After becoming the first police force to develop its own crime tracking system back in the 1990’s, the New York Police Department has decided to pioneer a new way to measure public safety: asking New Yorkers how they think the police are doing in real-time. While seeking feedback from the public is hardly a new idea, the new system developed by the NYPD employs new technology to get up-to-the-minute insights.

The NYPD’s new sentiment meter works much the same way that traditional polling does, except it will provide live data at a hyper-local level. With the same technology used by online advertisers, the NYPD will ask people to rate their trust, sense of safety, and approval of the local police. Working with a consulting company, the department will identify individuals by their location and ask them a short series of questions with online surveys targeted like commercial ads. The way it’s administered will allow the NYPD to constantly bring in new information about its performance in each neighborhood.

Since the implementation of CompStat–the department’s management and crime tracking system–in 1994, the NYPD has relied on crime statistics as one of its primary measures of success, contributing to a dramatic reduction in crime over several decades. Here’s a look at how the city’s violent crime rate per 100,000 residents has changed since the mid-1980’s and how that compares to cities with populations over 250,000 and the U.S. as a whole:

To see more of New York’s crime data or to see how other large cities compare, check out Law Street’s interactive dashboard.

While the NYPD has undoubtedly played a role in lowering the city’s violent crime rate, the department’s relationship with the community has frequently been strained. In many minority communities across the country, trust in the police has plummeted following high-profile deaths at the hands of law enforcement. And in New York, the death of Eric Gardner–who died from being placed in a chokehold by a police officer after he was confronted for selling cigarettes on the street–sparked protests across the city after a video of the incident went viral.

With the new system, which Police Commissioner James O’Neill has started calling the “sentiment meter,” the NYPD seeks to understand how people view the local police force and how those perceptions vary throughout the city’s 77 precincts. New technology will allow the department to monitor how New York residents rate its performance by surveying a larger sample, with more frequency than ever before. Much like how the CompStat system allowed the NYPD to identify hot spots–areas where crime was particularly prevalent–data from the sentiment meter will allow local commanders find neighborhoods with low trust in the police. This will allow them to create and evaluate new strategies to both reduce crime and improve public relations.

John Linder, who worked as a consultant to help the NYPD develop the system, outlined the department’s goals in an interview with the Marshall Project in January:

If we can find a way to give the commanders of the NYPD real time data on what people feel, then police brass can tailor strategies and tactics in response. It can give them more than just crime statistics, police activity (arrests, summonses, stop-question-frisks, case closures by detectives) to guide what they do and don’t do. That’s what O’Neill has told us to deliver.

While the department is hopeful that the new data will help resolve longstanding issues with the community, some still question whether the new data will be as useful as the NYPD suggests. Johnetta Elzie, founder of Campaign Zero–an advocacy group devoted to ending police violence–asked, “Who feels safe to even reply back? And who, in the marginalized community, is going to trust the police and send an honest answer back?” in an interview with the New York Times.

As crime rates in cities across the country have fallen over the past several decades, the key to reducing crime even further may be improving police-public relations. While it may take some time before the new system yields results for the NYPD, placing this level of emphasis on how the actions of police officers affect the many communities they serve is certainly a step in the right direction.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The NYPD’s New Plan to Measure Community Safety: Will it Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Between Election Day and Inauguration Day, the New York Police Department spent $25.7 million “to protect Trump Tower and the First Family,” according to a letter from the department’s commissioner. That figure is down from the $35 million that was initially estimated in December. The costs associated with protecting President Donald Trump and his family for 75 days during the transition period differed greatly depending on whether Trump himself was in town.

Why was the initial estimate of $35 million nearly one-third higher than the actual cost? “The initial estimate to provide security for Trump Tower was calculated using anticipated costs,” an NYPD spokesperson told POLITICO. “Subsequently, modifications were made to the security plan, and the amount was recalculated using actual costs.”

The intent of the commissioner’s letter, which was sent on Tuesday, was to extract resources from the federal government to reimburse the city for protecting Trump and his family during the transition. Though New York City’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, initially asked for $35 million (based on the NYPD’s initial estimate) to cover the costs, the federal government has paid the city $7 million so far.

Trump has yet to visit Trump Tower, or New York City, since Inauguration Day. When he does–he has suggested he would like to spend weekends in Manhattan–the same costs would likely apply, if not more. Regardless, the presence of his wife Melania and his son Barron at Trump Tower incurs heavy costs. It would cost $50 million over a year-long period to protect the two of them for a year (Melania and Barron are expected to stay through the school year). If Trump joins them on weekends, as he has indicated he will do, that will jump to $60 million per year.

In his letter, O’Neill also acknowledged the collateral effects of siphoning the city’s budget to protect the president and his family: “Trump Tower itself now presents a target to those who wish to commit acts of terror against our country, further straining our limited counterterrorism resources.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Much Does it Cost to Protect Trump Tower? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you live in Manhattan? Do you enjoy littering, drinking on the street, or peeing in public, or even doing all three things at the same time? Well if so, I have some very good news for you: the NYPD will no longer arrest you for such minor infractions. But this isn’t just good news for you drunken, littering, peeing partygoers out there–it’s a sign that the NYPD is starting to move away from the theory of “broken windows policing” that has for so long characterized the city’s policies.

“Broken windows policing” is at its essence, a simple theory. Criminologist George Kelling and social scientist James Wilson first posited the idea in the 1980s, and it essentially suggests that if one window in a building is broken and no one does anything about it, the other windows will soon be broken. So in policing, if there are little crimes, like public drinking and urination and those aren’t handled, bigger crimes will flourish.

But in practice, broken windows policing has led to a lot of arrests for these low-level crimes, particularly for minorities. Small crimes like public drinking end up racking up arrest records particularly for minority men, making it more difficult for them to find jobs. They can also have tragic consequences–Eric Garner was arrested for seemingly minor crime of selling cigarettes, and was killed in the process.

These arrests also carry a high price tag for the city, and backlog the already-crowded criminal justice system. It’s estimated that this change in policy will remove 10,000 cases from the court dockets each year.

This change in policy doesn’t mean that drinking or urinating in public are suddenly legal. But instead of arresting people who are caught violating the law, the NYPD in Manhattan will give the offender a summons, he will show up to court and appear before a judge, and then a judge can decide whether or not to give him a penalty like a fine.

This obviously doesn’t solve all of the problems with policing in New York City. The way in which even this new policy–handing out summons instead of arrests–is applied could still be prone to racial bias. Additionally, these new policies also only apply to Manhattan. As Police Reform Organizing Project Director Robert Gangi points out, there’s still a lot more work to be done:

If in Manhattan that practice stops, that is a good thing, and that is a positive step toward curtailing one of the current abusive NYPD practices. Now, highly problematic is that apparently this change—relatively modest change—will only take place in Manhattan…this will result in a significant discrepancy in practice, where if you’re caught for a second time being in the park after dark in Brooklyn, the police can arrest you.

