of one of the nation's largest metropolitan populations."
Last summer, Chief Galati testified that the Intelligence Division's Demographics Unit, which spied on Muslim communities across the eastern seaboard, had generated zero leads. "I never made a lead from rhetoric that came from a Demographics report, and I'm here since 2006," Galati said.
A report co-authored by a clinical arm of the CUNY School of Law later showed that the program, which began in 2002, "creates a pervasive climate of fear and suspicion that encroaches upon every aspect of [Muslim community members'] religious, political, and community lives."
The NYPD's top press spokesman, Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, declined to confirm whether Galati policed the march.
_______________________________________________________________________
Security tightened for this weekend’s Five Boro Bike Tour: NYPD
This Sunday’s cycling event takes on an added significance because it’s the first citywide event since last month’s Boston Marathon terror bombings.
By Rocco Parascandola — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’
Security will be so tight at a citywide bike tour this weekend that even those taking the ferry to Manhattan will get a police escort, the NYPD said Wednesday.
The TD Five Boro Bike Tour on Sunday takes on an added significance because it’s the first citywide event since the April 15 terror bombings that killed three people and injured more than 260 others at the Boston Marathon.
The 40-mile tour — 32,000 bicyclists starting in Tribeca and ending on Staten Island — does not draw anywhere near the crowds of the New York City Marathon.
Still, “a significant amount of police protection” will be dedicated to the event, said Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, the NYPD’s top spokesman.
Even before the race starts, cops assigned to the Counterterrorism Bureau will be in each borough, driving along the route in vehicles equipped with “360-degree video” cameras that will feed into the NYPD’s Lower Manhattan Security Initiative Coordination Center.
Ferry riders into Manhattan, meanwhile, will be escorted by NYPD harbor boats — and participants will also have a virtual NYPD escort, with cops on scooters and bicycles riding alongside them throughout the daylong event.
A source said some bicycle cops will be in plainclothes and will pose as riders.
Browne also said that for the first time backpacks will be prohibited, the ban enforced not just by cops, but also by volunteers and private security. He said the ban was recommended by the organizer but it’s “something we fully endorse.”
The race, which kicks off at Church and Franklin Sts. in Tribeca, takes places in stages beginning at 7:45 a.m., 8:30 a.m. and 9:15 a.m.
The Bomb Squad, plus dogs that can detect both bombs and vapors from certain toxins and explosives, are also assigned to the event.
“They’ll be paying particular attention to choke points where cyclists group together and move more slowly,” Browne said.
_______________________________________________________________________
Boston Police Headed To NYC To Learn About Security In Times Square
Authorities Wants To Know How NYPD Handles High Risk Events
By Unnamed Author(s) (CBS News - New York) — Friday, May 3rd, 2013; 7:53 a.m. EDT
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – Boston police will be coming to New York City to learn how to better protect people at big events.
Just over two weeks since the Boston Marathon bombings, Boston police are studying ways to improve security for upcoming events.
Boston’s next major gathering is Independence Day on the Esplanade, where hundreds of thousands go to for an annual fireworks show.
Superintendent Paul Fitzgerald, the chief intelligence official for the Boston Police Department, said Boston police will be coming to New York to learn how the NYPD handles large crowds at high risk events.
“We’re heading to New York City to learn about the Times Square plan that they’ve put in place for New Year’s,” Fitzgerald told WBZ in Boston. “Because clearly, that’s a very high risk event that they run there, but they’re so helpful to us we’re going to go down and see how they run that event.”
Fitzgerald said he is interested in the elaborate partitioning system the NYPD uses to control massive crowds. He said a similar layout could be implemented for future events in Boston.
“I’ve always felt and my department has, that Boston would be a primary target,” said Fitzgerald.
_______________________________________________________________________
Manhattan D.A.O. and the ‘Central Park Five’
From ‘Central Park Five’ Case, a Lesson in Assigning Blame
By JIM DWYER — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Times’
(Op-Ed / Commentary)
On the night of April 16, Frank Chi, watching television, became upset by the documentary “The Central Park Five,” about an attack on a jogger in 1989 and how the world responded to it.
Mr. Chi searched the Internet for the lawyer who prosecuted the case, Elizabeth Lederer. He saw that she was still an assistant district attorney in Manhattan, and is an adjunct member of the faculty at the School of Law at Columbia.
Mr. Chi posted to Twitter, truncating some words to make them fit.
“Amazing that Elizabeth Lederer teachs at @ColumbiaLaw,” he wrote. “Doe she teach how to force false confessions?”
Others replied on Twitter, noting that Ms. Lederer’s online faculty biography mentioned that she had been the prosecutor in the case. Even before the documentary concluded that night, Mr. Chi, 28, a political consultant to Democrats who uses digital tools, had set up an online petition and posted the link on Twitter.
He wrote:
“#CP5, #CentraParkFive: Sign this petition: Columbia University Law School: Fire Elizabeth Lederer as Lecturer in Law.”
As of Thursday, more than 5,000 people had signed.
“It snowballed,” Mr. Chi said in a telephone interview. “It really hit a nerve.”
He had known little about the case, which involved the wrongful conviction of five teenage boys from Harlem, before seeing the documentary. It was broadcast on PBS and was made by Ken Burns, Sarah Burns and David McMahon. “I have no involvement with Columbia,” Mr. Chi said. “I have no connection to the case. I’m just a Ken Burns fan, and I was really outraged.”
