Anti-police harassment case in court

From WPIX:

Debra says things went south in a hurry on September 25th, when she began recording EMTS and two police officers attending to a disabled woman at the corner of Broadway and West 73rd street.

Debra is the plaintiff representing other police video documenters, in a federal lawsuit that seeks to give people the right – under the First Amendment – to record police officers working in public places.

That right already exists in several other cities, but there is no specific law on the books in New York.

While they haven’t seen the case, a spokesperson from the NYC Law Department issued a statement regarding the NYPD’s policy in bystanders filming police.

“Bystanders are allowed to film police officers as long they’re not interfering with the officers’ duties and/or police operations,” she said. “People are also allowed to film public officials with the same principles in mind.”

However, the Justice Department recognizes a citizen’s right to roll on the cops, writing in a 2012 memorandum,

“Officers should be advised not to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise discourage an individual from recording police officer enforcement activities or intentionally block or obstruct cameras or recording devices.”

“We’re pretty confident legally, especially with the precedent from the first, the seventy, the ninth, and eleventh court of appeals. Our sense is, this makes absolute sense. That as long as you’re not interfering with the police doing their job, why can’t you record it?” said Siegel.

Debra Goodman says her desire to turn ordinary walks into an exercise in law enforcement accountability, shouldn’t come with the gift of twenty five hours in custody…which is what she says happened following her own arrest.

Neighbors from the 9th circle of hell

If you want to read a truly amazing story about some really nasty neighbors, corruption at the NYPD and total incompetence at the DOB, I suggest sitting down with a cup of coffee and soaking in this post at Sheepshead Bites. It's scary what can be done to innocent people with little to no consequences.

City pays through the nose for bogus arrests

From the Daily News:

The city has agreed to pay $15 million to 22,000 New Yorkers — many of them homeless panhandlers — who were arrested for loitering using laws that were struck down decades ago.

The settlement was approved Monday in Manhattan Federal Court, lawyers said Tuesday.

The state’s anti-loitering law, passed in 1964, was ruled unconstitutional three times by state and federal courts in the 1980s and 1990s.

But the NYPD continued arresting beggars or hustlers under the statute for more than two decades. Most of those arrested lacked the resources to fight the charges.

Shady limo company's retribution for arrest?

"The psycho from Ecstasy limo (Muttagi Harun) was recently arrested and had an order of protection placed on him for attacking a homeowner multiple times. (It took several videos and a lot of work to finally get the local police to do anything.) 9 days later, (the present) the psycho from the limo company injured himself with a bruise and made up a fantasy story about the home owner coming out of the house at 1am the Saturday after Thanksgiving throwing a "mysterious object at him" as he stood outside in the driveway for whatever reason and going back in the house. Obviously psycho has no proof and no video for this fantasy event. (The homeowner that the sleazebag is accusing has 5 adults who saw exactly where he was and what he was doing at the time of this alleged attack.) So naturally the police are treating THIS like the crime of the century and the homeowner is currently in a holding cell awaiting arraignment. So now we can add filing false police reports to Ecstasy Limo's resume." - anonymous

DA Brown and the falsely accused

From the Daily News:

The day Ryan Dufort was charged with murder in a beatdown at a Queens karaoke club, he was a 15-year-old high-schooler who had never been inside a police station.

When he walked out of jail two months ago - acquitted of all charges - he was 20 years old.

He spent five years behind bars as his case slogged through the courts. He was there so long he earned a Regents diploma, put on 25 pounds, grew two inches and became eligible to vote.

Those years were taken from him as the result of what appears to be law enforcement mishandling of the case, a Daily News probe has found.

The News found crucial documents were missing and defense lawyers were not told that the lone eyewitness' identification of Dufort was shaky.

Cops and prosecutors must give defense lawyers all documents, statements and interviews of witnesses.

In Dufort's case, the NYPD reports - called DD5s - that would have raised questions about Dufort's identification by a single witness are either missing or were withheld.

Only four DD5s were produced in Dufort's case, an extremely small amount for a murder case, several prosecutors and defense lawyers told The News.

One DD5 summarized Dufort's statement to cops; another described Dufort's lineup. None addressed what the sole eyewitness told police about Dufort.

From the NY Times:

About a year after he moved into her house in Queens, their relationship soured. One day, he cornered her, taped her mouth and raped her, she said. Mr. Ramrattan was arrested.