The new policy will take take affect on March 7, and is hopefully a sign of an overall move away from broken windows policing to come.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Manhattan Will Stop Arresting Outdoor Drinkers and Public Urinators appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve watched the Netflix hit “Orange is the New Black” you’ve seen Taryn Manning in the ensemble cast as Tiffany “Pennsatucky” Doggett. The 37-year-old actress has also had roles in “Crossroads” (opposite Brittany Spears), “8 Mile” and  “Sons of Anarchy.” But she’s also had a less-than-charmed life as well–she has been arrested multiple times on various charges. However, Manning is now fighting back against one of the arrests, suing the city of New York for $10 million and claiming that she was wrongfully arrested.

#OITNB star Taryn Manning sues NYC for $10 million for “false arrest” https://t.co/0tPAzHmhY6 pic.twitter.com/l27ZPA1qzO

— Huffington Post (@HuffingtonPost) February 9, 2016

Manning was arrested in New York City in November 2014 and accused of making threats against a former friend and roommate, named Jeanine Heller. The case is incredibly confusing, but here’s what we know: Manning and Heller had had a turbulent friendship for a while, and Heller has even claimed that they had a romantic relationship at one point. Their feud, although it’s unclear what caused the showdown, eventually led to both women filing restraining orders against each other. Manning had accused Heller of stalking her in the past, and Heller has served prison time after admitting to her contact with Manning.

However, on November 18, 2014 Manning was arrested after Heller accused her of violating the restraining order and threatening Heller. Manning is now claiming that the police did so even after the District Attorney had already decided not to prosecute Manning, and had told her lawyers that fact. Stacey Richman, a lawyer who represented Manning at the time stated:

I had multiple conversations with the DA’s office as well as the Fifth Precinct Detective Squad before appearing at that Nov. 18 meeting. I am certain that the assigned Detective knew in advance … that Ms. Manning would not be prosecuted. Hence, she should NEVER have been arrested.

However, Manning was arrested, handcuffed, marched through the precinct, and put in a holding cell. Eventually she was released after the District Attorney’s office issued a formal declaration that Manning was not to be prosecuted. But by that point, the damage was done–news of Manning’s arrest had already been leaked to the press. At that point, her lawyer released the following:

The District Attorney declined to prosecute Ms. Manning and the arrest was voided. The allegation was false. It is unfortunate that additional false allegations by an individual convicted of violating orders of protection intended to protect Ms. Manning are facilitated by purported news organizations to perpetuate the harassment of Ms. Manning exponentially.

Now, Manning is suing the city of New York for $10 million, saying that she was falsely arrested and that her civil rights were violated in the process. Now, Manning has also run into some other problems with the law lately–most notably she was involved in a violent altercation with friend and makeup artist Holly Hartman; she was arrested in 2012 after assaulting Hartman as well. But regardless of her violent past, Manning’s claim that her rights were violated in the 2014 arrest could hold water, particularly if her narrative is proven true.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post OITNB’s Taryn Manning is Suing New York for 2014 Arrest appeared first on Law Street.

“Stop it with your mouth, stop it with your ‘For what, sir, for what, sir,’ stop it with that bullsh*t” screams the police officer, while mocking the driver’s foreign accent. That is how a recent three and half minute viral video begins, where a plainclothes NYPD officer is seen screaming at an Uber driver in what is being called by many a xenophobic rant.

The video was uploaded to YouTube Monday by Sanjay Seth, who was one of the Uber driver’s passengers. In it, Officer Patrick Cherry, an NYPD detective assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force, is seen berating the driver during a traffic stop yelling things like “I don’t know what f***ing planet you think you’re on right now” just before slamming the cab driver’s door walking back to his unmarked police car.

Seth explained his version of the events precipitating the verbal assault in the YouTube video’s description box writing:

In an unmarked car, the policeman was allegedly attempting to park without using his blinker at a green light. (His reverse lights weren’t on. Likely double parked without hazards on.) The Uber driver pulled around and gestured that he should use his blinker, casually and non-offensively, and kept driving us. The policeman aggressively pulls up behind us and this is what happens.

The city’s Civilian Complaint Review Board announced Wednesday that it would be working with the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau to investigate the detective, after receiving a formal complaint about the incident. The reason why the incident is being handled by the complaint board, rather than a criminal investigation, is because it was determined that Cherry committed no other wrongdoing besides being “discourteous,” according to a source for the New York Daily News. It’s currently unclear what kind of punishment, if any, will be doled out following the board’s findings.

According to the New York Daily News, a police source also said the detective was on his way to work after visiting Detective Harry Hill at NYU Langone Medical Center when the interaction occurred. Hill is in critical condition after going into cardiac arrest during a procedure on his elbow on Thursday. Michael Palladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association, elaborated, telling the New York Daily News that Hill’s medical condition has been an emotional burden for the Joint Terrorism Task Force, a unit that combines NYPD and federal anti-terror investigators. Palladino said:

The past five days have been emotionally draining for the members of the JTTF dealing with their fellow detective’s health. Despite what some people think, cops have feelings, too.

Even if Detective Cherry was in the middle of dealing with his “feelings” that does not give him the right to verbally abuse anyone just because they do something that he doesn’t like. This abuse of power is completely unacceptable, especially when police as whole are still struggling to overcome a general public distrust after months of controversy involving several cases of discrimination. Instead of offering an excuse for the behavior, Cherry needs to do some serious apologizing, possibly paired with some anger management counseling.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Cop’s Xenophobic Rant at Uber Driver Caught on Tape appeared first on Law Street.

There have been edits made to Wikipedia pages about some high profile deaths at the hands of police in New York City. Those edits have now been traced to 1 Police Plaza, the headquarters of the New York Police Department (NYPD).

The edits seem to have focused on the pages regarding three of those deaths–Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Eric Garner was killed on July 17, 2014, after being put into a chokehold by an NYPD officer. While in the chokehold, he wasn’t able to breathe, lost consciousness, and passed away. Sean Bell died after being shot by an NYPD officer in Queens in 2006. He and two friends were shot a total of 50 times after leaving his bachelor party. Amadou Diallo was shot at approximately 41 times by NYPD officers and passed away in 1999. These three instances are often cited as examples of profiling, discrimination, and racial biases in the ranks of NYPD.

Most of the edits to those entries attempted to diminish the seriousness of the situations, and downplay the allegations levied against NYPD after each of them. For example, the Garner entry was edited so that “chokehold” was changed to “respiratory distress.” There was also an instance in the Garner entry where the sentence “use of the chokehold has been prohibited” was edited to read “use of the chokehold is legal, but has been prohibited.” The explanation of what happened before the takedown was changed from “Garner raised both his arms in the air” to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.” The line “Garner, who was considerably larger than any of the officers, continued to struggle with them” was also added. While some of these changes seem subtle, they are clear attempts to imply that the NYPD’s actions against Garner were justified.

There was also an attempt to delete Sean Bell’s page altogether. According to Capitol New York, the user made a note on Wikipedia’s list of “articles for deletion” saying:

He [Bell] was in the news for about two months, and now no one except Al Sharpton cares anymore. The police shoot people every day, and times with a lot more than 50 bullets. This incident is more news than notable.