He asked Mr. Burns, through Twitter, to support the petition drive.
But Mr. Burns said on Thursday that he and the other filmmakers wanted nothing to do with the campaign. “It is just simple retribution, and we are appalled by it,” he said. “We don’t subscribe to any of it.”
The petition against Ms. Lederer, in part, reduces her life in public service to a single moment, the jogger case. In fact, she has a lengthy résumé of unchallenged convictions in cold cases, having pursued investigations of forgotten crimes. No one lives without error. And designating a single villain completely misses the point and power of the documentary. The jogger case belongs to a historical moment, not any one prosecutor or detective; it grew in the soils of a rancid, angry, fearful time.
Politicians called for blood. Donald Trump campaigned for the return of the death penalty. Much of the news media failed to note the vast inconsistencies in the case. Among the skeptics, people like me had mumbled, rather than shouted, our doubts.
Advocates for the accused were undercut by demonstrators who marched outside the courthouse in 1990, and chanted that the attack had been a hoax or that the jogger’s boyfriend had done it. At least two defense lawyers dozed through parts of the trials. At parole hearings, the boys denied having any contact with the jogger, but acknowledged having been in the park that night with a mob that had hassled or hurt others.
Ms. Lederer wrongly told the jury that hair found in the clothing of one of the boys “matched” hair from the victim, a seeming corroboration of the confused, rambling confessions. Even at the time, that overstated the evidence. More than a decade later, DNA tests would show that the hair did not come from the jogger.
Mistakes were made. But not just by Elizabeth Lederer, who is not discussing the matter in public.
In 2002, the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, came to believe that the five young men almost certainly had nothing to do with the crime. A serial rapist and killer had come forward and persuasively said that he alone had attacked the jogger. After an investigation, Mr. Morgenthau asked that the convictions be overturned.
(A fund-raiser on May 14 for his successor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., is being hosted by Linda Fairstein, the former chief of the unit that prosecuted the case, who continues to insist that the right people were convicted.)
The petition organizer, Mr. Chi, acknowledged that the film had indeed made clear that the case had been a collective failure. So why single out Ms. Lederer? “Columbia Law had spun her involvement in the Central Park case in a positive way on the faculty page,” Mr. Chi said. “I’m glad that I did it.”
Mention of the case has been removed from her online Columbia biography.
That is not all the petition has accomplished. It was a simple task to discover Elizabeth Lederer on Google, just as those boys were easy to find in the park. The petition has found someone to blame, repeating the very mistake of the injustice it deplores.
_______________________________________________________________________
Westchester
Police officer who worked at Ground Zero dies at 52
Former detective Charles Wassil had an inflammatory disease he contracted after working in rubble.
By Terence Corcoran — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The Journal News’ / White Plains, NY
NOTE: Retired Peekskill PD Detective and an NYPD police officer for 6 years. - Mike
PEEKSKILL, N.Y. -- A former Marine and Peekskill, N.Y., police detective who helped search for 9/11 remains, died Wednesday of sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease he contracted after responding to Ground Zero.
Charles "Charlie" Wassil was 52.
Wassil spent hours searching for victims and hauling buckets of rubble. The disease forced him into retirement in 2010.
Numerous studies have been conducted on whether there is a correlation between respiratory illnesses and working at the World Trade Center site.
A March 2011 study in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine found that "sarcoid like granulomatous pulmonary disease is present among the WTC responders."
According to New York City's 9/11 Health site, several studies suggest that World Trade Center exposure is associated with sarcoidosis among recovery, rescue and clean-up workers.
In addition, 9/11 Health -- a site developed by the New York City Department of Health that is devoted to the latest scientific information on 9/11-related health problems -- reports that one in 10 enrollees in the Health Department's World Trade Center Health Registry developed "new-onset asthma within six years of 9/11," which is described as three times the national rate.
The mood was somber Thursday morning at Peekskill Police Headquarters.
"Charlie was rough and tumble guy on the outside but, underneath, he was a compassionate and caring individual who wanted to help people," said Chief Eric Johansen.
"He really gave it his all, whether it was a missing-person case, a homicide or stolen jewelry. He always recognized that each case was important to the victim and that's why he was successful."
Wassil served in the Marines from 1977-83 before joining the New York City Police Department in 1986, then the Peekskill Police Department in 1992.
Wassil investigated murders and worked on major drug cases but was up for anything. In June 2008, when a wayward bear was roaming through Peekskill, Wassil cornered it with his car and forced it up a tree, where state workers tranquilized and removed it.
In a profile in The (Westchester County, N.Y.) Journal News as the 10th anniversary of the attacks approached, Wassil recalled spending a week sifting through debris at Ground Zero. Three months after Sept. 11, he started coughing.
At the time of the interview, he was being cared for at the Bethel Nursing & Rehabilitation Center in Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
"I can't get out of bed without help. I can't eat without help. I can't drink. I can't go to the bathroom by myself," he said. "I wouldn't wish this on anyone."
But Wassil said he didn't consider himself a hero.
"The firemen who ran into the building that day, the cops, they are the real heroes," he said.
Wassil was a licensed pilot, and a member of the "Wild Pigs" Police Motorcycle Club.
"We're sad, but we're happy to have known Charlie and we're glad he's no longer suffering," Johansen said.
