New York's Finest

[Lucky]

It's a tough time to be a New York police officer, as the department has been taking it on the chin in several instances lately. The Occupy Wall Street protests have gained the most attention, as white-shirted police bosses have pepper-sprayed protesters, punched one, and ran over another's leg with a police scooter. The police seem stymied in how to deal with the protest movement, and have, if anything, drawn even more attention to it.

But that's not the worst of it. Some 500 officers came under investigation in a ticket fixing scandal. But worst of all are revelations this week that some officers actually made a custom of planting narcotics on innocent people to make their arrest quotas. For me, that's actually the scariest thing coming out of the news this week in New York.

With such a huge department, there is no doubt that many bad apples will be in the bunch. Innocent, law-abiding police officers must suffer the hurt to their families and their reputation as these scofflaw officers take priority in the publicity mill. Yet the blue wall of silence keeps them from speaking out against officers who commit crimes, to their won detriment. It's hard to be the finest if you cannot even police your own department.

[lookin]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an uproar over the NYPD's surveillance program, originally designed to collect information on "terrorists" but certainly capable of collecting information on anyone else the largely unregulated officials decide is worth a second look.

Of course, these kinds of programs are pretty easy to get up and running when those whose rights and privacy are being violated are widely considered "dangerous" and "collateral damage" is a small price to pay, but what happens when a group that one of us belongs to is labelled "dangerous" by somebody, somewhere? And what happens when one of us gets included in the "collateral damage"?

Frankly, the mere existence of such technology gives me the willies.

Let alone some kind of undercover operation at Club 39.

Judge asked to review monitoring of Muslims *

Black New Yorkers fear 'siege'

New York's camera system will be better than London's

* Link is busted; here's the article:

Judge Is Asked to Allow Review of Police Dept. Monitoring of Muslim Communities

By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM

Published: October 3, 2011

Lawyers in a federal lawsuit that has governed how the New York Police Department investigates political and religious groups for more than 25 years asked a judge on Monday to let them collect information to see if the department had violated his orders in how they monitor Muslim communities.

In papers filed in federal court, the lawyers cited a series of recent news articles that detailed the use of undercover officers and informants to gather and maintain information about political activity among Muslims in circumstances in which there was no indication that crimes had occurred.

"These accounts, if true, suggest that the N.Y.P.D. is conducting surveillance and maintaining records of such surveillance in violation of the terms of the Modified Handschu Guidelines," the lawyers wrote, referring to the court-ordered guidelines in effect as a result of the class-action lawsuit. The guidelines were first set forth in a 1985 consent decree and significantly loosened in 2003 after the Police Department asked that they be thoroughly revamped because of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The lawyers on Monday also asked the judge in the case, Charles S. Haight Jr. of United States District Court in Manhattan, for an order requiring the department to preserve its records and databases.

The changes to the original 1985 Handschu Guidelines allowed law enforcement agencies to exchange information more freely and no longer required the police to file statements on its investigations of political and religious activity with the Handschu Authority, a panel made up of two senior police officials and a civilian. To ensure that constitutional rights are respected, the guidelines require the police to follow a 22-page set of F.B.I. guidelines issued in 2002.

Judge Haight said in 2003 that he would allow greater police powers because the nature of public peril had changed. His ruling led to a rewriting of the decree that established the original guidelines governing police investigations of political activity, which were known for the name of the original plaintiff in the 1971 lawsuit, Barbara Handschu.

In their court papers, the lawyers said the news articles — two lengthy and detailed articles published by The Associated Press in August and September and two columns by the blogger Leonard Levitt on his NYPD Confidential Web site — described a Police Department policy of focusing on Muslim communities in New York to identify "hot spots," including mosques, social gathering places and student organizations based on college campuses.

One of the lawyers, Jethro M. Eisenstein, noted in the papers that the surveillance of political activities detailed in the articles might not violate the Modified Handschu Guidelines, which say that for "the purpose of protecting or preventing terrorist activities, N.Y.P.D. is authorized to visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as members of the public generally."

But he wrote that keeping records about "protected speech and behavior heard and seen during those operations is a violation of the Modified Handschu Guidelines," as "no information obtained from such visits shall be retained unless it relates to potential unlawful or terrorist activity."

Celeste Koeleveld, the executive assistant corporation counsel for public safety, who is representing the city, said through a spokesman that her office had just received the papers and was evaluating them.

Paul J. Browne, the Police Department's chief spokesman, did not respond to a telephone call and an e-mail seeking comment.

The relaxed guidelines initially went into effect in early 2003 as internal department rules, leaving the class-action plaintiffs with what they said were no means to enforce them; previously, they could go to Judge Haight if they thought the department had violated the consent decree.