There were also attempted edits or edits made to other pages, including NYPD’s very controversial “stop-and-frisk” policies. Capitol New York pointed out (bolding theirs):

‘The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department to stop, question and, if the circumstances of the stop warrant it, conduct a frisk of the person stopped.’ was changed to ‘The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the circumstances of the stop warrant it, conducts a frisk of the person stopped.’

This was also added to the entry on stop-and-frisk:

The rules for stop and frisk are found in New York State Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio.

An internal review is being conducted due to the edits. At this point, it’s not known who was involved or how many pages were affected. A watchdog Twitter account has been set up to tweet whenever Wikipedia edits are made from a computer with an NYPD IP address, although it has yet to catch anything since it was created. It may have been inspired by one of those for Congress, called @congressedits. That account tweets anytime a computer with a Congressional IP address edits a Wikipedia entry.

The NYPD’s edits look bad–it’s an attempt to downplay legitimately dark spots in its history. Its time and resources would certainly be better served working to prevent incidents like the deaths of Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo in the future.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Caught Editing Negative Wikipedia Entries appeared first on Law Street.

A recent slowdown by New York Police Department officers has ignited a debate over what the role of police officers should be and to what extent policing should focus on minor crimes.

According to the New York Post,

There were just 1,191 parking summonses handed out between Dec. 29 and Jan. 4 — down nearly 93 percent from the same period last year, when 16,008 of the dreaded orange envelopes were slapped on windshields

The NYPD slowdown involved a nearly complete abandonment of enforcement for low-level crimes like parking tickets and public order offenses. While slowdowns can have many different causes, it appears that the recent one in New York is a result of the rising tension between police officers and Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The New York Post also reported that the slowdown will cost the city roughly $10 million per week in lost ticket revenue. Doug Turetsky, of New York’s Independent Budget Office, put that number in context by comparing it to the city’s $77 billion annual budget; however, if losses continued over a long period of time the effects would be notable.

The Associated Press further noted that only one arrest was made and zero tickets were issued for low-level offenses on New Years Eve, a day when roughly one million people flock to the city. Despite this dramatic decrease in enforcement, there was actually a modest decrease in the number of reported serious crimes over a two-week period when compared to the same time span one year earlier.

Recent activity suggests that the NYPD slowdown is coming to an end and may have even stopped completely. Commissioner Bratton threatened to take away sick days and vacation time until ticket and arrest numbers returned to normal levels. While the slowdown may be over, it renewed the debate over the underlying policing theory present in many American cities.

Broken Windows Policing

Although the NYPD slowdown can have important implications for the NYPD and New York City, it has also called the Broken Windows style of policing into question. Behind the Broken Windows theory is the idea that disorder leads to both fear and more crime. The theory was first established by professors George L. Kelling and George Q. Wilson in an article they wrote back in 1982. They argued that the proactive enforcement of laws pertaining to lower level and often very visible crimes, like breaking windows, will restore order to public places and prevent additional crimes.

Put in their words:

The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window. Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions. If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, the thief may reason, it is even less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger or to interfere if the mugging actually takes place.

New York City was actually a primary testing ground for the Broken Windows style of policing. The strategy came to New York in 1993 under the tenure of Commissioner Bill Bratton, first  appointed by Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Bratton later returned to New York to once again act as Commissioner under de Blasio in 2014. Broken Windows is frequently attributed to the city’s dramatic decline in crime during the 1990s.

Kelling stands with his theory in light of the recent debate. In an interview with the New York Daily News he argued that while it is unlikely that one week-long slowdown will have a meaningful impact on crime numbers, he did caution about long-term effects. Kelling continued to argue that maintaining order will meaningfully constrain the crime levels in the city, but also acknowledged that the maintenance of order is not intended to punish people. Kelling argued that the underlying principle of Broken Windows remains strong, but policing methods may still be updated to fit the present circumstances.

New York’s Crime Decline

Between 1990 and 2012 New York City’s violent crime rate per 100,000 people has decreased by nearly 75 percent and the total number of murders went from 2,245 in 1990 to 335 in 2013. While most cities in the United States experienced significant decreases in their violent crime rates since the 1990s as well, New York has far outpaced the national average and has continued that downward trend in recent years.

Before you ask, there was also a decrease in the actual number of broken windows over the past several years (and yes, there is data on that).

Although it is impossible to determine whether or not Broken Windows policing caused this decrease–many factors typically impact a city’s crime level–it is likely that policing played a role. Despite this correlation, many are calling for the end to Broken Windows as a modern policing philosophy. It has long been criticized for its effects on minorities, which tend to be the target of many ‘order-related’ arrests, but the recent death of the unarmed Eric Gardner at the hands of the NYPD has sparked further protest.

The Policing Debate

While it is unfair to claim that Broken Windows policing caused the death of Eric Gardner, such a policing strategy will increase the number of times minorities are stopped by the police. Arresting people for committing crimes like selling loose cigarettes, the act which precipitated Gardner’s encounter with police officers, will simply increase the likelihood that altercations occur in the future.

Supporters of Broken Windows argue that it is not the underlying theory that causes tragedies like Gardner’s death, but rather it is the training and tactics that officers employ that lead to abuse. As a result, people call for police reforms that would improve tactics and training; however, evidence may also suggest that police reform may not adequately address problem. Last summer the NYPD ended its controversial stop-and-frisk policy due to complaints that it disproportionately violated the rights of the poor and minority populations, yet problems persist.

Despite the removal of stop-and-frisk as an important policing tactic, situations Gardner’s encounter with the police still occur and continue to disproportionately affect minorities. The Broken Windows theory sought to reduce public fear by bringing order to public places; however, it has also helped create a different kind of fear among minority populations, which is developing into increasingly more hostile attitudes toward the police. In a series of polls asking people whether or not they believe the police treat blacks and whites equally, a significant gap between white and black perception emerges. The most recent poll suggests that a majority (52 percent) of white respondents have a “great deal of confidence” that both races are treated equally; among black respondents that number dipped to just 12 percent.

Distrust and fear toward the police has led to hostile interactions between minority populations and law enforcement officers. Supporters of the Broken Windows theory of policing may be right when they argue that enforcing order can reduce crime rates and fear among the general public; however, attention must also be paid to the additional implications that aggressive policing of low-level crimes may have.

What is the role of Broken Windows policing when many of the broken windows have been fixed? Crime in New York City has experienced massive declines over the last two-and-a-half decades, and according to its crime statistics is now a pretty safe city relative to its population size. Creating order may serve an important role in reducing crime, but when crime has already decreased by such an extent should it be enforced as aggressively as it was in the 1990s?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Slowdown Ignites Debate Over Broken Windows Policing appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, December 20, Ismaaiyl Brinsley shot and killed two NYPD officers in their patrol car, then proceeded to commit suicide with the same gun on the platform of a nearby subway station. The officers, Wenjian Liu, 32, and Rafael Ramos, 40, were shot in the head and upper body by Brinsley’s semiautomatic handgun. Although this shooting occurred outside of recent protests in the city, which have been almost completely nonviolent, tensions between the NYPD, protesters, local communities, and politicians continue to grow.

