Archive for the ‘Police Misconduct & Brutality’ Category

When is an Arrest “FALSE”?

The most common mistake made by clients  who have been arrested when they have, in fact, done nothing wrong, is to assume that if the case is dismissed by a judge at some point, then that is enough to give them grounds for a “false arrest” lawsuit.   This, unfortunately, is not necessarily true.

The reason is quite simple:  The evidence legally required to make a police officer’s  arrest “legal”, and therefore not “false”,   is less than the evidence necessary to convict a person of a crime in court.

The legal standard to judge the legality of an arrest is whether the officer had “probable cause” to believe a crime was committed.   The legal standard to generate a conviction is whether, taking all the evidence presented, there is a conclusion “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the person arrested committed the crime.   “Reasonable Doubt” requires a much higher level of proof than does “Probable Cause”.   Therefore, while the prosecutor may not be able to meet the higher standard of “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”   in court, the police officer may have met the lower standard of “Probable  Cause” in making the arrest.   If the lower standard was met by the police officer in making the arrest, then there is no “FALSE” arrest.

It is of the utmost importance that you do not try to decide for yourself whether “probable cause” existed in deciding whether there was a “FALSE” arrest. Seek the assistance of a competent attorney well versed in matters involving “Police Misconduct” and discuss the matter fully with that attorney.

A prominent African-American Harvard professor is arrested by a police sergeant in
Massachusetts.   The President comments about the arrest, and the nation is riveted by the issue for the following several days.  Truth be told, people are arrested for “disorderly conduct” in every city in the nation , every day of the year.  The single most valuable statement made by the President with respect to this incident is that it offers all of us a “teachable moment”.
For those of us dealing with Police Misconduct on a daily basis, the circumstances of this
case are exceedingly familiar.   Several valid points can be made with respect to this type of an arrest:
— Police will often take offense at conduct that they deem disrespectful toward
themselves.  Cooperate fully, or suffer the consequences, is a widespread rule among police.
— Depending on the amount of emotion involved, and in the absence of any actual
crime being committed, an officer may choose to “have the last laugh” and place the person
annoying him under arrest, usually for Disorderly Conduct.  This, at the least, results in
handcuffing and a visit to the police station.
—This happens to  whites, blacks and Latinos.  However, it is incontrovertible that
vastly more minorities are both stopped and interrogated, leading to many more opportunities for “confrontations” to occur, which in turn leads to many more “Disorderly Conduct” arrests among minorities.
— The history of police-minority relations, especially between police and African
Americans, cannot be erased from the collective memory of those who have suffered, and from their descendants who have heard the stories of their forebears’ experiences.   It stands to reason that such collective memory will influence the perceptions concerning police actions.

FALSE ARREST | STUNNING CONCLUSION BY A UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

One of the most erudite, intellectually gifted and respected judges on the federal bench, long time Eastern District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, stunningly admonished the New York City Police Department for “widespread falsification by arresting officers.”

What was particularly astonishing is that, in deciding against a motion by the New York City attorneys to have a federal case thrown out, on the basis that no evidence was presented to the court that police lying is tolerated by the NYPD, the judge relied not on evidence in the case before him. Rather, the judge stated that his decision that police lying may well be construed as an official policy of the NYPD, rests on “Informal inquiry…” among the judges of the Eastern District and other “…anecdotal evidence of repeated, widespread falsification by arresting officers…” of the NYPD.

The judge noted that while the vast majority of police officers are honest,

and in spite of the fact that training for recruits has improved and disciplinary action, when taken, is tough, there is evidence that an attitude, which condones lying among police officers, is sufficiently widespread to suggest that it amounts to a “custom or policy” by the City of New York. This, in turn, amounts to approval of illegal conduct by the City and the Police Department.

In practical terms, this decision certainly boosts the position of parties in their attempts to substantiate the grounds that must be demonstrated to succeed in Federal Courts, in cases based on violation of the Federal Civil Rights statute, usually relied upon in false arrest cases. For the lawyers representing clients falsely arrested, this decision will reverberate in a manner that should bring greater relief to those unjustly charged. If you have ever been unjustly charged of a crime you should call one of our NYC Personal Injury Attorneys at Orlow, Orlow, & Orlow.

A “Strip Search,” which involves the compulsory removal of clothing pursuant to an order by some official, is a degrading and humiliating experience.  Regardless of the circumstances, this experience, in and of itself, can leave an indelible impression on the affected individual.

Most often, the issue arises when police officers are involved.  The guidelines established by the New York City Police Department would appear to treat the issue with requisite seriousness, and seem to establish certain safeguards to see that a “Strip Search” is conducted only under proper circumstances.   As is so often the regrettable case, these guidelines are either ignored or unknown  to many officers, with unfortunate results.

A recent case decided by the United States Supreme Court (Safford Unified School District v. April Redding**) declared that students may be “strip searched” by school officials “…only in the most extraordinary situations.”    The bar for valid strip searches in schools was thereby raised..