But he soon took his revenge, the authorities said. Drawing on his knowledge of police procedure, gleaned from his time as an informer for law enforcement, he accomplished what prosecutors in New York called one of the most elaborate framing plots that they had ever seen.

One night, Ms. Sumasar was pulled over by the police. Before she could speak, detectives slapped handcuffs on her. “You know you did it,” she said one later shouted at her. “Just admit it.”

Ms. Sumasar, a former Morgan Stanley analyst who was running a restaurant, said she had no idea what that meant. Yet suddenly, she was being treated like a brazen criminal. She was charged with carrying out a series of armed robberies, based on what the police said was a wealth of evidence, including credible witness statements and proof that her car was the getaway vehicle.

In her first extensive interview about her ordeal, she recalled sitting in jail, consumed by one thought: “Jerry is behind this.”

But when she insisted to the authorities that he had set her up, they belittled her claims.

Now, though, they concede that Ms. Sumasar was right — an astonishing turn of events that has transformed her case into one of the most bizarre in the city’s recent history.

They released her from jail last December after seven months, acknowledging that the entire case against her had been concocted by Mr. Ramrattan, officials said.

NYPD arrests guy for photographing nostalgia train

From pixiq:

The editor of a popular railfan magazine was detained, handcuffed, frisked and cited by New York City police officers for photographing trains four months ago – but the incident is just coming to light now.

Apparently, Railfan & Railroad Magazine editor Steve Barry was acting under the advice of lawyers by waiting this long to publish an account of the incident, which took place on August 21.

An account of the incident will be published in the January issue of the magazine, but the editorial was posted Thursday on Subchat.

On August 21, 2010, your editor, along with contributor Mike Burkhart, went into New York City to photograph the Transit Museum’s historic train, which was making a run to the Rockaways. After shooting for most of the day, we were waiting for the return trip at the Broad Channel station when we were approached by two (and eventually, five) officers of the New York Police Department. They insisted that photography was not allowed. After asking for i.d., I gave a verbal legal i.d. (full name and hometown) and repeatedly asked for a supervisor. I soon found myself in handcuffs.

The two men were cited under 1050.9.C of the New York City Rules of Conduct, which only forbids the use of tripods, lights and reflectors when photographing or videotaping trains, which apparently they were not using.

Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

They contacted the New York Civil Liberties Union, which got the citations dropped.

They were also cited for not producing proper identification, which they were really not obligated to do since they were not breaking a law in the first place.

Photo from Second Avenue Sagas

This is what cops are busy doing

From the Daily News:

Four Queens men claim they were locked up for more than 30 hours by cops seeking revenge on a crowd of men who laughed at an officer who couldn't catch a fleeing drug suspect.

The men insist they didn't even laugh, says their lawyer Gabriel Harvis, who filed suit against the NYPD and 10 unidentified officers in Brooklyn Federal Court. They believe they were arrested because cops wanted to take their frustration out on them, he said.

"The cops knew my clients had done nothing wrong, but they didn't care," said Harvis, who represents Abdul Kabba, Isaiah Barnes, Hasan Allen and Ishmial Deas. Police "were embarrassed, so they abused their power by locking them up anyway."

The four were held for 27 hours in the 103rd Precinct stationhouse before the Queens district attorney's office dropped the charges.

Cops pinched for phony bust

From the Daily News:

Two cops from Brooklyn's embattled 81st Precinct were charged Friday with making a trumped-up arrest - in a sting operation caught on video.

Like a couple of Keystone Kops, Sgt. Raymond Stukes and Officer Hector Tirado barged in on an Internal Affairs Bureau integrity test actually targeting another cop, sources said.

The undercover IAB officer, carrying a backpack filled with packs of cigarettes, was talking to the intended target when Stukes and Tirado showed up at the corner of Chauncey St. and Howard Ave. in Brownsville on Sept. 3.

Unaware that IAB was videotaping the action, Stukes and Tirado began questioning the undercover cop conducting the sting.

He told them the cigarettes had legitimate tax stamps, but they hauled him into stationhouse and ended up hitting him with bogus charges: that he tried to sell bootleg cigarettes to two people.

"The (arrest) paperwork was inconsistent with the events that took place on that date," said Assistant District Attorney Gregory Marshall at an arraignment in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

Stukes and Tirado pleaded not guilty to felony perjury charges and were released on their own recognizance. Their lawyers declined to comment.