Brinsley boarded a bus from Baltimore to New York on Saturday morning with the intention to kill police officers, an intention that he expressed on social media that morning.  He posted a picture of a silver handgun on Instagram with the caption, “I’m Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.” He also referenced the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner in the same post.

After arriving in Manhattan, he made his way to Brooklyn where he ambushed Liu and Ramos.  In a press conference with Mayor de Blasio, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton responded to the murders saying, “quite simply they were assassinated.”

Earlier that morning Brinsley got into a fight with his ex-girlfriend, Shaneka Nicole Thompson, in Baltimore. The argument ended after Brinsley shot Thompson in the stomach, stole her phone, and fled the scene according to Baltimore County Police. As of Sunday, Thomson was in critical, but stable, condition in a local Baltimore hospital. A friend of Thompson’s notified Baltimore police later that day after seeing Brinsley’s Instagram photo, and an alert was sent to the NYPD shortly before the Brinsley killed Liu and Ramos.

Acting Alone

It is important to realize that Brinsley was not a participant in recent protests in New York, and his actions do not represent a departure from the peaceful methods employed up to this point. Instead, Brinsley was a man with a long history of arrests and a record of mental issues. He was arrested 19 times for various minor offenses, many of which included firearms, the Washington Post reported. In 2011, he received a two-year sentence in a Georgia prison for felony gun possession, though his actual release date is difficult to determine.

According to relatives, Ismaaiyl Brinsley was on medication for a brief period and he admitted to being under the care of a psychiatrist or in a mental institution during a court hearing. His family further noted that he likely had some undiagnosed mental issues and according to his sister, he was “an emotionally troubled kid. He needed help and didn’t get it.” The police have identified an increasingly aggressive social media history, which became particularly antigovernment and antipolice in recent weeks. Relatives also told authorities that Brinsley attempted to hang himself a year ago.

Tensions Mount

The murders of Officers Liu and Ramos have intensified the debate between protesters, the police, and city officials. The president of the NYPD’s largest union, Patrick Lynch, said that the murders are the result of the recent protests and Mayor de Blasio’s response. According to Lynch, “there is blood on many hands, from those that incited violence under the guise of protest to try to tear down what police officers did every day.”

Supporters of the police argue that since Eric Garner decision, Mayor de Blasio has not sufficiently assisted police officers. From meeting with protest groups to taking a hard line against police misconduct and brutality, many disagree with the mayor’s treatment of the police. In fact, a group of officers publicly turned their backs on the mayor before a press conference on Saturday night.

Whether or not you agree with the protesters or the police, arguing that recent nonviolent protests caused the deaths of two police officers is completely off base. The evidence revealed so far indicates that the shooter acted alone. Brinsley, who had a long arrest record and a troubled history, was not compelled to kill two police officers by peaceful activism. While recent events may have created tension between police officers and communities, connecting them to an unwarranted act of violence is simply unjustified.

Instead, we should see the recent shooting for what it is–the act of a man with a long criminal history and mental health problems. Arguing that Brinsley shot two police officers because of protests fails to explain why he also shot his ex-girlfriend that same morning. Brinsley was clearly a troubled man, and while that does not come close to justifying his actions, it does indicate that what he did does not extend beyond himself. Recent protests may have brought the issue to public consciousness as they intended to do–they represent one response to a set of events. Other reactions, specifically violent ones, represent an unrelated and unjustified response.

Recent protests in New York raise opposition to a legitimate issue–police violence–and attempt to open up a dialogue with the police and local officials. Both supporters and critics alike should at least acknowledge the movement’s nonviolent nature. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but conflating violence with recent protests will only serve to make matters worse. Civil rights leaders have already denounced the killings. While some may disagree with their decision not to heed Mayor de Blasio’s call to pause demonstrations until after the officers’ funerals, the fact is that this shooting was an unrelated event.

The deaths of officers Liu and Ramos truly are tragedies. Regardless of context, any act of such unwarranted violence can never be condoned. Americans should be able to mourn their deaths as well as the death of Eric Garner at the same time without feeling any tension between the two. Being opposed to police misconduct is not the same as being antipolice, and supporting the police does not mean you should ignore their mistakes.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Deaths Escalate Tensions in New York appeared first on Law Street.

Ah Canal Street; one of the few places in New York where you can score “designer” bags, gold chains, and a bong all for under $1,000. Even this future Intellectual Property lawyer has owned her fair share of counterfeit handbags from the Chinatown locale. But as a tween who just wanted a fake Louis or Chanel like everyone in my middle school, it never really made sense to me how my relatives would get their hands on them. I heard stories about being taken “behind the scenes” to the warehouses where the better stash of goods is kept. I heard about the cops coming to bust these vendors for selling without a permit. But none of these stories ever answered the real question I always had: how do these vendors throughout the city persist when everyone knows (including cops standing nearby) that they either do not have a proper permit, are selling counterfeit goods, or both?

On Tuesday, the NYPD and U.S. Homeland Security officials raided a storage unit in Queens full of about $22 million worth of counterfeit goods. The raid followed a seven-month investigation and resulted in seven arrests. This kind of takeover is what police call an “Operation Treasure Hunt” and took about 30 minutes to execute. I highly suggest clicking over to WWD to view pictures of the facility and all the goods it contained, because it’s truly astounding. From fake Gucci and Chanel handbags to Beats headphones and fake Uggs, these guys had it all. Rarely do you ever get to see a successful takedown of Canal Street vendors like this. But why is that? Why can’t the police just approach these guys who are selling on the street?

As a kid, my mom tried to relieve my conscience claiming that my LV-monogramed bag was probably real but was just stolen. But does that make it any more ethical? In hindsight, it kind of made it a lot worse; however, regardless of whether these goods are stolen or just really good knockoffs, any Canal Street vendor or distributor is guilty of at least one of these things.

One reason these vendors may get off the hook is that they are merely a third party selling the goods, not making them. Also, I doubt most NYPD even know about the designers these bags are trying to imitate, nevermind the standards for what counts as a knockoff and what does not. The only way the police can shut down these vendors is by asking if they have proper permits, and if they do there’s nothing they can do about it.

The case with the storage unit in Queens required a lengthy investigation so that the police could acquire enough evidence to warrant a search. Also it’s a much more effective tactic to take down the counterfeit industry by heading straight to the source, as opposed to approaching every single business on Canal Street.

Maybe it’s time to start training the NYPD to have a more keen eye for spotting counterfeit goods. Every year counterfeit products can cost the global economy up to $250 billion. Manhattan is not the crime-ridden place that it once was, so a lot of police officers are often seen just standing around offering surveillance. And while counterterrorism should definitely  be a primary concern in this day and age, that doesn’t mean police can’t multitask and try to stop this form of economic terrorism too.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Busts $22 Million Counterfeit Goods Operation appeared first on Law Street.