If anyone is subjected to a “Strip Search”, and if is unclear in the least to that person why he or she was subjected to that humiliating procedure, it is important to contact an experienced civil rights attorney to discuss the circumstances.  Even if you were arrested or issued a summons, the “Strip Search” itself may have been uncalled for and inapropriate, and may be the subject of a lawsuit by the victim of such a search.

**http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000‑2009/2008/2008_08_479

The NY Times has a recent article about the New York police being on pace to make a record number of stops. In the article, they discuss “Stop & Frisk”. We’d like to provide you with some additional information about stop and frisk and when it may or may not be done legally.

• What is “STOP & FRISK”?
• Is “STOP & FRISK”  legal?
• What are your rights?

The New York City Police Department is required to inform the City
Council of the number of “STOP & FRISK” occurrences pursuant to a law passed
in 2001 that followed the tragic shooting of an immigrant who was killed.. In
New York City alone, for the three month period of January, 2009 through
March, 2009, there were over 170,000 “Stop & Frisk” events!

“STOP & FRISK” is a term utilized by police departments throughout the
United States to describe an activity whereby police will approach an individual
on the street.   The approach by the police officer may seem to be a random act to
the person being approached.  If, however, the procedure is being performed
properly by the police officer, then the act is done for one of a variety of very
specific, and lawful, reasons:

• The subject being stopped  resembles a suspect in a crime that was committed.
• The subject is thought to be about to commit a crime based on reasonable suspicion.
• The subject may have recently committed a crime (running from the scene of a crime).
• The subject is thought to be carrying an illegal weapon or drugs based on reasonable suspicion.

Under any of these circumstances, a police officer is entitled to ask an individual
for his identification and even to make further inquiries. If the circumstances
warrant, as noted above, the police officer may even perform an appropriate (and
limited) “frisk”, or search, of the individual to ascertain if the suspicions were
justified.

Truthfully stated, “STOP & FRISK” performed by New York City police
officers is probably a major reason that New York City has the lowest crime rate
of any big city in the United States. Nevertheless, this certainly does not justify
an improper, unreasonable and unjustified “STOP & FRISK” on an individual
who does not fall into any of the categories justifying such an action. All too
often, experience has shown, that “Stop & Frisk” is utilized by officers on a
random and haphazard basis without the slightest regard for proper adherence to
rules, regulations or laws.

It is often the case, when innocent and honest individuals are stopped “for
no reason” by police officers, that matters tend to escalate. Police tend to expect
certain levels of respect by those they approach. They expect to be responded to,
and not to have to respond to inquires. “Attitudes” can flare up both on the part
of the subject approached, and on the part of the police officer. This is where
matters all too often lead to results that eventually require the services of an
attorney well schooled in the area of Police Misconduct.

Posted by: New York Injury Attorney Steve Orlow

STOP & FRISK

In 2009 there were approximately 575,000 “Stop & Frisk” reports filed by NYPD officers. Of these, only about 6% resulted in arrests, and another 6% resulted in a summons being issued. The position of the Police Department is that Stop & Frisks are an effective crime-fighting tool.  The Department holds onto the information it gathers in each Stop & Frisk “indefinitely,” with the intention of using that information, if necessary, in future investigations. Between 2004 and 2009 there were 2,798,461 “Stops” by the police, and 2,467,160 resulted in no action at all, yet each person stopped has a record with personal information on file with the police.

Certain members of the New York City Council have demanded that all the individuals, in instances where either no action was taken at the time of the “Stop”, or where action may have been taken but the person was later found “not guilty”, or was exonerated in some other way, be removed entirely from this database.  The majority of individuals affected are minorities (Black and Latino).

The final outcome of this tug of war between the New York City Police Department and the City Council has yet to be determined.  I will note, personally, as a former New York City council member, that it is my belief that any recalcitrance by the Police Department can be overcome by the City Council through the passage of legislation, if that is truly the Council’s desire.

POLICE MISCONDUCT | SCHOOL SAFETY OFFICERS

In 1998 the New York City Police Department assumed direct responsibility for safety in the New York City public school system. While there are some police officers assigned to schools, the overwhelming number of Police Department personnel assigned to the public schools, for the purpose of maintaining a safe environment, are civilian employees of the Police Department known as “School Safety Officers.” School safety officers have the authority to stop and frisk students as well as question, search and even arrest students. Of singular note is that school administrators have no authority at all over the school safety officers in their school !

School safety officers receive 14 weeks of training before they are sent to their school assignment. A NYC police officer goes through a six month training course. Is it any wonder that the actions of many school safety officers often defy reason. It was the persistent and blatant disregard for the appropriate guidelines, leading to unlawful arrests and other abusive activity, that prompted the American Civil Liberties Union, together with the NY Civil Liberties Union, to bring a federal civil action calling for a drastic change in procedures. The ACLU stated that “Despite mounting evidence of systemic misconduct by police personnel in the schools, the NYPD refuses to even acknowledge any problems with its school policing practices.”

School Safety Officers have routinely broken school policing rules, used unwarranted excessive force, and have violated other school safety regulations and procedures.