But in August of that year, just six months after the new guidelines went into effect, it was revealed that the department had been debriefing arrested Iraq war protesters about their political views and affiliations and recording their responses on a debriefing form, a violation of the new rules.

Judge Haight then incorporated the new guidelines into the consent decree, prompting a lengthy battle over whether the plaintiffs' lawyers had the power to bring what they believed were violations of the guidelines to the attention of the court.

The department opposed any role for the court, but Judge Haight ruled that the plaintiffs had the power to complain about Police Department policies that they believed violated the modified guidelines. If they prove the policies violate the guidelines, the court has the power to order their end.

[MsGuy]

Some 500 officers came under investigation in a ticket fixing scandal.

Sorry, but for me a little innocent ticket fixing (as a favor, not for cash) is a perk of the job. No point in demanding cops be of inhuman rectitude; that just causes more problems.

But worst of all are revelations this week that some officers actually made a custom of planting narcotics on innocent people to make their arrest quotas. For me, that's actually the scariest thing coming out of the news this week in New York.

I knew a sheriff who liked doing that. Truly a scary, dangerous brute. Only cop who ever managed to make me feel uneasy around him. And I've been around cops all my life, some of them real doosies.

Lucky, I suspect most non-lawyers have no idea how dangerous the practice of planting/fabricating evidence can be. It completely circumvents the usual safeguards of the criminal justice system. Not to mention its corrosive effect on any PD that turns a blind eye to it.

[Lucky]

I am glad that Lookin brought up the camera issue, as I didn't. It is scary, but I think only for us older folks who grew up with certain beliefs in the right of privacy. Think about young'uns today. They have no privacy, and they don't seem to mind. Their entire lives are revealed on Facebook, their cell phone tracks their every movement, their computer follows them around the internet, revealing every site they visit to strangers who have the right bots. They even go on camera to jack off for the whole world to see! What's another camera on the street mean to them?

Now of course we use the computer and cell phone too, but we are smart enough to block all of those privacy invasions, aren't we? At least the ones we know about?

Which is about, oh, five?

All of which is to say that street cameras are here to stay, or so it seems.

(And a thanks to MsGuy and Lookin for joining me in the Politics section today. Would be no fun to be here alone. Of course, there are all of those unseen lurkers watching...)

[MsGuy]

Lookin, Lucky, what can I say? Even as we post DHS web spiders are checking MER for threats to POTUS and the US generally. Probably my mentioning DHS and POTUS in the same sentence twice in a row will result in some algorithm handing off this thread to a clerk to manually evaluate a potential threat to the government. [Hi, Mr. G-6 , no harm intended, I promise. Have a nice day! ]

[Lucky]

From the NY Times:

If you type a wrong password into the Web site of The Wall Street Journal, it turns out that your e-mail address quietly slips out to seven unrelated Web sites. Sign on to NBC and, likewise, seven other companies can capture your e-mail address. Click on an ad on HomeDepot.com and your first name and user ID are instantly revealed to 13 other companies.

These findings, released by the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, are among the leaks found on 185 top Web sites. They serve to buttress what privacy advocates have long warned of: Your online travel — your clickstream, as it’s poetically known — is not always anonymous. It can often be traced right back to rather precise parts of you, including your name and e-mail address.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/stanford-researcher-finds-lots-of-leaky-web-sites/?scp=1&sq=%22leaks%20found%22&st=Search

[TotallyOz]

While in law school in NYC, many of my classmates were NYC Police officers. We were in school together and I respected them and their job. I have watched the way the officers have handled themselves in the Wall Street protests and I'm ashamed of them. They have not done the NYPD proud. Quite the opposite IMHO.

As for the mayor, at one point I really supported him and I have always voted for him. His clear ignorance of this situation shows he is really no better than any other moron in the job.

[Lucky]

I had an encounter with one of Palm Springs finest yesterday and what an asshole he was.

With SOME cops there just seems to be this macho rage thing they have to perform no matter

how little it is needed. My lane change inconvenienced him, as he was speeding and had to slow down in his personal vehicle. He stopped me, then called a uniformed cop to give me a ticket. The uniform, although civil, asked me not one question on my view of what happened.

[RA1]

Just curious, but how did he manage to stop you? Was he in uniform and you recognized that he was indeed one of PSP's finest?

Around here the cops just ignore you if you are only going about 10 MPH over the speed limit and if you are "camped" in the passing lane, they just go around you, much to the annoyance of law abiding motorists. Generally, if you pull in front of them as you describe they just ignore it.