This was a fun week for weird arrests–full of drugs, more drugs, and drunk escorts. Read on to see the top five strangest and weird arrests of the week.

[SlideDeck2 id=29769 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

With the long weekend coming up, you’ll have some extra time to laugh about the weird, stupid, and ill-advised things that people try to do that end with a trip to the police station. To get you started, check out the slideshow below of the five weirdest arrests this week:

[SlideDeck2 id=26400 ress=1]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Socrate76 via Wikimedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, luxury department store Barneys New York made a $525,000 settlement in response to a racial profiling investigation by the State of New York. Nineteen-year-old Queens resident Trayon Christian used his savings to purchase a Salvatore Ferragamo belt at the Fifth Avenue store in Manhattan, only to be arrested shortly after leaving. The clerk who sold him the $350 belt had allegedly called the police claiming fraud. Apparently, the company has racial profiling ingrained into its employee policy. Security guards are told to watch minority customers in the store more closely than their white customers, and clerks are to prevent making sales to minority customers in order to avoid fraud investigations. The investigation also found that Barneys must have been collaborating with the NYPD by placing undercover detectives in their store.

These days, you can’t seem to look at the news without hearing about another unarmed black kid who was “accidentally” shot by police. Racial profiling is a not only a violation of human rights, but can also result in serious consequences for the innocent minority victim.

The police told Christian that his debit card must be a fake because a black man could never afford such an expensive item. He was then held at the police station for two hours until they realized that he was innocent. Christian, who is a student at the NYC College of Technology, had saved up to buy the belt because he wanted one like the Harlem rapper Juelz Santana. Lower class consumers are just as entitled as upper class ones to use their own money to buy a designer item, right? Isn’t such a notion the mere foundation of capitalism?

A belt similar to the one Trayon Christian purchased in April 2013. Thanks NY Post.

In luxury retail stores, customers are rarely asked for identification with their credit card because it is considered rude. Part of the luxury customer experience involves being treated well, because they are spending so much money. Also, the more accommodating a salesperson is to a customer, the more money the customer may spend in the store. The main purpose of a retail store is to put the customer’s needs first, as they are “always right.”

On the other hand, stores must also protect themselves with lost prevention (LP) policies. There are plenty of telltale signs that a person may be shoplifting, but being black or Latino is not one of them. Also if a customer is suspected of shoplifting, the salesperson is expected to provide even more service to deter them from stealing, as they are still technically considered a customer if they are in the store.

When I worked as a sales associate in a luxury mall, I went through intensive LP training, but race was never mentioned as any reason to be suspicious of customers. However, we were also constantly reminded that we were to be extra accommodating to customers as they were accustomed to a different level of service than in other malls. Wealthy customers were actually more inclined to try to get away with a quick buck than average ones. They almost expected us to make exceptions for them when it came to expired coupons or discounts they seemed to make up on their own. Shouldn’t that kind of behavior be seen as a bigger red flag when it comes to credit fraud?

Barneys’ claim that they are avoiding fraud investigations is completely invalid, as there are many other ways to prevent shoplifters. Perhaps they would save even more money if they taught their employees real lost prevention techniques, instead of taking shortcuts by racially profiling customers and outsourcing to the NYPD. A minority customer’s business should be just as valued as a white customer’s would be. Ultimately, the company lost even more money because they had to pay for a settlement. Christian also returned the belt shortly after his arrest because he no longer wanted to have anything to do with the company.

The battle is only halfway done, however, as there is a federal case that has yet to go to trial. Hopefully, the trial will result in further regulations in what stores can and cannot do as far as customer service and lost prevention policies. All customers, provided they are not trying to take advantage of the company, should be treated as equal opportunities to make a profit for both the salesperson and the company represented.

At the end of the day, a retail store must focus on making revenue and ensuring that customers will want to return for their services. Turning away a customer because of the color of their skin is ultimately bad business for everyone. Besides, as in Barneys’ case, what’s $350 in potential theft compared to over $500,000 in legal fines? That choice is ultimately up to the retailer.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Jim.Henderson via WikiMedia Commons]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Barneys Gets Busted: The Cost of Racial Profiling in Retail appeared first on Law Street.

A fight is brewing between law enforcement officials and Facebook, and it’s just gotten some new players in the form of other social media companies. New York City has been trying to use evidence posted on Facebook as proof of fraud committed by government employees. The city has now run afoul of some of the largest social network companies, who are arguing that the actions taken by the NYPD and prosecutors are violating their users’ Fourth Amendment rights.

It all started when the NYPD discovered that a number of government employees–including fireman, police officers, and others–had been taking disability payments without actually being disabled. Evidence of their fraud came from their Facebook accounts–some of the employees supposedly on disability were also engaging in clearly strenuous physical activities during the same time period. There were also private messages sent through the social network in which the alleged fraudsters admitted to their wrongdoing.

The investigators got a warrant to search the Facebook accounts of the employees that they thought were breaking the law, as well as accounts of their families, friends, and other acquaintances. While they did eventually succeed, it was only after Facebook argued strongly against the investigation. Facebook claimed that the search of private accounts is “unreasonable” and skirts Fourth Amendment protections. The company is now filing an appeal making the same argument–and they’ve got some friends backing them up. Foursquare, Kickstarter, MeetUp, and Tumblr have all decided to stand with Facebook. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Civil Liberties Union will also be getting involved.

This case is yet another example of how the intersection between new technology and existing laws can get quite messy. The warrant originally requested by the NYPD involved a grand total of 381 Facebook accounts–many of which were only connected tangentially. The requested accounts had interacted with those of the accused–nothing more. Facebook argued that the search of those 381 accounts was tantamount to searching roughly 400 homes. That argument is fair, but a bit stretched. If there was a crime committed, the NYPD would have the right to search 400 houses, as long as they could prove it was reasonable.

In response, Facebook’s Deputy Chief Counsel Chris Sonderby argued,

It appeared to us from the outset that there would be a large number of people who were never charged in court. The district attorney’s response was that these people would have their day in court. There are more than 300 people that will never have that chance.

But according to NYPD and prosecutors, they did just that–they provided almost 100 pages of documentation explaining why they were searching each account when they requested the warrant.

There’s also the question of what right Facebook has to the accounts in their system. They challenged the warrant on behalf of their clients, and there’s a lot of legal ambiguity as to whether they were able to do so. They most certainly could not have alerted their clients that they were being investigated–that would have been impeding an investigation. Facebook claims that this created a big problem for their attorneys–they couldn’t do anything to stop it on their clients’ behalf, and they couldn’t do anything to warn their customers to get them involved.

The fact that other social networks have now said they’re going to join this legal fight will go a long way. As electronic communications become more and more popular, existing laws may not be able to keep up. While the collective action of social media companies may be forming a powerful lobby, whether or not their arguments for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights will prevail is up to the appeals court.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nick Booth via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media Search Warrant Fight Heats Up appeared first on Law Street.