Wassil is survived by his wife, Angela Vigorito Wassil, whom he married May 11, 2012, a sister, Judy Ryan, and a niece, Laura Rutkoski.
_______________________________________________________________________
Long Island
Retired Deputy Chief John Hunter pleads guilty in police misconduct case
By WILLIAM MURPHY — Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 ‘New York Newsday’ / Melville, L.I.
A retired Nassau County police commander pleaded guilty Wednesday to official misconduct for trying to help derail burglary charges against the son of a man who donated money to police causes.
Under a plea agreement with prosecutors, former deputy patrol chief John Hunter avoided jail time. He was sentenced instead to 3 years of probation and 500 hours of community service.
Hunter also must make a training video for police recruits on how to avoid his mistakes.
"I violated my duty as a member of the Nassau County Police Department, which I will forever regret," Hunter told State Supreme Court Justice Mark Cohen. "I apologize for any embarrassment I have caused the police department I have loved and served for 35 years."
The corruption case is tied to the 2009 burglary of $11,000 worth of electronics equipment from John F. Kennedy High School in Bellmore.
Gary Parker -- a Manhattan accountant and a longtime police donor -- allegedly enlisted the help of high-ranking police friends to thwart the arrest of his son, Zachary. Police did not charge the young burglar, but the district attorney convened a grand jury that indicted him.
Convicted of the crime, Zachary Parker, 21, of Merrick, is now serving 1 to 3 years in jail. He was sentenced in September.
Three now-retired police officials -- Hunter; William Flanagan, deputy commissioner; and Alan Sharpe, a detective supervisor -- were charged with playing roles in the arrest prevention.
Flanagan was convicted in February of misdemeanor official misconduct, but the jury acquitted him of the only felony charge: receiving a reward for official misconduct. He is awaiting sentencing June 26 and faces up to a year in jail.
Sharpe is awaiting trial on official misconduct charges, also misdemeanors, that include an allegation that he closed out the Parker burglary case on department computers on Sept. 19, 2010, by falsely claiming the school did not want to press charges. He is due back in court May 15.
"We brought these cases to make sure that there isn't one set of rules for the rich and connected, and another for everyone else," Nassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice said Wednesday in a statement.
"John Hunter violated his oath and the law when he gave special treatment to a wealthy friend's son, and today's guilty plea ensures that he will face serious consequences for his conduct," she added.
Hunter, 60, of Oyster Bay, had faced up to a year in jail if convicted of the misdemeanor charges: two counts of official misconduct and one count of conspiracy.
The conviction in Nassau County Court doesn't affect his pension or a $415,300 lump-sum payment for accrued sick leave and unused time off, authorities said. He will also be allowed to keep his pistol and carry permit.
The indictment said Hunter was "instrumental" in getting Zachary Parker a job as an employee of the department's ambulance unit in 2008, and had several email exchanges with his father about how the school burglary incident in 2009 would be handled.
During the Flanagan trial, Gary Parker testified that he organized and paid for dinners attended by law enforcement officials, hosted parties for them in the backyard of his Merrick home, got them seats at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade and tickets to Yankees games.
He said that after he learned of his son's theft, he phoned Hunter and asked to meet him at a diner.
"I expressed incredible disappointment in Zach, and as a friend he was very comforting to me. I literally sat there and cried," Parker testified. He said he asked Hunter to "put in a good word" for his son.
_______________________________________________________________________
Deliberate silence as former Nassau police official pleads
By JOYE BROWN — Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 ‘New York Newsday’ / Melville, L.I.
(Op-Ed / Commentary)
John Hunter, Nassau's retired deputy chief of patrol, became the second former high-ranking member of the department convicted of official misconduct.
There was no crowd of friends and supporters in the courtroom when Hunter made his plea to two counts of official misconduct and one of conspiracy, all misdemeanors. His defense lawyer said Hunter didn't want them there.
The silence in the hallway outside the courtroom, the mostly empty benches inside the room, offered a sharp contrast to what had happened during the trial of Hunter's superior, William Flanagan, a retired second deputy commissioner.
Flanagan was convicted, after a jury trial earlier this year, of the same three misdemeanors as Hunter. At sentencing, he could face up to a year in jail. Flanagan had plentiful -- and often, in the hallway outside the court, vocal -- supporters during his trial. Former police commissioner Lawrence Mulvey even visited once.
Wednesday was different. Somber even.
Hunter, to his credit, openly acknowledged his guilt in conspiring with others to stop the arrest of Zachary Parker, who later would plead guilty to taking about $11,000 worth of electrical equipment from his high school in Bellmore.
He also, among other things, acknowledged directing retired Seventh Precinct Squad Deputy Cmdr. Alan Sharpe -- the third defendant, whose case is still pending -- to return stolen property to the high school.
That property, according to testimony in Flanagan's trial, should have been cataloged as evidence instead.
In a statement to the court, Hunter apologized to his former department and his former colleagues. He continued to call Parker's father, Gary, his friend, and described himself as Parker's former mentor.
At sentencing, Hunter received probation, community service and the right to keep his gun permit. He also gets to keep the generous pension he earned working 35 years for the department.
Hunter's crimes, however, hurt more than himself and his family.
They've stained the reputation of Nassau's police department, leaving every officer, every supervisor responsible for rebuilding the public's trust.
There are plenty of fathers and sons facing serious criminal charges who would appreciate having evidence in a felony case disappear.
