Tag: Police Management

Daniel Prude death: No charges for Rochester police officers


Police officers in New York need to pay attention to the agenda of AG Letitia James. After not being able to indict the Rochester Officers involved with the death of Daniel Prude AG James now thinks the Grand Jury process is inadequate. She controlled the investigation in the Daniel Prude case, her office presented the evidence to the Grand Jury and after the Grand Jury didn’t indict the Grand Jury system is broken? WHY? 23 citizens didn’t fulfill their oath as a Grand Juror? Maybe the Grand Jurors felt that there simply wasn’t enough probable cause to indict the officers on the charges that the AG office was alleging.
The most concerning attack on New York Police is AG James wanting to change when a police officer will be permitted to use deadly physical force. AG James said she wants to change Penal Law Article 35 from a “subjective simple necessity” standard to an “absolute last resort exhausting all other non-lethal means before using deadly force”. This is very dangerous for police. The concern is that Police will be too pressured not to make a mistake that police and citizens will be more at risk of injury or death because of the hesitancy and confusion when police can use deadly force to protect themselves and others. It is easy to see that “Absolute Last Resort Exhausting All Other Non-Lethal Means Before Using Deadly Force” would create circumstances that police might delay their use of deadly force just enough where the offender’s use of deadly force would be effective injuring or killing someone. Reaction is slower than action. Clouding the officer’s reaction by mandating a menu of mandatory responses when immediately needed response should be deadly force places people in unnecessary danger.

Attorney General James Press Conference – February 23, 2021 HERE
The NYS Attorney General Website is HERE

Special Investigations and Prosecutions Unit Report on the Investigation into The Death of Daniel Prude
can be accessed HERE

Special Investigations and Prosecutions Unit

On July 8, 2015, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 147, which appointed the New York State Attorney General as special prosecutor in incidents where a law enforcement officer causes the death of an unarmed civilian, or where there is a significant question as to whether the civilian was armed and dangerous. The following day, the office announced the creation of the Special Investigations and Prosecutions Unit (SIPU) to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute all cases that fall within the scope of Executive Order 147.
The SIPU website with more reports is HERE

Queens DA Reveals New Internal List Of NYPD Officers With Credibility Issues

Queens prosecutors have been tracking at least 78 NYPD officers whose credibility have been challenged in court, according to documents obtained by Gothamist/WNYC as part of a two-year fight to get the information released under the state’s public records law.
The documents flag past incidents of suspected police dishonesty and previously unreported details of officers who remained on the force despite criminal convictions.
NOTE: As part of the article there are some examples of written notice by the District Attorney as part of disclosure that indicates if an Officer has been involved any (I am guessing) “negative issues” that involved a Civil proceeding, Prior Testimony, or Disciplinary Matters with a summary that is redacted that must be the highlights that the District Attorney must want to point out.
Read more…. https://gothamist.com/news/queens-prosecutors-tracked-nypd-cops-suspected-lying-and-criminal-convictions-documents-show

NYPD Loses Appeal to Keep Disciplinary Records Under Lock & Key

In the publication there are a few interesting links to court documents.
MANHATTAN (CN) — The New York City Police Department “cannot bargain away” its disclosure obligations, the Second Circuit ruled Tuesday as it rejected a bid by police and firefighter unions to block the publishing of thousands of officer misconduct records. 
Killing the appeal in an unsigned summary order, the three-judge panel blew through claims that greater transparency would risk officers’ safety.
READ on …. https://www.courthousenews.com/nypd-lose-appeal-to-keep-disciplinary-records-under-lock-key/

“How the Fourth Amendment Frustrates the Regulation of Police Violence” by Seth W. Stoughton

Within policing, few legal principles are more widely known or highly esteemed than the “objective reasonableness” standard that regulates police uses of force. The Fourth Amendment, it is argued, is not only the facet of constitutional law that governs police violence, it sets out the only standard that state lawmakers, police commanders, and officers should recognize. Any other regulation of police violence is inappropriate and unnecessary. Ironically, though, the Constitution does not actually regulate the use of force. It regulates seizures. Some uses of force are seizures. This Article explains that a surprising number of others—including some police shootings—are not. Uses of force that do not amount to seizures fall entirely outside the ambit of Fourth Amendment regulation. And when a use of force does constitute a seizure, the Fourth Amendment is a distressingly inapt regulatory tool. There is, in short, a fundamental misalignment between what the Fourth Amendment is thought to regulate and what it actually regulates, and there are good reasons to doubt the efficacy of that regulation even when it applies. Put simply, the Fourth Amendment is a profoundly flawed framework for regulating police violence. The Constitution is not the only option. Police reformers have offered state law and police agency policies as promising regulatory alternatives. What has largely evaded academic attention, however, is the extent to which state courts and police agencies simply adopt or incorporate the constitutional standards into state law or agency policies. In this way, the Fourth Amendment’s flaws have spilled over into the sub-constitutional regulation of police violence. This Article details the substantial shortcomings in constitutional jurisprudence, describes the problem of Fourth Amendment spillage, and argues that the divergent interests underlying the various regulatory mechanisms should lead state lawmakers and administrative policymakers to divorce state law and administrative policies from constitutional law. In doing so, it advances both academic and public conversations about police violence.
— Read on scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol70/iss3/1/