Every now and then, we like to report on the various twitter battles, gaffes, mishaps, and everything in between because, frankly, who doesn’t find them funny? Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney recounted the biggest political twitter mistakes of 2013 and now half way into 2014, the twitter fails, political or otherwise, just keep coming. Let us bear witness to the five latest WTH moments on Twitter so far this year.

[wooslider slide_page=”top-5-twitter-mishaps-gaffes-straight-fails-of-2014″ slider_type=”slides” thumbnails=”default” order=”ASC” order_by=”date”]

—

Ashley Powell (@ashley_powell)

Featured image courtesy of [Maryland GovPics via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 5 Twitter Mishaps, Gaffes, and Straight Fails So Far in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

“Spray a square around the tag and then fill it in.”

This is a new anti-graffiti tactic described in the latest NYPD internal directive issued May 2, 2014. Police officers now carry black, red, and white aerosol spray paint with orders to photograph graffiti, then “box it out” and paint it over “in a professional manner.” According to the directive, officers should target “identifiable tags, not large murals” such as those produced legally by the Bushwick Collective in areas such as Williamsburg and Long Island City, where the internationally famous graffiti mecca 5 Pointz was recently white-washed by developers. Graffiti patrols are currently stalking Bushwick, Brownsville, and Bedford-Stuyvesant, and the policy will be under way in all five boroughs this summer. “It’s supposed to discredit their work,” an officer said to the New York Post, “and break their manhood.” The May 2 directive is only one part of a new anti-graffiti campaign, as Police Commissioner Bill Bratton alluded to on Wednesday while speaking to reporters. “The issue of graffiti is something we will be addressing more significantly…We can’t just keep doing the same old thing all over again,” said Bratton, rationalizing the new tactic. “We need find new ways to basically make the arrest.”

Commissioner Bratton, perhaps, misinterprets graffiti though, and in doing so, his re-ignition of the “Graffiti Wars” between artists and police will cost the city millions of dollars, not to mention destroy the lives of artists whose “crime” is victimless, while diverting valuable police resources in a city where shootings have spiked seven percent over the last year.

We should read graffiti instead as political statements; or as a response to the inequities of urban development, as criminologist Jeff Ferrell argued in his 1993 landmark study of the indigenous urban art form. Ferrel saw graffiti as an “anarchistic resistance to cultural domination, a streetwise counterpoint to the increasing authority of corporate advertisers and city governments over the environments of daily life.” Moreover, graffiti was a protest against the “aggressive disenfranchisement of city kids, poor folks, and people of color from the practice of everyday life; and finally, the careful and continuous centralization of political and economic authority.” Aesthetically, it attempts to break the “hegemonic hold of corporate/government style over the urban environment.” This interpretation of graffiti is quite convincing, especially considering the rampant gentrification of Brooklyn and Queens — indeed the very neighborhoods the NYPD has chosen to deploy its new campaign.

In order to understand the antagonism between graffiti artists and police today, however, we must revisit the genesis of contemporary graffiti in the hip hop movement during the 1960s in the South Bronx, and the evolution of the city’s response to graffiti developing as cultural and political force. During the mid-1960s — at the outset of urban crisis — graffiti taggers, or writers, began signing urban surfaces such as park benches, buildings, and subway trains with marks distinct to each artist. The practice grew through the 1970s as the marks became more elaborate. New York graffiti was subsequently met with strict public policy, and police directed anti-graffiti campaigns to eradicate graffiti from the urban environment, especially on subway trains where it was particularly noticeable. Mayor John Lindsay outlawed the sale of graffiti paraphernalia in 1972; Mayor Koch militarized train yards with razor wire and attack dogs in the early 1980s and  declared vandalism a felony, sentencing offenders to community service or jailing graffiti artists at Rikers Island. The “Graffiti Wars” between artists and police persisted till the 1990s when graffiti crime tapered under the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations due to increased police enforcement of “quality of life offenses” such as the ubiquitous squeegee-men, and homelessness — a trend that paralleled the exponential gentrification of Manhattan and surrounding boroughs of the City.

If the NYPD’s May 2 directive is indicative of a new “Graffiti War,” as Bratton’s comments suggest, it will come at a great cost to the city. “This whole graffiti program is ridiculous,” one officer said. “Some of these neighborhoods are really dangerous. There should be more of a focus on serious crime.” A high-ranking officer commented to the New York Post: “Summer is right around the corner. Shootings always go up in the warmer months. This year is no exception. You can’t have officers wasting their time on graffiti taggers.” If one thing is clear from these statements, it’s that police are not happy with their new duties, and citizens should not be complacent either. The May 2 directive will divert police resources away from crime and problems that actually affect the city, and thus will cause more harm than good.

But much larger issues are at stake here. Instead of experimenting with new ways to eradicate graffiti, New York City government should spend more time addressing systemic problems that cause graffiti in the first place. If we accept Jeff Ferrel’s assertion that graffiti is a response to inequitable conditions of urban life, as I believe has been the case in New York since the 1980s, then the real problem facing the city today is not graffiti, but the structural inequities of urban development such as the alienation of lower-middle and working-class communities displaced from the rising cost of city living.

If graffiti is on the rise in New York, as Bratton would have us believe, then we should read this trend as a sign that something is terribly wrong. “We’ll be dealing with that graffiti as far as the vandalism aspect, the gangs or crews, if you will, use that to spread messages,” said Commissioner Bratton, “as a way to mark their territory.” This is a dated view of graffiti, based on unfounded analyses from the 1970s that border on racism. Do graffiti writers really “mark their territory,” as would a dog or a wild animal? Of course not. Perhaps the real problem at stake here is with the leadership of the NYPD, and the obsolete ideology that informs their tactics.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Youngking11 via Wikipedia]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Reigniting the Graffiti Wars appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever been in a crowd of people that’s moving with a mind of its own? I’ve come close — various rallies in front of the White House, concerts, and the 2012 Inauguration all caused me to find myself in situations where I had basically no control over where I moved. I’m barely five feet and I’m petite — if someone wanted to move me or shove me they could do it with little effort.

Now luckily, none of those crowds that I’ve been swept up in turned into anything violent. I’ve always been able to push my way out, eventually. But I know that if a crowd I’m in ever does get violent and I’m forced to run, I have to be careful. I need to protect myself. And I would bet that most young women feel the same way–it’s a scary thought, but a realistic one.

I bet Cecily McMillan felt the same way.

Cecily McMillan was an Occupy protester in New York’s Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011. Police were brought in to break up the crowd, and it turned to chaos. Those who were there that night described it as an “attack.” Many protesters had their clothing ripped and were pushed to the ground. At one point Cecily McMillan threw an elbow into a policeman’s face, and last week she was found guilty of second-degree assault. She has yet to be sentenced, but could face up to seven years in prison. She is currently being held without bail on Rikers Island.

At first glance the case seems cut and dry. A protester tangled with a cop and is now paying the price. But in reality it is so much more complicated than that.