Hunter and Flanagan went out of their way -- elbowing away department protocol -- to make that happen for a wealthy friend and generous supporter of the department.
In Flanagan's case, a jury said that was wrong -- and a crime. Hunter acknowledged the same Wednesday, too. But it's not his task to set things right.
That now rests with the department his crimes soiled.
It is essential that the public expect that crimes will be investigated; and that criminals will be arrested. That did not happen in Parker's case. What Hunter and Flanagan did might never have been made public either, had the DA's office not been determined to take on the case.
Now we know what can happen when police aggressively put friends before the public interest. It was, and should continue to be, a crime.
_______________________________________________________________________
New Jersey
Joanne Chesimard, militant cop killer, becomes first woman on FBI’s most wanted terrorists list
Assata Shakur, whose original name is Joanne Chesimard, was a member of the Black Liberation Army. She killed a New Jersey state trooper 40 years ago. She has been on the run since escaping prison in 1979, at which time she fled to Cuba.
By JOSEPH STRAW — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’
WASHINGTON — For the first time, the FBI has put a woman on its most wanted terrorists list — Joanne Chesimard, the Queens-born radical who shot dead a New Jersey state trooper, escaped from prison and fled to Cuba.
Acting on the 40th anniversary of her infamous crime, the FBI also doubled the reward for her capture to $2 million.
“This case is just as important today as it was when it happened 40 years ago,” New Jersey State Police Lt. Mike Rinaldi said.
Chesimard, 65, still lives in Cuba under a grant of asylum and happens to be the godmother and aunt of the deceased hip-hop icon Tupac Shakur.
In the turbulent early 1970s, she was the “mother hen” of the militant Black Liberation Army, a group blamed in the execution-style murders of four NYPD officers in 1971 and 1972.
She was wanted in a spree of city robberies and attacks on cops when she and two accomplices were pulled over on the New Jersey Turnpike on May 2, 1973.
A gunfight erupted and Chesimard shot Trooper Werner Foerster, 34, twice in the head with his own sidearm as he lay on the ground.
She was captured, convicted and sentenced to life in prison, but only served two years behind bars.
In 1979, three Black Liberation Army members making a prison visit drew pistols, took guards as hostages and commandeered a prison van, spiriting Chesimard to a waiting getaway car — all in broad daylight.
She emerged five years later in Cuba, given asylum by Fidel Castro, who cast her as a victim of U.S. racism.
“She continues to flaunt her freedom in the face of this horrific crime,” State Police Superintendent Col. Rick Fuentes said. He called the case “an open wound,” saying her escape “has only increased our resolve to bring her back to finish her prison term.”
The designation followed the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which defined domestic terrorism as illegal actions that are “dangerous to human life” and appear intended to “coerce a civilian population,” “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”
Trooper James Harper was wounded in the Turnpike shootout. A passenger in Chesimard’s car, Black Liberation Army member James Coston, was killed. The driver, Clarke Squire, remains in prison.
_______________________________________________________________________
Aging Fugitive Joanne Chesimard Is First Woman on Most Wanted Terrorists List
By AARON KATERSKY — Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 ‘ABC News’
Joanne Chesimard, a left-wing militant who shot a state trooper on the New Jersey Turnpike 40 years ago today, has become the first woman on the FBI's list of Most Wanted Terrorists.
"Joanne Chesimard is a domestic terrorist who murdered a law enforcement officer execution-style," said Aaron Ford, special agent in charge of the FBI's Newark Division.
Chesimard, a fugitive living in Cuba under the name Assata Shakur, was a member of the Black Liberation Army in 1973 when she shot and killed Trooper Werner Foerster during a traffic stop.
According to a state police account, "Foerster was severely wounded in his right arm and abdomen and then executed with his own service weapon on the roadside. Chesimard's jammed handgun was found at Foerster's side."
Chesimard, now 65, was convicted in 1977. Two years later she escaped from the prison where she was serving a life sentence, spent time in a series of safe houses in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and fled in 1984 to Cuba, where New Jersey State Police Col. Rick Fuentes said she "flaunts her freedom."
"To this day from her safe haven in Cuba Chesimard has been given a pulpit to preach and profess, stirring supporters and groups to mobilize against the United States by any means necessary," Fuentes said.
The reward for her capture and safe return has been doubled to $2 million.
"We want her to come back here and face justice and serve out her sentence," New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa said.
Chesimard is also known as the godmother of slain rapper Tupac Shakur.
The FBI said Chesimard represents a "supreme terror" to the United States, though she is associated with no new threat. Her supporters believe she was a target of law enforcement's campaign against the Black Panther movement in the 1960s and 1970s.
"I was convicted by—I don't even want to call it a trial, it was lynching, by an all-white jury," Chesimard told BET in 2001. "I had nothing but contempt for the system of justice under which I was tried."
The rapper Common told her story in "A Song for Assata," which caused a stir after Michelle Obama invited him to a White House poetry slam two years ago. The piece contains the lyrics "Your power and pride is beautiful."
_______________________________________________________________________
New Push to Capture Woman in ’73 Killing of State Trooper
By CHRISTOPHER MAAG — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Times’
The end came suddenly for Werner Foerster, a 34-year-old state trooper executed with his own gun on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973. For many others — his widow, the State Police and the woman convicted of his murder — the end remains elusive, postponed these 40 years by a fight over what justice really means.