According to the New York Daily News (January 21, 2010, page 26) the City of New York averaged 500 complaints against school safety personnel between the years 2002 to 2007. In 2008 that number jumped, according to the News, to 1159.School based personnel are subject to virtually the same rules, regulations and laws as would any other police personnel on the street, in dealing with the public. In fact, the population with which school safety personnel are dealing is entitled to extra consideration, not less, because they are, invariably, minors. Any act or behavior on the part of school safety personnel that deviates from acceptable norms and standards is, and should be, the subject not only of disciplinary action within the police department, but the party harmed should seriously consider a civil lawsuit for actions that are truly outrageous and unacceptable.

If contemplating a lawsuit, the injured party should not only seek a competent Personal Injury Attorney, but look specifically for one well versed in the area of police misconduct and abuse, including cases involving excessive force and false arrest.

Federal class-action lawsuit charges school safety officers subjected kids to ‘excessive force’

Read an article from the New York Daily News titled ” Federal class-action lawsuit charges school safety officers subjected kids to ‘excessive force”‘ by CLICKING HERE

Too often we forget that police officers are human beings like each one of us.   They have the same emotions and concerns that affect each of us in our daily lives.   The difference is that they often face truly dangerous situations that have potentially deadly consequences.   They have a sense of real fear, as any of us would have, in dangerous situations.

Have you seen the average police officer?   More often than not, and unlike your average firefighter, their physical fitness leaves much to be desired.   In reality, the lack of physical fitness is simply symptomatic of the overall lack of training needed to face potential life threatening situations–situations that threaten BOTH the life of the officer AND the life of their potential target.  New York City police officers may not be United States Marines, but that is little excuse for not being trained on a continuing basis, throughout their careers, to keep them able to face the most dire of situations.

How often do we hear about the shooting of an individual when we say to ourselves “was that shooting really necessary?”   While we certainly do not want police officers to place their own lives in imminent danger of serious physical harm or even death, resort to the use of the police revolver seems too quick, too often.   Perhaps one answer would be equipping officers with tasers.   Better to stun an individual brandishing a knife or other weapon (other than a gun), than to shoot that individual.   Most importantly, train the officers in avoiding the use of the gun other than as a very last resort.   Train officers in methods of protecting themselves so that in a confrontation, they can feel themselves in less physical danger.

More than any other factor, the most serious physical injuries upon individuals occurs when police officers, understandably, feel themselves the most threatened.   It is the obligation of the police department hierarchy to recognize that this is, indeed, a situation that can be severely ameliorated through the institution of intensive, continuous and effective training.

Posted by Injury Attorney Steve Orlow

Part 1 – Keystone Kop Part 2 – Police Arrogance, Rage

Police officers are vested with an enormous amount of power over individuals in society.  This is evidenced by the weapons they carry and the badge that they wear or possess.   For an officer it is sometimes  difficult to understand that the power vested in them by the state is not their’s to wield  however their whim may dictate.  On the other hand, when a police officer makes a routine inquiry, we must all understand that an officer does have the responsibility of maintaining certain order and security within our society and as members of society we should be respectful and responsive.

Problems arise when a real or perceived lack of courtesy on the part of a police officer is interpreted as a demonstration of disrespect toward the individual being approached by that officer.  Or conversely, a word, comment or question by an individual being stopped by the officer is deemed by the officer as insufficiently responsive .  All too often the exchange of just a few words escalates into a major confrontation and the consequences lead to improper actions by the police officer in response to what the police officer views as disrespect  toward himself, personally.   Arrests that, under normal circumstances would not take place, now occur.   All too often, inappropriate physical force is also applied by the police officer.  This is compounded by the fact that what was clearly an unjustified arrest is usually “covered up” by the leveling of false or improper charges.   The “victim” is now incarcerated, may suffer physical injury, and is burdened with facing criminal charges in court.

Part 1 – Keystone Kop Part 3 – Inadequate Training

What is “Police Misconduct”?

How Do We Define What Constitutes “Police Misconduct”?

There are, essentially, three categories of “Police Misconduct”.  What follows is a three part series of each of  these  categories.

Part 1 -  “Keystone Kops” Situation:

This is a situation where, through either carelessness or neglect, officers will perform legitimate  police  functions, but do so in a way that is faulty.

Perhaps the simplest example is where officers enter (or “raid”) the wrong house  or apartment.   We have actually had a case where the police, intending to execute a perfectly legal search warrant for Apartment 1A, mistakenly enter Apartment 2A.   What compounds the error is that  upon entering the “suspect” apartment, the officers perform otherwise proper police procedures upon the occupants.   In this particular instance, the occupants were a husband and wife in their 80’s, who were made to lie on the floor–and had their hands handcuffed behind their backs !!  This, after a dozen or so heavily armed police officers in full armored gear, had just invaded their apartment. When the mistake in the choice of apartment became  known, there was little the police could do to erase the fear, anxiety and sheer terror this elderly couple had experienced.

This couple sought legal assistance and was in a position to be compensated for this terrifying experience.

Part 2 Police Arrogance – Rage Part 3 – Inadequate Training