Cecily McMillan has her own side of the story. She claims that she threw the elbow as a gut reaction to having her right breast grabbed by the police officer who later accused her of assault — his name is Officer Bovell. Here’s a picture of McMillan after the incident in Zuccotti Park:

Maybe we should ask #CecilyMcMillan about her #myNYPD moment. http://t.co/zle2kOHvDf pic.twitter.com/lDVFsWhOZN — Ⓐ ‏#GrumpyCuntSec Ⓐ (@brazenqueer) April 22, 2014

That’s a bruise from where Officer Bovell allegedly grabbed her. Despite the prosecution’s contention that McMillan caused the injury herself, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Officer Bovell, at the very least, grabbed her from behind, regardless of how she reacted or why he did so.

#CecilyMcMillan, activista de @OccupyWallSt declarada culpable de atacar a policía de #NY http://t.co/V8hyrp64UM pic.twitter.com/ncj3fLyoMa — Democracy Now! Es (@DemocracyNowEs) May 6, 2014

That’s Officer Bovell right behind her with his hand raised. It certainly looks like he’s going to grab her, and it really looks like she’s not expecting it.

There’s some other conflicting evidence, including a video of McMillan elbowing Officer Bovell in the face, but it’s really hard to see why, or what he’s doing. It could be on purpose, or it could be because he had grabbed her.

So the case went to trial, where it seemed even more convincing that something fishy was up — Officer Bovell had a hard time identifying which eye McMillan had actually so viciously elbowed. He got it wrong, multiple times. Clearly her crazy attack left him traumatized.

And there’s also evidence that McMillan was in pretty bad shape when the police grabbed her. There’s a sixteen minute video of McMillan having a seizure:

If you watch closely, for the first few minutes no one really does anything. Finally, at the eight-minute mark she gets some medical attention. The photos of her that night can be found here, and they’re equally disturbing. She’s being thrown around like a rag doll. In some of them her feet are barely touching the ground. In some ways that’s what upsets me the most. This woman did not deserve the kind of brutality that she received that night. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Especially when one of those wrongs is dealt out by the people who are supposed to keep us safe — the police.

I understand that the police needed to clear the area. I understand that things got messy. But now she might be facing seven years in prison. And that’s plain ridiculous. Even the jury that convicted her thinks so — nine out of the twelve sent a letter to the judge stating,

We the jury petition the court for leniency in the sentencing of Cecily McMillan. We would ask the court to consider probation with community service. We feel that the felony mark on Cecily’s record is punishment enough for this case and that it serves no purpose to Cecily or to society to incarcerate her for any amount of time. We also ask that you factor in your deliberation process that this request is coming from 9 of the 12 member jury.

Trials are bifurcated for a reason — the jury has no say in McMillan’s sentencing. But that they felt so compelled as to ask for a lighter punishment for her shows this case was never cut and dry.

So I want you to put yourself in McMillan’s shoes again. Imagine that you’re swept up in a crowd and have no control. You panic, and someone grabs you, and you flail to get away. It’s not a new story, and it’s not that hard to imagine. I know because I imagine it every damn time I’m in a crowd that size.

I could be Cecily McMillan. So could you. And the way this case was handled should scare you.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Timothy Krause via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Any One of Us Could Be Cecily McMillan appeared first on Law Street.

For the past several years, the NYPD has been in trouble over a troubling “stop and frisk” policy. But with the election of Bill De Blasio, it looks like that policy may be going away.

The term “stop and frisk” stems from the practice of stopping individuals on the street, and searching them for contraband items- without probable cause. New York in particular came under fire over the past few years for taking part in the “stop and frisk” activities, and targeting minorities in the process.

Legally, there is some precedent on the issue. Terry v. Ohio was a case in 1968, which determined that officers could stop individuals without probable cause, so long as the officer had a “reasonable suspicion” to believe something was wrong. Many people claim that the NYPD took this to a new level, and used it to discriminate the people they stopped based on race, using “reasonable suspicion,” as a backdrop for that.

A lawsuit was brought against the city in 2008, and it was decided that the NYPD did indeed unfairly target minorities, specifically African American and Latino men. Rather than accept the fact the NYPD was acting in a systemically racist way, the city fought an appeals process over the ruling.

But with the newly elected mayor, Bill De Blasio, came a change in regards to the policy. This stance was one on which De Blasio campaigned last year. On Thursday, January 30, 2014 the mayor announced he would stop the appeals process of the lawsuit, agreeing to the recommendations by the judge who ruled on the case last year.

It seems as though the mayor might be looking at solutions outside of the courts, too.

This week, NYPD Chief William J. Bratton announced that rather than putting rookie police officers in high-crime neighborhoods, the NYPD would instead place more veteran officers with a better understanding of the complex dynamics in these situations.

The proposal can be seen as a step in the right direction when trying to train officers for the future. As Bratton pointed out, it would be possible for young, inexperienced, officers to take the “easy” way out, and engage in stop-and-frisk activities because it seems like the simplest way to target suspicious behavior. But starting a career with activities like this could lead to acting that way for years to come, perpetuating the kind of system for which New York is now under fire.

But are these two actions enough? Probably not, but they are two good places to start.

By changing the rhetoric and course of action Bloomberg had regarding the stop and frisk policies, De Blasio is acknowledging the systematic wrongdoings the NYPD took part in over the past years, and perhaps even decades. While the settlement itself may not change the attitudes of every NYPD officer, it is a sign of De Blasio’s willingness to move forward past these discriminatory policies.

On the same token, changing policies regarding young officers in dangerous neighborhoods may make an impact, but not until further down the road. It may not have been the lack of experience of the officers, which lead them to stop and frisk thousands of individuals without reasonable suspicion. That could have just as easily come from poor training, or a poor example set by higher-up officers in the NYPD. It could have been the result of already prejudiced individuals. And it some cases, it could have just made a mistake.

Regardless of the motivations behind the stop and frisk frenzy that took place in New York, moving forward, there isn’t going to be an easy fix to it. Though De Blasio seems to be taking the right steps in promoting change, it would be naïve to think that something as systematic and prejudiced as this policy will go away overnight. It will take major commitment on De Blasio’s part to maintain growth away from this policy.

[WSJ] [Terry v. Ohio] [NYT] [Floyd Case]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [debra via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With a New Regime, Can New York Settle on Controversial Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Stop-and-frisk policies were one of the hottest topics in law enforcement in the last several years. The controversial New York policy made headlines, led to accusations of racial profiling and discrimination, and was the subject of multiple court cases. Now, the practice has basically been discontinued altogether. Read on to learn about stop-and-frisk policies, the arguments for and against them, and the progress we’ve made since.

What is Stop and Frisk?

Stop and Frisk is a situation in which a police officer detains a suspicious person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect’s outer garments in order to determine if that person is carrying a concealed weapon. If this “patting down” doesn’t alleviate the officer’s suspicion, he may also check the suspect’s pockets. Its constitutionality derives from the 1968 Supreme Court decision of Terry v. Ohio in which the Court ruled that it is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment; however, many criticize the stop-and-frisk practice for being a racial profiling tool, claiming that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are subject to it.