Law enforcement officials advanced their side of that debate on Thursday by placing Joanne D. Chesimard, who was convicted of the murder in 1977, on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists. She became the first woman named to the list, and only the second domestic terrorist, the agency said.
The reward for Ms. Chesimard’s capture and repatriation from Cuba, where she moved after escaping from prison in 1979, was doubled to $2 million.
“I hope that they can get her,” Trooper Foerster’s widow, Rosa, 72, said from her home in Florida. “She’s still there. She has her freedom, and I don’t have my husband. That’s what’s hard about it.”
Ms. Chesimard was named to the list because she is “a supreme terror against the government” who continues to give speeches espousing revolution and terrorism against the United States, Aaron T. Ford, agent in charge of the F.B.I.’s Newark division, said at a news conference.
“She’s a danger to the American government,” he added.
Ms. Chesimard has proclaimed her innocence and called herself the victim of a racist judicial system. Ms. Chesimard was a member of the Black Panther Party whom the police once called the “soul” of the Black Liberation Army. Those organizations were targeted by the F.B.I.’s Counter Intelligence Program, which used legal and illegal surveillance in an attempt to discredit mostly leftist political organizations in the 1960s and early ’70s.
On May 2, 1973, Trooper Foerster and another trooper stopped a car for a motor vehicle violation with three people inside, including Ms. Chesimard. The F.B.I. says she fired the first shot, wounding the other trooper. One of Ms. Chesimard’s associates was killed along with Trooper Foerster. Ms. Chesimard’s shoulder was hit during the gunfire, and her defenders say she was merely another victim who could not have fired a weapon because of her wound.
“There is no evidence that she in fact either caused the death or was involved in the shooting of the state trooper,” Lennox S. Hinds, 73, a professor of criminal justice at Rutgers who defended Ms. Chesimard in the murder case, said in a telephone interview.
Supporters of Ms. Chesimard, who changed her name to Assata Shakur, see the F.B.I.’s putting her on the list as an attempt by law enforcement officials to capitalize on the 40th anniversary of Trooper Foerster’s murder and on the recent horrors committed by domestic terrorism in the Boston Marathon bombings.
“The allegation that Ms. Shakur is a terrorist is unfounded,” Professor Hinds said. “The attempt at this point by the New Jersey State Police to characterize her as a terrorist is designed to inflame the public who may be unfamiliar with the facts.”
Asked why the State Police was continuing its effort to bring Ms. Chesimard back to prison, Col. Rick Fuentes said: “It closes an open wound. It also sends a message that we will not give up when one of our members dies.”
_______________________________________________________________________
U.S.A.
Joe Biden hasn’t told Obama about new gun plans
By: Reid J. Epstein — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘Politico’ / Arlington, VA
Vice President Joe Biden is planning a new gun control offensive – he just hasn’t told the president yet.
Biden told a group of law enforcement officials Thursday that he is planning even more travel, with trips around the country to stump for a renewed push on expanded background checks and gun-trafficking laws that failed to pass the Senate last month.
But Biden volunteered that he “hasn’t really discussed” his plans with Obama and plans to lead the gun control charge on his own, according to two law enforcement officials who attended the meeting. The 90-minute meeting in Biden’s office was an attempt to move forward after the failed effort on background checks.
Vice President Joe Biden is planning a new gun control offensive – one he told a group of law enforcement officials he hasn’t informed President Barack Obama about yet.
Biden will appear Friday night at a South Carolina Democratic dinner that’s his first stop in a key 2016 primary state. He told the law enforcement officials Thursday that he is planning even more travel, with trips around the country to stump for a renewed push on expanded background checks and gun-trafficking laws that failed to pass the Senate last month.
The vice president rattled off poll numbers for senators the White House and its gun control allies think they can win over, and said he’ll lead the effort to tweak legislation to give recalcitrant senators the cover to vote for expanded background checks.
But Biden volunteered that he “hasn’t really discussed” his plans with Obama and plans to lead the gun control charge, according to a person who attended the meeting. Another law enforcement official who was present confirmed this account.
“He was talking like he was going to be leading it,” a person who was at the meeting said. “He didn’t mention any other senators in terms of leading the charge.”
Biden’s suggestion that he hasn’t informed Obama of his plans echoes statements he made in December and January when he held a series of meetings with advocates interested in curbing gun violence. At that time, Biden said he would gather gun control proposals and determine which ones to take to the president.
Biden, of course, also has a history of getting himself ahead of Obama on issues, most notably on gay marriage. Biden last year told “Meet the Press” that he supported gay marriage before Obama had himself announced he supported it.
Days later, after a frenzy of criticism, Obama announced that he too supported gay marriage, but not without signaling his frustration with Biden, who he said got “a little bit over his skis.”
White House officials said Obama had planned to finish his “evolution” — as he famously described his gay marriage position in 2010 — on the issue later in the year but said Biden forced his hand.
The meeting in Biden’s ceremonial office followed a similar session last week for leading gun control groups. Like that meeting, Thursday’s gathering focused more on what will happen next than what mistakes led to the failure of the background checks bill offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
“His candid request was for us to tell him what can be done differently,” said Jon Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. “His sense was not to go back to the drawing board with the same thing that just lost.”
Adler added: “You bet on a horse and lose, you’re not going to bet on the same exact horse in the same race.”