Once, while departing from the terminal area of the airport, I mistakenly thought the 4 lane street I was entering had a "joining" lane but it did not at that very point. I accidentally pulled in front of a patrol car which followed me about 1/2 mile and pulled me over. After fussing at me for a few minutes and smelling my breath and, no doubt, observing me for possible drug use, they let me go. I did not endanger them or their car, more or less like what I assume you did.

Between and among civilians hereabouts, if there is a "nuisance" traffic situation such as pulling right in front of someone, the various cars involved just pull off the road and "duke" it out. For the young and headstrong, a fairly satisfactory method of relieving tension.

Otherwise, most who are not readily identifiable as cops are reluctant to interfere with others. After all, we have a "carry" law here.

Best regards,

RA1

[Lucky]

I refused to stop for him, but had to when we reached the light, and it was red. He jumped out of the car and yelled "police" and I said, "show me some ID." He flashed a gold badge, so I pulled over after the light.

This guy was simply pissed because I had not liked the fact that he was not turning right on red, so I moved to the next lane and made my turn. There are two lanes, after all. But I think his ego felt that his judgment had been questioned.

In my mind, I just assumed he was another tourist caught in a turn lane who did not want to turn.

I will be very surprised if I lose the case. But then, I have no idea what the local courts are like. The idea of a kangaroo court is never more true than in traffic court.

[Lucky]

The NY Daily News today reports that morale among New York's finest is "in the crapper" following the string of scandals to hit the department. I empathize with all officers who want to hold their heads high and be proud of who they are and who they work for.

The Crapper

[Lucky]

Last week I encountered two New York police officers, and had a friendly, if brief, chat with both. I ended up getting a smile from each of them.

But on the same day, in a Bronx courtroom, smiles from police officers were not to be found.

There was found "a stunning display of vitriol by hundreds of off-duty officers...incensed colleagues organized by their union cursed and taunted prosecutors and investigators...The assembled police officers blocked cameras from filming their colleagues, in one instance grabbing lenses and shoving television camera operators backward."

Eugene J. O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said: “The Police Department is a very angry work force, and that is something that should concern people, because it translates into hostile interactions with people.” NYT

The Times reports further: The charged officers, accused of extending favors, seemed to have received a favor of their own from the authorities. They were spared a “perp walk,” the ritual in which suspects are walked to their booking or arraignment while photographers and videographers document their shame.

Instead, the officers were loaded into black vans at the Central Booking garage, then driven into a garage in the courthouse."

The department had been rocked by news that Federal agents earlier in the week arrested eight current and former officers on accusations that they had brought illegal firearms, slot machines and black-market cigarettes into New York City.

None of this bodes well. How a resolution can be found is a mystery, as the officers have been charged for fixing tickets and these charges cannot just be dismissed. Even if a satisfactory resolution of these cases is found, the other cases speak to a serious problem with corrupt officers. Fixing tickets looks minimal in the face of planting evidence or running guns. The days of cops working a side job as Mafia hit men may be over, but how does a large department police itself? It's all very troubling, and I feel for the pleasant officers I encountered on the streets of lower Manhattan.

[KYTOP]

New York's finest are not the only ones with problems. I read numerous newspapers online daily and police issues are getting out of control all over the country. Reading the Miami Herald and the Miami police are becoming a disgrace. Millons of dollars in payouts in Atlanta to police abuse victims. Federal Civil Rights convictions against officers in New Orleans over killing people and covering it up. Denver is replacing their Police Chief after numerous Police Brutality issues. The saddest has to be the beating death of the young homeless man by the Fullerton California Police. To hear the recording of the young man with mental issues yelling for his daddy to help him as he is beat to death is one of the saddest things I have ever heard. Sadly this is just a beginning of what is a long list of Police issues across the USA. From reading it appears to be getting out of control.

[Lucky]

"Experts" weigh in on the inability of the NYPD to police itself:

Who Ya Gonna Call?

[Lucky]

The politics in the New York Police Department must be just absolutely amazing:

Detective Who Led Ticket-Fixing Inquiry Faces Internal Charges

Investigator Investigated

[MsGuy]

Lucky, one is left wondering at the likelihood of any integrity test properly cleared through official channels ever showing an officer under suspicion to be other than a paragon of virtue.

[RA1]

Most individual cops or others are very "real" folks and have the same ordinary hopes and aspirations as any of us do. However, when faced with the bureauracy and union affliations extant, they become the same "sheep" many of the rest of us become. They have no thought of fighting "city hall" and swimming upstream as part of their careers. It is only the very rare person who chooses to do so on an extended basis. Usually those persons are quickly taken care of in a negative way.

This is basic politics and voters can do something about this but it cannot be solved with apathy. If YOU don't care, who will? And, who will vote the miscreants out if YOU don't?

It isn't too late but it might be later than you think.

Best regards,

RA1