On August 12, 2013, in Floyd v. City of New York, the Southern District Court of New York ruled that stop and frisk is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision was met with a lot of criticism and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals initially blocked and randomly reassigned the case in October 2013, stating that Judge Scheindlin, who wrote the majority opinion in August, “ran afoul” and had “compromised the appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.” More recently, the Court of Appeals failed to find any misconduct or ethical violation by Scheindlin and declined to reverse the decision. But it continued the stay on the ruling until the City of New York appealed it.

Why was it ruled unconstitutional in August 2013?

Activists in New York have been fighting stop and frisk for years. The August 2013 decision was based on a wealth of statistical data. Out of 4.4 million stops over the span of eight-and-a-half years, 52 percent of suspects were Black, 31 percent were Hispanic, and 10 percent were White (from a population of 23 percent Black, 29 percent Hispanic, and 33 percent White). Furthermore, in 23 to 24 percent of all stops with Black or Hispanic suspects, the police used force. Contrastingly, the police used force in 17 percent of all stops with White suspects. It was this evidence that prompted Scheindlin to write, “the policy encourages the targeting of young black and Hispanic men based on their prevalence in local crime complaints. This is a form of racial profiling.” Unlike former Mayor Bloomberg who strongly supported the practice, Mayor Bill de Blasio sharply criticized the policy during his campaign and promised to reform it. The public was outraged when the City of New York appealed the August 2013 decision.

What was the argument in favor of stop and frisk?

Supporters of stop and frisk believe in its efficacy for driving down crime. One of the most vocal supporters of the practice said that rules against stop and frisk “will make it harder for our police officers to protect New Yorkers and continue to drive down crime.” He argued that a disproportionate number of Blacks and Hispanics are stopped under this practice because a disproportionate number of them commit crimes. At least 10 out of 19 stops have been deemed justified. A report stated that gun shootings have increased by 2.3 percent between August and November 2013. The efficacy of this practice is further supported by a study that revealed that more than half of stops lead to guilty convictions, therefore keeping criminals off the street.

What’s the status of stop and frisk now?

Stop and frisk has pretty much been eliminated. According to data obtained by the New Republic, stop-and-frisk incidents have fallen by almost 80 percent during the first three quarters of 2014. More importantly, the seemingly apocalyptic scenario that many warned about if stop and frisk was discontinued didn’t happen. In August 2013, right when stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said, “No question about it, violent crime will go up.” Bloomberg  agreed: “if you try to so much as reform stop and frisk…you’re playing politics with people’s lives.”

But crime hasn’t actually gone up–in fact, just the opposite. It’s decreased, the same way that it has been steadily decreasing over the last few decades nationwide. Despite no more stop and frisk, the streets of New York City are getting safer.

Stop and frisk does still happen, though it’s gone down a lot. There’s a Twitter account dedicated to memorializing all the times that stop-and-frisk incidents happen, @stopandfrisk. It’s still active, and it still chronicles incidences of stop and frisk being used on citizens.

Stop and frisk could have made some sense, in theory, but ended up being a more problematic program than it was worth, not to mention unconstitutional. It’s heartening to see that the crime rate has continued to fall, even with stop and frisk no longer being used.

Resources

Primary

US Constitution: Fourth Amendment

US Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

NYPD: New York City Police Department Stop Question & Frisk Activity Official Report of First Quarter, 2013

New York Civil Liberties Union: Stop-And-Frisk Campaign

Center for Constitutional Rights: Floyd, et al. v. City of New York

Additional

Nation: Ending Stop-And-Frisk, Keeping the Racism

Washington Post: Judge Says New York’s ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Law Unconstitutional

Al-Jazeera: New Yorkers Urge de Blasio to #DropTheAppeal on Stop-and-Frisk

MSNBC: African-American Teen Says Stop-and-Frisk Has Made Him Fear Police

ACLU: We Know That Stop-and-Frisk is All Kinds of Horrible: So Why is it Expanding Nationwide?

Wall Street Journal: Judge Rules NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violates Rights

USA Today: Trayvon Martin’s Mom Blasts ‘Stop-and-Frisk’

Huffington Post: Joe Lhota Says Only Some of Stop and Frisks Might Constitute Racial Profiling In NYC

Washington Post: Ray Kelley defends New York’s controversial ‘stop and frisk’ law

NY Daily News: Bloomberg Sues City Council to Overturn Law Targeting Stop-and-Frisk Profiling

Washington Times: New York Police, Banned From Stop-and-Frisk, Warn of 12 Percent Drop in Gun Seizures

Reuters: Half of New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Arrests Yield Convictions

Legal Dictionary: Stop-and-Frisk

The New York Times: Court Block’s Stop-and-Frisk Changes for New York Police

Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology: Reflections on New York’s Stop-and-Frisk law and it’s Claimed Unconstitutionality

Fordham Law Review: The Right to Investigate and New York’s “Stop and Frisk” Law

VOA News: After NYC Elections, ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ Debate Persists

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Stop and Frisk: Did Ending it Make a Difference? appeared first on Law Street.

A Brooklyn woman, Jessica Krigsman, asserted her right to be topless in public last July at Calvert Vaux Park in Gravesend; however, two police officers still arrested her and she is now suing NYC for the arrest. While sitting topless on a park bench, Ms. Krigsman was approached by two officers who instructed her to put her shirt back on based on a complaint that they received. She promptly informed them that it has been legal to be topless in public since 1992, eliciting the response from the officers to “stop mouthing off” or be arrested.After refusing again and pointing out that such an arrest would be illegal, the cops handcuffed her and threw a shirt over her head (roughly, she claims). Although the charges were dropped in October, it apparently did not make up for the five hours Ms. Krigsman spent sitting in a jail cell on charges of “obstructing a sitting area.” She is seeking unspecified damages for civil rights violations, in addition to claiming assault and battery and malicious prosecution. Ms. Krigsman’s lawyer, Stuart Jacobs, attributes this behavior towards topless women in public to a knee jerk reaction to nudity. He claims that police wrongfully harass women who choose to be topless in public based on an instinct that a topless woman in public is instinctively wrong. So he is pretty much saying that if you tell a cop you have a right to walk around topless in public, they have this reaction:

Sad to say this hasn’t been the only nudity-related injustice in the Big Apple. In 2008, sun bather Phoenix Feeley was arrested twice for being topless (the second time was leaving the county jail, shirtless, in protest of her first arrest). She was eventually fined $816; however, she was recently arrested again due to her failure to pay the fine.

Sir Ben Kingsley has a point. Although we can applaud Ms. Feeley’s Rosa Parks-esque stand for topless women everywhere, she should have just paid the fine. However, the cops who arrested Ms. Krigsman went against NYPD orders to stand down on arrests of women for “merely exposing their breasts in public.” This should be an interesting case to follow, however I remain skeptical about what damages she actually suffered in those five hours she was detained. Let’s get the Keep A Breast organization on this with their “I Love Boobies” campaign.

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Right to be Topless in Public – Clothes Are Optional NYC appeared first on Law Street.