People who attended the meeting also said Biden agreed with a characterization that the White House and gun control allies failed to properly educate the public about what was in the Manchin-Toomey bill.
The White House referred questions to Biden’s office, which declined to comment on the meeting.
During the meeting, Biden and an aide ticked through polling data for a handful of senators targeted by gun control groups after the background checks vote failed. To the law enforcement officials, he cited polling that shows Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have seen precipitous drops in their approval ratings since last month’s vote.
Biden also told the group that he plans to travel to those senators’ home states to push for background checks.
“He’s going to go on a road trip,” said Aaron Kennard, the executive director of the National Sheriffs Association. “He’s going to meet with the constituents in the states that voted against it and see if he can rally some support.”
Adler said Biden was optimistic throughout the meeting.
“The point he was trying to illustrate was we shouldn’t despair,” Adler said. “He said the outcome shouldn’t be a disincentive for us to move forward.”
Biden also boasted that he won the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), a red-state Democrat facing re-election in 2014, thanks to pre-existing family relationships.
“He took credit for Landrieu,” said one law enforcement official who attended the meeting. “He said, ‘I used my long relationship with her father and her brother and her to get her to vote with us.’”
Landrieu’s father, Moon Landrieu, served in Congress, as New Orleans mayor and secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Her brother, Mitch Landrieu, is now the mayor of New Orleans. Biden headlined a New Orleans fundraiser for Mary Landrieu in January.
Biden didn’t suggest when the a new White House gun control push might begin, but officials with gun control groups and aides to senators working on the issue said no action is likely until after the Senate is finished working on comprehensive immigration reform.
Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson, who attended the session, said Biden is “not inclined to weaken” the Manchin-Toomey expanded background checks proposal.
But Johnson said Biden did make it clear he is trying to find ways to win enough votes to pass a background checks bill.
“The vice president made it clear that he is, that many are trying, to understand why certain elected officials voted no,” said Johnson, who is also chairman of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence. “And he has, as well as many of us, reached out to these individuals and are trying to understand, ‘Why did you vote no?’ And that effort is under way.”
People who attended the meeting also said Biden told the group that he didn’t want to hear criticism from them in the press if he hadn’t heard it first in person.
“He said he wanted everybody to know there or privately later whether they were with him,” said a person who attended the meeting. “He said he didn’t want to be surprised. He said he wouldn’t take it personally, but he didn’t want to find out after the fact.”
And while Biden asked the law enforcement officials for input, one who attended said the meeting was more of a request from the vice president for support than a discussion about what to do next.
“It was a typical dog-and-pony show,” Kennard said. “He does all the talking. We do all the listening.”
_______________________________________________________________________
Kansas gun law is under fire
(Holder May Challenge New Kansas Law Shielding Kansas from Enforcement of Federal Gun Regulations)
By BRAD COOPER — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The Kansas City Star’ / Kansas City, MO
Tensions are flaring between U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Kansas over a new state law shielding guns made in the state from federal regulation.
Holder recently wrote to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, saying the new law conflicts with the U.S. Constitution by potentially putting federal authorities in a legal bind.
“Federal officers … cannot be forced to choose between the risk of a criminal prosecution by a state and the continued performance of their duties,” Holder wrote in a letter dated April 26.
Holder threatened legal action against the state, saying the federal government would do what’s necessary to prevent Kansas from interfering with agents enforcing federal law.
The state is already bracing for litigation. State Attorney General Derek Schmidt has asked the Legislature for $225,000 for the next two years to defend the law.
Swept up in a states’ rights fervor, Kansas and Missouri were two of 31 states this year that considered bills to nullify federal gun-control laws discussed in the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., shooting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“We are standing our ground,” said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association. “We are not only supporting the Second Amendment, but we’re supporting state sovereignty here.
“It is high time that this discussion take place.”
Kansas is believed to be the only state to enact such a law, although a similar measure is awaiting the signature of Alaska’s governor.
The Missouri House passed a bill in late April that made it a felony for federal officials to enforce federal gun laws. It now awaits action in the Senate.
At issue in Kansas is a bill Brownback signed April 17 called the “Second Amendment Protection Act.” It passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support.
The law makes it illegal for federal authorities to apply federal laws to firearms commercially or individually built and owned inside Kansas, as long as the gun stays in the state. The law also protects ammunition and gun accessories from federal law.
Federal agents violating the law would face the lowest-level felony in Kansas, carrying a prison sentence ranging from five to 13 months.
Yet Holder said that under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Kansas cannot prevent federal law enforcement from carrying out its responsibilities.
“And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities,” Holder wrote.
Brownback responded to Holder on Thursday with a letter, saying the law reflected the will of Kansans to protect the sovereignty of their state.
“The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear,” Brownback wrote. “The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right.”
The bill’s primary sponsor, Republican Rep. John Rubin of Shawnee, lashed out at President Barack Obama’s administration as being “wrong on the law.”
He criticized the administration, which he characterized as being more interested in undercutting the rights of law-abiding citizens than rooting out terrorists like the Boston bomber. Rubin, for instance, criticized federal authorities for not classifying the suspects in the case as enemy combatants.
“I wish the Obama administration had the same zeal to go after the true enemies of the United States … that they seemed to have reserved for going after United States citizens standing up for our rights.”