Video supports snowball throwers

From the Daily News:

New video of the controversial Bronx snowball arrest appears to show an off-duty cop quickly drawing his gun just seconds after being hit by a single snowball.

The footage seems to contradict Officer Adonis Ramirez's insistence that he was pelted "on the back by multiple snowballs" before turning his weapon on a group of friends.

The so-called "Snowball Four" made headlines after February's blizzard when they were charged with criminal possession of a weapon - snowballs.

Ramirez's fellow cops reported that he was taunted in Spanish and chased down the street "in a threatening manner," police sources said at the time.

Instead, Ramirez is seen walking out of 1422 Nelson Ave. when he is hit by one of the snowball, the friends admit they were tossing at each other. They denied they targeted the officer.

In the video, Ramirez, a seven-year NYPD veteran, pulls his gun 15 seconds after the snowball is thrown and orders the young men to the ground.

The group said he never said he was an officer.

81st Precinct was over-aggressive

From the Village Voice:

In the summer of 2008, NYPD officers in Brooklyn's 81st Precinct embarked on an aggressive campaign to reduce crime by arresting citizens for doing no more than standing on certain street corners and building stoops.

This program emerges on the remarkable audio recordings the Voice began making public last week. Over a 17-month period ending in October 2009, police officer Adrian Schoolcraft secretly recorded conversations at Bedford-Stuyvesant's 81st Precinct, including 117 roll calls, during which superior officers like precinct commander Steven Mauriello can be heard instructing cops to arrest people for things like "blocking the sidewalk."

Supervisors told officers to make an arrest and "articulate" a charge later, or haul someone in with the intent of voiding the arrest at the end of a shift, or detain people for hours on minor charges like disorderly conduct—all for the purpose of getting citizens off the street. People were arrested for not showing identification, even if they were just a few feet from their homes. Mental health worker Rhonda Scott suffered two broken wrists during a 2008 arrest for not having her ID card while standing on her own stoop.

The precinct's campaign led to a 900 percent increase in stop-and-frisks in the neighborhood, which commanders demanded from officers in order to hit statistical quotas.

Undercover tape reveals NYPD has quotas

Men arrested for candy possession

From the Daily News:

Cops accused Cesar Rodriguez and Jose Pena of having crack cocaine in their work van, but it was only coconut candy, they said Friday.

Charges were dropped after tests showed they were telling the truth, but the two men plan to file a $2 million suit against the NYPD.

"I spent five days in jail for possession of coconut candy," said Rodriguez, 33, an ex-con who works as a plumber's assistant.

He and Pena were parked near an Arthur Ave. bodega Jan. 15 when two police officers asked to search their green Chevy Venture van, the men said.

The cops found pieces of the crystalline candy - known as crema de coco and sold in bodegas across the city - in a plastic baggie.

Officer Anthony Burgos of the 48th Precinct arrested the duo for drug possession despite their insistence they were guilty only of a sweet tooth, Rodriguez said.

"I kept telling him it is candy," he said.

Does this scare you? It should.

From the NY Times:

He had written “The Jerk,” about three inches high, on a campaign poster for James P. Molinaro, the Staten Island borough president. The undercover officers had taken a picture of the poster. There was no question that Mr. Sullivan had written it; moreover, there was no doubt that for weeks before that, he had launched far more pungent strikes against Mr. Molinaro in letters to a newspaper and public officials, criticizing the borough president’s plans to develop part of the Staten Island waterfront.

Somehow the police had begun an investigation of Mr. Sullivan, 52, a former merchant marine who is now an advocate for environmental protection. He was brought to the 120th Precinct and charged with criminal mischief, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. Once the case came to court, the Staten Island district attorney declined to prosecute him.

Who gave the orders for the police to investigate him? Why would a nearly broke city squander resources on this? And by the way, what about freedom of speech?

The posters themselves appear to have been put up illegally. Given that, it is unlikely that writing on one of them, as Mr. Sullivan did, would violate any law.

The circumstances of his arrest are too important to be explored only in a civil case, which often winds up being simply a matter of dollars and cents. The City Council is supposed to watch over the executive branch of government, including the police. A lawsuit does not freeze the rest of democracy. Nor is it a substitute.