Rep. Emily Perry, an Overland Park Democrat, was one of just 24 House members who voted against the bill. She said testimony from an assistant state attorney general indicated the bill might present legal problems. She also was concerned about the cost of defending the law.
“As a lawyer, I just didn’t feel like I could vote for something that I didn’t think was constitutional,” she said.
Many legal scholars don’t believe states can outright nullify federal laws the way Kansas is trying to do with guns and ammunition.
Even the conservative Heritage Foundation put out a fact sheet titled: “Nullification: Unlawful and unconstitutional.”
Although the think-tank’s paper doesn’t address guns specifically, it states, “There is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally.”
Daniel Weddle, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School, agreed with Holder’s interpretation.
Although the Kansas law may only apply to guns manufactured in Kansas, Weddle said it potentially would have a substantial impact on interstate commerce, which would allow it to be regulated.
For instance, the law would give Kansas gun manufacturers an advantage in the market since their products would be exempt from gun-control laws imposed on out-of-state competitors.
“Kansas has figured out a way to put (gunmaker) Smith & Wesson at an economic disadvantage,” Weddle said.
Looking across the country, Weddle thinks states are miscalculating with laws like this.
“They’re going to cost a good deal of money to defend,” he said, “and I don’t see any way they’re going to win.”
_______________________________________________________________________
Suicide Rates Rise Sharply in U.S.
By TARA PARKER-POPE — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The New York Times’
(Edited for brevity)
Suicide rates among middle-aged Americans have risen sharply in the past decade, prompting concern that a generation of baby boomers who have faced years of economic worry and easy access to prescription painkillers may be particularly vulnerable to self-inflicted harm.
More people now die of suicide than in car accidents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the findings in Friday’s issue of its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and 38,364 suicides.
Suicide has typically been viewed as a problem of teenagers and the elderly, and the surge in suicide rates among middle-aged Americans is surprising.
From 1999 to 2010, the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 rose by nearly 30 percent, to 17.6 deaths per 100,000 people, up from 13.7. Although suicide rates are growing among both middle-aged men and women, far more men take their own lives. The suicide rate for middle-aged men was 27.3 deaths per 100,000, while for women it was 8.1 deaths per 100,000.
The most pronounced increases were seen among men in their 50s, a group in which suicide rates jumped by nearly 50 percent, to about 30 per 100,000. For women, the largest increase was seen in those ages 60 to 64, among whom rates increased by nearly 60 percent, to 7.0 per 100,000.
Suicide rates can be difficult to interpret because of variations in the way local officials report causes of death. But C.D.C. and academic researchers said they were confident that the data documented an actual increase in deaths by suicide and not a statistical anomaly. While reporting of suicides is not always consistent around the country, the current numbers are, if anything, too low.
“It’s vastly underreported,” said Julie Phillips, an associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University who has published research on rising suicide rates. “We know we’re not counting all suicides.”
The reasons for suicide are often complex, and officials and researchers acknowledge that no one can explain with certainty what is behind the rise. But C.D.C. officials cited a number of possible explanations, including that as adolescents people in this generation also posted higher rates of suicide compared with other cohorts.
“It is the baby boomer group where we see the highest rates of suicide,” said the C.D.C.’s deputy director, Ileana Arias. “There may be something about that group, and how they think about life issues and their life choices that may make a difference.”
The rise in suicides may also stem from the economic downturn over the past decade. Historically, suicide rates rise during times of financial stress and economic setbacks. “The increase does coincide with a decrease in financial standing for a lot of families over the same time period,” Dr. Arias said.
Another factor may be the widespread availability of opioid drugs like OxyContin and oxycodone, which can be particularly deadly in large doses.
Although most suicides are still committed using firearms, officials said there was a marked increase in poisoning deaths, which include intentional overdoses of prescription drugs, and hangings. Poisoning deaths were up 24 percent over all during the 10-year period and hangings were up 81 percent.
Dr. Arias noted that the higher suicide rates might be due to a series of life and financial circumstances that are unique to the baby boomer generation. Men and women in that age group are often coping with the stress of caring for aging parents while still providing financial and emotional support to adult children.
_______________________________________________________________________
Florida
Florida court clamps down on cops searching through cellphones
BY JULIE K. BROWN — Friday, May 3rd, 2013 ‘The Miami Herald’ / Miami, FL
At a time when smartphones have become the storehouse of everyone’s personal information, can an arresting officer seize yours and rummage through its contents, then maybe call your business associates and poke your Facebook friends?
They could — but not anymore, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
At least not without a search warrant.
That ruling was applauded as a landmark by civil libertarians and defense attorneys, who argued that the state’s archaic search warrant laws have become outdated in a digital age where people collect endless amounts of personal information on their cellphones.
“What the court is doing is standing up for what little privacy is left in America by saying police don’t have the right to invade our whole life without the authorization of the courts first,’’ said Howard Simon, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
The controversy, which is raging across the nation, was also on the Florida Legislature’s agenda this past session. However, a House bill co-sponsored by Rep. Carlos Trujillo, R-Miami, that would have made fishing expeditions of cellphone information illegal seems destined for the cutting room floor.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, as well as and other sheriffs and prosecutors, denounced the proposed bill, testifying before lawmakers last month that the law would tie the hands of police and ultimately protect drug peddlers, pedophiles and murderers.
“There is going to be evidence that is not going to be obtained because of this decision,’’ Gualtieri said Thursday after the Supreme Court decision. “It takes about four hours to get a search warrant — that’s just the way it is. Cases are going to become more difficult to prosecute.’’
In the past, police and sheriffs deputies were able to view the contents of a suspect’s cellphone the same as a wallet or a briefcase — without the necessity of getting a warrant. The idea was to prevent the subject from pulling out a weapon or destroying or hiding evidence.
But a cellphone and other portable electronic devices aren’t the same as a car’s glove compartment or a suspect’s wallet and briefcase, Simon said.
“The police do not have the right to rummage through a person’s entire life,’’ he said. “It has nothing to do with protecting criminals. People still have a right to privacy even if police may have a legitimate reason for looking through your phone.’’
The ruling still allows arresting officers to take custody of the phone, thereby preventing a suspect from deleting evidence, said former Broward County Sheriff Al Lamberti.
“I think it’s something we can live with,’’ said the ex-lawman, who is now a security consultant.
BSO has been operating under court-ordered cellphone searches for about a year, he said.
“It’s not that difficult to go that extra step and we’ve found out that in court you leave yourselves open to a challenge if you don’t do it.’’
The state court ruling came in the case of Cedric Smallwood, who was arrested in connection with a convenience store robbery in Jacksonville in 2008. Police seized Smallwood’s phone and later identified images on the phone that were relevant to the prosecution. The justices ruled 5-2 that while police had a right to seize his phone, they did not have the right to look at its contents without a warrant.
Cellphones, like home computers, should have a higher expectation of privacy, wrote Justice Fred Lewis.
“Vast amounts of private, personal information can be stored and accessed in or through these small electronic devices, including not just phone numbers and call history, but also photos, videos, bank records, medical information, daily planners, and even correspondence between individuals through applications such as Facebook and Twitter,” he said.
Chuck Drago, a police procedures consultant and former instructor in the execution of search warrants, said most law enforcement officers have known that it was only a matter of time before this decision.
“It’s going to mean more work and it’s going to slow down the investigation. But you overcome it,’’ said Drago, a former assistant police chief in Fort Lauderdale. “Would police like to look at everything they want to look at? Of course. But does the ruling make sense? It does to me.’’
The News Service of Florida contributed to this report.
_______________________________________________________________________
California
Jerry Brown OKs funds to seize guns held illegally
The governor approves $24 million to confiscate weapons from people who can no longer own them due to criminal convictions, restraining orders or mental illness.
By Patrick McGreevy — Thursday, May 2nd, 2013; ‘The Los Angeles Times’ / Los Angeles, CA
SACRAMENTO — The state will send dozens of new agents into California neighborhoods this summer to confiscate nearly 40,000 handguns and assault rifles from people barred by law from owning firearms, officials said Wednesday.
The plan received the green light Wednesday, when Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation providing $24 million to clear the backlog of weapons known to be in the hands of about 20,000 people who acquired them legally. They were later disqualified because of criminal convictions, restraining orders or serious mental illness.
The bill is the first of more than a dozen gun measures introduced by California lawmakers after the December massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
"This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals," said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.
California is the only state in the nation to operate a database that cross-references gun owners with those who are subsequently disqualified from owning firearms. But budget cuts have prevented the state Department of Justice from keeping up with the list, which grows by 15 to 20 names every day, officials said.
The new funds will allow the department to hire 36 additional special agents and support staff, with the first officers expected to hit the streets in July, said Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. The money comes from a surplus in fees paid for background checks by people purchasing guns.
The new agents will work primarily in cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and Riverside, which have requested additional help, Gledhill said. The effort is expected to take three years.
"Our reinvestment in this tracking program gives us the opportunity to confiscate" guns from those who should not have them, said state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), author of the legislation.
Opponents of the measure include the National Rifle Assn. of America and Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, who said any confiscation campaign should be paid for by the state general fund.
"Going after criminals is a good thing, but the way they are paying for it is grossly unfair," Paredes said. "They are putting the entire burden on the back of law-abiding gun purchasers."
Paredes said some gun owners may not know that they are disqualified from possessing guns for reasons that include, for example, a restraining order in a domestic violence case. He said an education campaign urging people to turn in weapons would be less costly and safer than sending out armed agents.
Some Republican lawmakers voted against the bill, SB 140, because they too objected to tapping money not intended for the new purpose. Other Republican legislators supported the allocation, helping to give it two-thirds approval in both houses.
Of the gun owners on the prohibition list, 32% were disqualified by conviction on a felony or a violent misdemeanor, Gledhill said. About 30% were disqualified for mental health reasons, including court determinations that they are dangerous; 20% are the subject of an active restraining order for cases including domestic violence; 18% are wanted by authorities for violent crimes.
The existing squad of 33 special agents investigated nearly 4,000 people and seized about that same number of weapons, including 300 assault weapons, during the last two years, officials said.
"California is leading the nation in a common-sense effort to protect public safety by taking guns away from dangerous, violent individuals who are prohibited by law from owning them," Harris said in a prepared statement.
The California Legislature is still considering measures that would require ammunition purchasers to pay for a permit, close loopholes on the existing assault rifle ban and impose a nickel-per-bullet tax to pay for mental health programs.
The Democratic governor, who has said he owns guns, has not taken a public position on the remaining bills.
_______________________________________________________________________
Mike Bosak
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment