NYPD Inspector General Plan Receives 'Broad Agreement' To Provide Oversight Of Police Practices (The Associated Press) and Other Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 NYC Police Related News Articles

Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 — Good Morning, Stay Safe

 

- - - - -

 

Bringing Accountability to Kelly

 

NYPD Inspector General Plan Receives 'Broad Agreement' To Provide Oversight Of Police Practices
By JENNIFER PELTZ  (The Associated Press)  — Tuesday, March 19th, 2013;  9:18 p.m. EDT

 

NOTE:  See next article.

 

 

NEW YORK — The New York Police Department would get a new watchdog under a deal city lawmakers reached Tuesday, propelling a plan galvanized by outrage over its extensive use of the tactic known as stop and frisk and its widespread spying on Muslims.

 

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced the pact on installing an inspector general for the nation's biggest police department. She said talks were progressing on three companion proposals to set new rules surrounding stop and frisk, including expanding protections against racial profiling.

 

"We came to a very important agreement" on the plan for an inspector general, Quinn said by phone Tuesday evening. The monitor would be able to issue subpoenas and look broadly at police procedures and policies.

 

Civil rights and police reform advocates said they were pleased with the pact but continuing to press for the other measures. Police unions condemned the inspector general idea as squandering resources on red tape, and the police department said it gets plenty of oversight already.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD inspector general plan could set stage for showdown between Bloomberg, city council

By JENNIFER PELTZ  (The Associated Press)  —  Wednesday, March 20th, 2013; 2:28 a.m.  EDT

 

 

NEW YORK — A newly proposed watchdog that would monitor the New York Police Department likely will set the stage for a showdown between city lawmakers, who have pushed for such oversight, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose administration says it is unnecessary.

 

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said Tuesday that lawmakers had reached a deal to install an inspector general for the nation’s biggest police department. The plan was galvanized by outrage over the police department’s extensive use of the tactic known as stop and frisk and its widespread spying on Muslims.

 

The developments come amid a federal trial over the department’s use of stop and frisk, and they follow a series of stories by The Associated Press that revealed how city police systematically listened in on sermons, hung out at cafes and other public places, infiltrated colleges and photographed people as part of a broad effort to prevent terrorist attacks.

 

“We came to a very important agreement” on the plan for an inspector general, Quinn said by phone Tuesday evening. The monitor would be able to issue subpoenas and look broadly at police procedures and policies.

 

Quinn said talks also were progressing on three companion proposals to set new rules surrounding stop and frisk, including expanding protections against racial profiling.

 

She said she believed city council had the votes to pass the plan and override a mayoral veto, if necessary.

 

Civil rights and police reform advocates said they were pleased with the pact but were continuing to press for the other measures. Police unions condemned the inspector general idea as squandering resources on red tape, and the police department said it gets plenty of oversight.

 

‘Browne Poo’ Alert  (Fatty McFibber bloviating)

 

“No police department in America has more oversight than the NYPD,” chief police spokesman Paul Browne said in a statement.

 

Proposed last year, the inspector general and stop-and-frisk measures have gotten entrained in the politics of a competitive mayoral campaign. Quinn, a leading Democratic candidate, has faced pressure from civil rights and minority advocates and from some of her rivals to get the measures passed. One of them, Democratic Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, held a news conference on the inspector general issue Tuesday morning.

 

The ongoing stop-and-frisk trial — featuring testimony from people who said they were accosted by police while simply running out for milk or walking home from the bus — has only ratcheted up attention and raised the question of whether the court might decide to impose its own monitor. Adding to the charged backdrop, days of sometimes-violent protests erupted in Brooklyn last week after a stop ended with police shooting and killing a teen they said pulled out a gun.

 

“The events of last week were deeply disturbing to everyone in the city,” and the trial has helped sharpen focus on stop and frisk, but intense negotiations among lawmakers and advocates were under way for weeks beforehand, Quinn said.

 

Not all lawmakers were in on the talks, including the Council’s Public Safety Committee chairman, Peter Vallone Jr. He said Tuesday he had yet to see details of the changed proposal, which would be expected to get a vote in his committee before going to the full council. Vallone doesn’t oppose the idea of an inspector general, though he’s vehemently against the other three companion proposals.

 

They would require officers to explain why they are stopping people, to tell people when they have a right to refuse a search and to hand out business cards identifying themselves. The measures also would give people more latitude to sue over stops they considered biased.

 

In a key change, the inspector general would be housed within the city’s existing Department of Investigation, which acts as an inspector general for many other arms of the city government, Quinn said.

 

The proposal originally set up a separate inspector general’s office just for the NYPD, and Bloomberg’s administration argued that it was both unnecessary and beyond the council’s powers. Quinn said she and other lawmakers were comfortable the new plan would survive legal scrutiny.

 

Bloomberg’s office referred calls Tuesday to the NYPD, which said it already gets plenty of oversight from its 700-person Internal Affairs Bureau, a civilian complaint board, a police corruption commission, prosecutors, judges and a 1985 federal court settlement that set guidelines for its intelligence-gathering.

 

But Quinn said at a mayoral candidate forum: “You can have a lot of entities, but if they’re not getting the job done, then more is needed.”

 

The NYPD has said that its surveillance of Muslims is legal and that stop and frisk — a technique of stopping, questioning and sometimes frisking people who are seen as acting suspiciously but who don’t necessarily meet the probable-cause standard for arrest — has helped drive crime down to record lows and save lives by taking weapons off the street.

 

Police have made about 5 million stops during the past decade, mostly of black and Hispanic men; critics say the practice unfairly targets minorities. The Supreme Court has said such stops are legal; the current trial concerns whether the NYPD’s use of the tactic needs to change.

 

City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch called it a “politically driven” and “unconscionable” waste to spend city money on an inspector general instead of on more police officers. Captains Endowment Association President Roy Richter termed it an added layer of bureaucracy that “would retard the (NYPD’s) ability to adapt to the ever changing public safety needs of the city.”

 

Inspectors general — officials with investigative powers — are a common feature of government agencies, including in law enforcement and intelligence. The FBI and the CIA have such inspectors, as do police forces including the Los Angeles Police Department.

 

Civil rights advocates say it’s time for the same in the NYPD. New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman said her group was gratified that the council appeared poised “to create meaningful oversight and mechanisms to investigate police practices,” but advocates wanted action on the other proposals, too.

 

Councilmen Brad Lander and Jumaane Williams, who sponsored all the proposals, said they appreciated the “productive negotiations,” but lawmakers needed to go further than the inspector general proposal.

 

“Any legislative response by the City Council should, at a minimum, prohibit discriminatory policing, based on racial or other profiling,” they said in a statement. “New York will only be truly safe when communities trust the police.”

 

___

 

Associated Press writer Colleen Long in New York contributed to this report.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Police Department Monitor Is Topic at a Mayoral Forum

By J. DAVID GOODMAN — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Times’

 

 

Two central characters recurred in the Tuesday night mayoral debate over public safety and the future of the Police Department: one who is real and one who is, at least at this point, still notional.

 

The first was Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, the mention of whose name brought frequent murmurs from the audience of roughly 200 people in Jamaica, Queens. The other was a proposed inspector general to independently monitor the department.

 

Earlier Tuesday, Christine C. Quinn, the Democratic City Council speaker and a mayoral candidate, announced that the Council had generally agreed to create the position, a plan at odds with Mr. Kelly.

 

Ms. Quinn, one of the seven candidates onstage at the First Presbyterian Church on Tuesday, expressed strong support for the plan, which she said would “enhance the effectiveness of the department, and at the same time will increase the public’s confidence in the police force, building stronger police-community relations.”

 

The deal, which has also been opposed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, would give the inspector general subpoena power over the Police Department. Ms. Quinn said that a vote could come as early as next month and that the Council could override any veto to the plan.

 

Mr. Kelly has repeatedly said that the department and its officers are already closely scrutinized, both externally and internally.

 

“No police department in America has more oversight than the N.Y.P.D.,” Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, said in an e-mail on Tuesday.

 

The mayor’s office referred requests for comment to the Police Department.

 

Ms. Quinn said at the debate that the current oversight of the department was too focused on individual officers and did not address broad policies, like the use of stop-and-frisk tactics, or potentially systemic problems.

 

Even as she seemed to draw a wedge between herself and Mr. Kelly on the issue, she told the audience that she would keep him on as commissioner. “Thinking somebody is good at a job and should stay at a job doesn’t mean I agree with him about everything,” she said.

 

When asked by a questioner from the audience who among the candidates would keep the commissioner, Ms. Quinn and the billionaire owner of the Gristedes grocery store chain, John A. Catsimatidis, were alone in raising a hand in firm support.

 

Joseph J. Lhota, a Republican and former deputy in the Giuliani administration, gave a raised hand with a waggle that appeared to indicate some amount of wavering. Also wavering was Adolfo Carrión Jr., a former Bronx borough president who won the support of the Independence Party last month.

 

The rest of the candidates on stage — Bill de Blasio, the city’s public advocate; John C. Liu, the city comptroller; and William C. Thompson Jr., a former comptroller — said they, all Democrats, would seek a new police commissioner.

 

“You can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” Mr. de Blasio said in response to the suggestion by Ms. Quinn that the department could reform certain practices while retaining Mr. Kelly.

 

Organized around audience questions, the debate occasionally touched raw nerves as questioners and the candidates referred to personal stories of crime and police encounters, especially street stops that involved frisking. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bloomberg have defended the stops, which over the last decade have overwhelmingly targeted black and Hispanic men and teenagers.

 

Mr. Thompson described discussing what to do in the event of a police stop with his own 15-year-old stepson. “In the end, he asked the right question,” Mr. Thompson said. “I’m not doing anything wrong, why would I get stopped?”

 

Several minutes later, Mr. Liu brought up that story, saying that “this is about deep humiliation” and that he felt “terrible” hearing the story of Mr. Thompson’s son.

 

That comment led to an emotional response from Mr. Thompson, who is black: “I’m the one that has to worry about my son being stopped and frisked,” he said, hitting the table at one point. “I’m concerned about my son, also, being shot by somebody who is a member of a gang in the street.”

 

Perhaps the most unusual suggestion of the night came from Mr. Catsimatidis, a Republican, who said that if he became mayor, he would like to see more mobile officers “either on a bicycle or a tricycle.” He added, “If it will make Bloomberg happy, make them electric.”

 

Wendy Ruderman contributed reporting.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Inspector general bill backed by Council Speaker Christine Quinn set to crack down on NYPD stop-and-frisk practices
Quinn has voiced support for the measure that ‘will increase the public’s confidence in the police force’ after fellow mayoral candidate Public Advocate Bill de Blasio challenged her support of the bill.

By Erin Durkin AND Jonathan Lemire — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn on Tuesday declared her support for installing an inspector general to monitor the NYPD — setting up a potential showdown with her frequent ally Mayor Bloomberg, who opposes the idea.

 

Quinn said oversight is needed because of the controversial police tactic known as stop-and-frisk. “We can’t have a practice like this go unchecked,” said Quinn, the Democratic front-runner for mayor, vowing to “pass real monitoring into law.”

 

The issue of stop-and-frisk has emerged as an early flashpoint in the mayoral campaign. It is also being challenged in Manhattan Federal Court.

 

Quinn declared her support for more police oversight before attending a mayoral forum, co-sponsored by the Daily News, in which the candidates hotly debated the tactic before a boisterous crowd at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens.

 

A bill to create an independent police inspector general with subpoena power was introduced in June. But Quinn refused to bring it to the Council floor, saying she needed to study it.

 

The delay had prompted fierce criticism by some of her Democratic rivals for mayor, including Bill de Blasio, the public advocate. He criticized her again earlier Tuesday, at a news conference before she made her announcement.

 

By supporting the bill, Quinn now risks angering Bloomberg, whose support she would like in the general election.

 

Bloomberg’s office referred questions to police spokesman Paul Brown, who blasted the bill. “No police department in America has more oversight than the NYPD,” he said.

 

At Tuesday night’s forum, co-sponsored by the Metro Industrial Areas Foundation, the candidates differed wildly on stop-and-frisk.

 

Three Democrats — Quinn, de Blasio and former Controller William Thompson — plus Republican Joe Lhota and Independent Adolfo Carrion all said they wanted to continue, but reform, the practice.

 

Billionaire Republican John Catsimatidis supported the policy as is. Controller John Liu, a Democrat, demanded its elimination, calling stop-and-frisk a form of racial profiling and a source of “humiliation” for those who are detained.

 

“The amount of division [created by stop-and-frisk] between communities and police has made it less safe for everybody,” Liu said, to approving hoots and hollers from the overwhelmingly African-American crowd. “I believe stop-and-frisk has to be abolished.”

 

Liu was at the center of the night’s most charged moment after Thompson, who is African-American, said he had to warn his stepson about stop-and-frisk. Liu said Thompson should join him in calling for the practice’s end.

 

“I’m the one who has to worry about my son being stopped and frisked, I have to worry about my son being shot!” Thompson shouted, pounding his fist on the table. “You and I disagree fundamentally,” he said to applause.

 

Although he called for reforming stop-and-frisk, Lhota notably rejected the proposed inspector general law endorsed by Quinn. “More bureaucracy is not the answer,” he said.

 

Quinn said she would keep Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, while her Democratic opponents adamantly said they would not.

 

“I think it is unbelievable that Ray Kelly is going to reform stop-and-frisk in the way we need,” said de Blasio. “With all due respect, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”

 

Catsimatidis said he would keep Kelly on the job, while both Carrion and Lhota said they were uncertain.

 

With Rocco Parascandola

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Quinn hails deal to rein in NYPD

By SALLY GOLDENBERG, JAMIE SCHRAM and CARL CAMPANILE — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’

 

 

The NYPD would be saddled with an oversight agency empowered to help shape police policies, under an election-season deal proudly trumpeted yesterday by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

 

The move by the Democratic mayoral front-runner was immediately slammed as a politically motivated power play that could hamper the department’s successful crime-fighting formula by putting critics like the ACLU in charge of police policy.

 

The new agency would be able to subpoena documents and, when reviewing NYPD practices and procedures such as stop-and-frisk and Muslim-group surveillance, even interview witnesses. It would recommend “corrective action” to the mayor and the council.

 

Quinn’s measure to create the Inspector General’s Office comes amid a federal trial challenging the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy.

 

Quinn, the favorite to follow Mayor Bloomberg at City Hall, is trying to appeal to left-leaning primary voters — many of whom oppose stop-and-frisk.

 

State Sen. Martin Golden (R-Brooklyn), a former NYPD cop, blasted the measure as “pathetic” and “sad” and called it “a setback for the city and safety of the children.”

 

Quinn has the votes in the council to pass the measure and likely override a mayoral veto.

 

Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson said Bloomberg would veto the bill.

 

The Post first reported Monday that Quinn was moving to back an IG bill for cops after failing to take a stand on an earlier version of the proposal made by council members last fall.

 

Quinn’s bill would create the NYPD’s IG unit within the city Department of Investigation, which probes all other city agencies.

 

Individual cases of misconduct would continue to be handled by NYPD’s Internal Affairs and the Civilian Complaint Review Board.

 

A spokesman for Police Commissioner Ray Kelly — whom Quinn has praised and even suggested keeping on as commissioner if she wins the mayoralty — said an IG is completely unnecessary.

 

“No police department in America has more oversight than the NYPD,” said Kelly spokesman Paul Browne, citing federal monitoring of intelligence operations as well as five DAs, two US attorneys and the state attorney general.

 

The move drew immediate praise from the NYCLU and Communities United for Police Reform.

 

Quinn crafted the bill with Brooklyn council members Jumaane Williams and Brad Lander, to “increase the public’s confidence in the police force.”

 

And she defended it during a mayoral debate last night.

 

“If you have a lot of entities and they’re not getting the job done, then more is needed,” Quinn said at First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica.

 

But GOP candidate Joe Lhota shot back, “Building another bureaucracy is not the answer.”

 

Manhattan Institute researcher Heather MacDonald said the proposal would handcuff the NYPD and “opens the window” for Lhota to run as the pro-cop candidate.

 

The candidates also clashed on the stop-and-frisk policy.

 

Democrat Bill Thompson issued an emotional and heated rebuke when Comptroller John Liu asked him to join in calling for an end to stop-and-frisk.

 

Thompson, talking about his 15-year-old son, said, “I’m worried also about my son being shot by someone who’s a member of a gang in the street.”

 

Quinn, Thompson and Liu also said they would add thousands of new cops if elected.

 

Additional reporting by David Seifman

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Raymond Kelly

Only Quinn and Catsimatidis Would Keep Ray Kelly

By Adam Martin — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘New York Magazine’

 

 

Out of seven mayoral hopefuls on stage at a candidates' forum Tuesday night, only Christine Quinn and John Catsimatidis raised their hands when an audience member asked who would keep NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly on the job. "Joseph J. Lhota, a Republican and former deputy in the Giuliani administration, gave a raised hand with a waggle that appeared to indicate some amount of wavering," the New York Times reports. Adolfo Carrión Jr. also wavered, but Bill de Blasio, John C. Liu, and Bill Thompson Jr., said they would replace Kelly.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Mayoral Candidates Talk Public Safety Post-Bloomberg

By Brigid Bergin — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘WNYC News’ / New York, NY

 

 

When it comes to public safety, the 2013 mayoral candidates seem to agree on one thing: add more police officers. Beyond that, the candidates differ — to varying degrees — on who those officers would report to, where they would be deployed and what policies they would follow.

 

While the Bloomberg administration heralds the reduction in crime — including record low numbers of murders and shootings — among its achievements over the 12-year tenure. The policies that underlie the overall reduction are being scrutinized in the courts and the public square, particularly among New Yorkers who continue to live with crime or feel like targets of the NYPD’s tactics to combat it.

 

People like Brandon Gibson, 27, a leader in the Hope Christian Center, who said he’s been stopped and frisked 20 times, once after leaving from Bible study at church. During a 90-minute candidate forum Tuesday evening at the First Presbyterian Church in Queens, he asked the only question that every candidate answered: how effective is stop-and-frisk when it comes to reducing crime?

 

“The police commissioner has over-relied massively on stop, question and frisk,” said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Democrat, who continues to say she'd keep Commissioner Ray Kelly as head of the NYPD. “The numbers are unacceptably high, are not yielding results and are in fact driving communities apart, which makes the city less safe.”

 

Public Advocate Bill DeBlasio, another Democrat, said NYPD leadership needs to change.

 

"You can't teach an old dog new tricks," he explained. “I think it is unbelievable that Ray Kelly is truly going to reform stop-and-frisk in the way that we need.”

 

Both Quinn and DeBlasio expressed support for creating a new Inspector General position that would serve as a watchdog over NYPD policies. A bill to create the position, which would have subpoena power, is expected to pass the City Council next month.

 

But former MTA chair Joe Lhota, who is vying for the Republican nomination, opposes the idea. While he thinks stop-and-frisk policy needs to be reformed, he thinks the answer could be as simple as police being required to tell people why they're being stopped.

 

“Whether or not there was a crime in that area and you might have fit the description or there was a bulge on your side that might have looked like a handgun,” he elaborated.

 

The crowd interrupted Lhota’s answer with hisses and boos, forcing him to pause briefly, lower his voice and finish bluntly, “Stop-and-frisk has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, and we cannot abolish it, but we need to control it. We need to regulate. We need to train everyone how to use it.”

 

Businessman John Catsimatidis, also vying for the Republican nomination, suggested police officers should be on a scoring system, “I think every officer should be rated.”

 

“If you have an officer with a .000 batting average, he should not be allowed to stop-and-frisk,” Catsimatidis said.

 

Adolfo Carrion, who received the Independence Party nomination and is also seeking the Republican nomination, says he was stopped and frisked twice as a kid — once when jumping a turnstile and another time while trespassing in the East River Park amphitheater. He’s not calling for an end to stop-and-frisk either, but he says, “respect” needs to be restored on both sides of the equation.

 

“We have to respect the job of the police officer. We have to respect the young people in our community.” Carrion said.

 

Democrat Bill Thompson who's spoken with his 15-year-old stepson about what to do if he gets stopped and frisked declined to call for the abolishment of controversial tactic when challenged by another candidate.

 

“You and I disagree on that,” said Thompson, “Fundamentally, we have a disagreement. At the same point, we both want to see things used and done correctly in the city of New York.”

 

City Comptroller John Liu is the only mayoral candidate calling for an end to stop-and-frisk. The Democrat also said he'd replace the police commissioner.

 

“In fairness to Ray Kelly, in fairness to him, I'm not sure if anyone has actually asked him if he wants to stay beyond his 12-years in the current term,” said Liu. “But it's not just about the commissioner. It's about the top ranks of chiefs inside the entire department.”

 

Liu said there needs to be leadership changes throughout the NYPD.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk / NYPD Quotas

 

NYPD Quotas Are Alleged In 'Frisk' Trial
(Former 41Precinct (Now Viper)  P.O. Adhyl Polanco Testifies: 20 Parkers & Movers, One Arrest And Five ‘SQF’  or Lose OT And Get Tours Changed)

By SEAN GARDINER — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The Wall Street Journal’ / New York, NY

 

COMMENT:  The other day I had a conversation with a recently retired chief, who stated that logic dictates that as long as the department includes a ‘UF-250’ column on the police officer ‘Monthly Activity Report’ that requires all police officers on patrol to document the days on patrol and the date and number of their ‘Stop & Frisks,’ and the quantity of ‘Stop & Frisks’ a command conducts each month is used as a  productivity tools to evaluate commanding officers at Comstat meetings, Kelly can't in good conscious deny that the department doesn't have a ‘Stop & Frisk’ productivity standard (quota) for all patrol commands.  -  Mike Bosak

 

 

A suspended New York City police officer testified in federal court Tuesday that his supervisors pushed quotas for stop-and-frisk searches and arrests, part of the second day of testimony in a trial challenging the policy.

 

The officer, Adhyl Polanco, was a four-year veteran of the New York Police Department in 2009 when supervisors in the Bronx's 41st Precinct "came very hard with the quotas—they call it productivity," he testified.

 

The class-action lawsuit that triggered the trial argues, in part, that the use of quotas violates state law. In opening statements Monday, city attorney Heidi Grossman dismissed quota allegations as "a sideshow" and said the NYPD "measures performance" to ensure officers "are not being rewarded for inactivity or laziness."

 

Officer Polanco, who appeared for just 30 minutes, is expected to return to Manhattan federal court Wednesday when secret recordings he made inside the precinct will be entered into evidence.

 

In his testimony Tuesday, Officer Polanco described the initial quota requirements as "20 and one," meaning that officers were expected to issue 20 summonses each month and make at least one arrest.

 

By fall 2009, he said, supervisors added a monthly minimum of five stop-and-frisk encounters to the list.

 

Those numbers were "nonnegotiable," Mr. Polanco testified, with supervisors warning that anyone failing to meet the goals would "become a Pizza Hut delivery man.'"

 

Punishments could include denial of overtime assignments and requests for days off, schedule changes or a move to another precinct. "They can make your life miserable," Officer Polanco said.

 

Police have undertaken some five million stop-and-frisk encounters since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office in 2002. More than 85% of those stops have targeted black and Latino New Yorkers, according to statistics cited at the trial, and only about 12% resulted in criminal charges.

 

The legal challenge to the city's stop-and-frisk policy before Judge Shira Scheindlin also argues that the tactic violates constitutional prohibitions on illegal search and seizures and protections against racial discrimination.

 

City attorneys said in their opening statement that the stop-and-frisk numbers mirror the descriptions of criminal suspects and that the practice has helped drive crime rates to historic lows.

 

In his testimony, Officer Polanco has described the pressure he felt to keep pace with monthly requirements for stops, tickets and arrests.

 

When lagging behind those benchmarks, he said supervisors directed him to street locations where other officers had detained people. His instructions, he said, were to make arrests or issue tickets for offenses he hadn't observed.

 

At other times, Officer Polanco said, he was directed to fill out stop-and-frisk forms documenting stops he didn't make.

 

As a last measure, Officer Polanco described in his testimony a task called "driving the sergeant," in which he was allegedly assigned to drive the streets with a supervisor. He said he would perform stop-and-frisk searches and even make arrests searches on people selected by the supervisor.

 

"You have absolutely no discretion," he said.

 

The federal trial isn't the first time Officer Polanco has raised public allegations about the NYPD's policies. He contacted media organizations in late or early March 2010 and released his precinct recordings, which became the basis of news reports.

 

At the time, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said employees of the department, like other organizations, "are provided productivity goals and they are expected to work."

 

Officer Polanco was suspended from the police force later that year following a shoving incident with a supervisor. He has since been reinstated and but placed on modified assignment, without a gun or badge.

 

He currently works with a surveillance-camera monitoring unit in the Bronx, and his departmental disciplinary case for the shoving incident remains pending.

 

Jonathan Moore, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, said that Officer Polanco will testify about that incident Wednesday, which he contends came in retaliation to his whistle blowing.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD officer: Police brass dictate stops, arrests

By COLLEEN LONG  (The Associated Press)  —  Wednesday, March 20th, 2013; 2:26 a.m. EDT

 

 

NEW YORK — Police brass in the Bronx were not concerned with whether patrol officers were saving lives or helping people, they were focused on one thing: numbers, said a New York City police officer testifying in a federal challenge to some street stops.

 

Adhyl Polanco said his superiors told him that he needed 20 summonses, five street stops and one arrest per month. It didn't matter whether the stops were done properly, he said Tuesday.

 

"They will never question the quality. They will question the quantity," Polanco said.

 

His testimony, which will continue Wednesday, was one of three department whistleblowers expected to discuss a culture that revolved around numbers and less around actual policing — and what lawyers said is leading to tens of thousands of wrongful stops of black and Hispanic men by the police.

 

The class-action lawsuit in federal court challenges the constitutionality of some of the stops. There have been about 5 million stops made by police in the past decade. City attorneys said officers operate within the law and do not target people solely because of their race. Police go where the crime is — and crime is overwhelmingly in minority neighborhoods, they said.

 

Testimony in the trial came as city lawmakers reached a deal Tuesday to install an inspector general for the NYPD following outrage over the department's widespread spying on Muslims and stop and frisk tactic.

 

Police unions have condemned the inspector general idea, saying the department already gets plenty of oversight and the position would squander resources.

 

Polanco said if he didn't get the numbers while working patrol in the 41st Precinct in the Bronx, he'd face poor evaluations, shift changes and no overtime. He started recording some of the instructions because he thought no one would believe him.

 

"They can make your life very miserable," he said of the department.

 

Police officials have said that they do not issue quotas, but set some performance goals for officers.

 

Polanco, who joined the force in 2005, was suspended with pay for years after internal affairs officers brought charges of filing false arrest paperwork; he says the charges came because he detailed a list of complaints to internal affairs. He now works in a department video unit.

 

A second officer was also expected to testify. Audio tapes from a third officer, Adrian Schoolcraft, will also be played. Schoolcraft was hauled off to a psych ward against his will by his superiors, he says, because he was exposing bad police work. His is suspended without pay.

 

Their testimony comes in the first week of the case, after four men spoke about their experiences being stopped by police — they say because of their race. The men are black. One, Nicholas Peart, wept on the stand describing a 2011 incident in which he was handcuffed near his home while an officer took his keys and went inside his building.

 

City lawyers sought to discredit witnesses by suggesting their stories had evolved to become more dramatic and their memories were faulty. In each case the men could not some recall specific details or revised what they had said in earlier statements.

 

The trial is seeking to reform the practice of stop, question and frisk, a law enforcement tactic that has gained traction in the past decade as crime has plummeted. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that minorities are disproportionately stopped.

 

The mayor and police commissioner say stop and frisk is a life-saving, crime-stopping tool that has helped drive crime down to record lows. Officers have more than 23 million contacts with the public, make 4 million radio runs and issue more than 500,000 summonses every year. Comparatively, 600,000 stops annually are not unreasonable, city lawyers said.

 

U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin, who has already said in earlier rulings that she is deeply concerned about the tactic, has the power to order reforms to how it is used, which could bring major changes to the nation's largest police force and other departments.

 

City lawyers said the department already has many checks and balances, including an independent watchdog group that was recently given authority to prosecute some excessive force complaints against police. The police commissioner still has the final say on whether officers are disciplined.

 

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who announced the pact on installing an inspector general, said talks were progressing on three companion proposals to set new rules surrounding stop and frisk, including expanding protections against racial profiling.

 

Proposed last year, the inspector general and stop-and-frisk measures have become enmeshed in the politics of the city's mayoral campaign. Quinn, a leading Democratic candidate, has faced pressure from civil rights and minority advocates and from some of her rivals to get the measures passed.

 

___

 

Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister and Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Emotions Run High On Day 2 Of Stop-And-Frisk Trial

By: Dean Meminger — Tuesday, March 19th, 2013; 7:59 p.m. ‘NY 1 News’ / New York, NY

 

 

The trial over the city police department's stop, question and frisk policy resumed Tuesday in a federal court in Manhattan, where three more plaintiffs recalled their experiences with the controversial stops.

 

A judge began hearing arguments Monday in a class-action lawsuit that claims the practice is unconstitutional.

 

Among those taking the stand Tuesday was NYPD officer Adhyl Polanco, who worked out of precincts in the Bronx.

 

Polanco, who's been on the job since 2005, told the court that there are quotas in the police department. He said that his bosses at his South Bronx precinct demanded that officers write at least 20 summonses, make one arrest and do five stop-and-frisks per month.

 

"They said, 'You do it or you are going to become a Pizza Hut delivery man,'" Polanco said in court Tuesday.

 

Polanco said he made audio tapes of the demands, which will be played in court this week, along with recordings from other officers.

 

"I started recording it because I could not believe what I was hearing," he said in court.

 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said the testimony illustrated why there is so much hostility between police and young black and Latino men in the community.

 

"That's why there's such an epidemic in these communities of people getting stopped and frisked," said attorney Jonathan Moore. "Because the police are told to get numbers. And they're not interested in the numbers of radio runs or how they help. They're interested in arrests, summons and 250s. At the end of the day, that's what this case is about. That's why this case is so important, because this case has to end."

 

A 250 is the form officers fill out when they conduct a stop, question and frisk.

 

At least two other officers are expected to testify about the quotas, which the department denied having.

 

Nicholas Peart, a 24-year-old Harlem man who said he was stopped back in 2011 while walking to the store to get some milk, also testified.

 

He said that police officers rolled up, pushed him against a church wall and started to search him.

 

He went on to testify that at one point, officers put him in handcuffs, placed him in the back of a squad car and took off his shoes while asking him if he had drugs or weapons.

 

The 24-year-old also said officers took his keys and went into his apartment building, adding that he became fearful for his safety and that of his brothers and sisters.

 

"People should not be stopped for going to the gym or going to the corner store," he said. "That's not keeping the city safe."

 

Peart broke down in tears while telling his story in court.

 

"I didn't think it would become so emotional," Peart said. "The step-by-step process of going through my stop-and-frisk, it got to me."

 

Peart said he's been stopped, questioned and frisked multiple times.

 

City lawyers got him to admit that officers did explain to him that he fit the description of a crime suspect.

 

The police department said that officers only stop, question and frisk people they think might be involved in crimes.

 

The New York Civil Liberties Union said the NYPD reached its five-millionth stop under the policy this month.

 

Critics of the policy argued that it unfairly targets minorities.

 

"My brother, my nephew, my dentist, my minister, my neighbors, members of my community who have done absolutely nothing were stopped and frisked illegally," said City Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn.

 

"We're here today standing in solidarity with advocates and activists and community members from Brooklyn. We're just home to too many unlawful stops," said Nahal Zamani of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

 

The lawsuit asks that a court-appointed monitor oversee broad reforms to the policy.

 

Stop, question and frisk is currently a legal tactic which requires "reasonable suspicion," rather than the more strict guidelines of "probable cause."

 

The city disputed any charges of racial profiling, saying that stop-and-frisk gets guns off the streets, cuts crime and saves lives.

 

They also argued that the plaintiffs' stories may have evolved to seem more dramatic in the years since they were stopped.

 

Meanwhile, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced Tuesday that council members have reached a "broad agreement" on a bill to get an inspector general to oversee the NYPD, as well as another measure to stop racial profiling.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Racial doubt in trial of stop-frisk

By BRUCE GOLDING — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’

 

 

The lead plaintiff in the “stop and frisk” trial admitted on the witness stand yesterday that he didn’t know if he was stopped by NYPD cops because of his race.

 

“I have no idea,” said David Floyd, who is black, during cross-examination by a city lawyer. “I don’t know what’s legally behind it. I know I wasn’t doing anything.”

 

Floyd, 33, an activist who attends medical school in communist Cuba, testified earlier that he was twice stopped and frisked while walking near his then-home in The Bronx in 2007 and 2008.

 

Another plaintiff in the Manhattan federal class-action suit, which argues many of the stops are unconstitutional because the policy unfairly targets minorities, admitted yesterday that he lied to the Civilian Complaint Review Board about getting a cut on his inner lip during a stop-and-frisk.

 

Nicholas Peart, 24, said he concocted the claim to ensure the 2006 incident — in which he, his cousin and a friend were ordered to the ground at gunpoint — was taken seriously.

 

But Peart said the cops were cleared by the board, so he never reported three subsequent stop-and-frisks, including one in 2011. He broke down sobbing as he recounted getting cuffed and tossed in a patrol car while on his way to buy milk for his younger brothers.

 

“I felt criminalized,” he said. “I felt degraded.”

 

Also testifying yesterday was Police Officer Adhyl Polanco, who said he and other cops in the 41st Precinct in The Bronx were ordered in 2009 to start meeting monthly quotas of 20 summonses, one arrest and five stop-and-frisks.

 

“Either you do it or you’re going to become a Pizza Hut deliveryman,” Polanco said a sergeant warned.

 

Polanco, who’s on modified duty over an altercation with a supervisor, said cops were threatened with punishments, including loss of overtime and denial of days off, if they failed to meet the numbers.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Bronx man weeps as he testifies about stop-and-frisk clashes with NYPD
Nicholas Peart is a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit challenging the procedure as racially biased in Manhattan Federal Court.

By Daniel Beekman AND Robert Gearty — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

An NYPD whistleblower testified Tuesday that he taped supervisors at a South Bronx stationhouse agreeing on quotas for arrests and stop-and-frisks.

 

“They called it productivity,” Adhyl Polanco testified in Manhattan Federal Court on the second day of a trial in a class-action lawsuit against the controversial stop-and-frisk tactic.

 

Polanco testified that supervisors at the 41st Precinct stationhouse in 2009 wanted “20 and 1” — 20 summonses a month and one arrest. He said the bosses also wanted five stop-and-frisks a month.

 

Officers who failed to meet quotas would lose overtime hours and have their shifts changed, he said.

 

“It was not negotiable,” he said. “It was either that or you’re going to become a Pizza Hut deliveryman.”

 

Polanco, who became a cop in 2005, was suspended with pay in 2009 but has since been reinstated.

 

Earlier Tuesday, a Bronx man wept on the witness stand as he recounted how he was stopped, searched and handcuffed by cops on his way to buy milk for his family.

 

Nicholas Peart, 24, who began caring for his three siblings after their mother died of cancer two years ago, said his 2011 run-in with the NYPD on E. 144th St. at 11 p.m. made him feel “degraded.”

 

Peart said one cop took his keys and entered his apartment building, while the other removed his sneakers, asking if he was carrying any marijuana. He had no drugs and no weapon.

 

“I felt criminalized,” said Peart, who is black. “I felt degraded .... I was going to the bodega. It was very upsetting.”

 

Peart is a member of the class action initially brought by four black New Yorkers that could affect how the city is policed.

 

City lawyers said the NYPD is targeting crime — not people who belong to minority groups.

 

The lawsuit, filed in 2008, seeks to have stop-and-frisks declared unconstitutional and requests that cops be required to fill out paperwork every time they stop and frisk a New Yorker.

 

It also asks that the court appoint a monitor to keep watch on how the police make stops.

 

The trial is expected to last more than a month and will draw testimony from cops, lawmakers and constitutional experts, in addition to 12 people of color, including one woman, who say they were wrongly treated.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Landmark Stop and Frisk Trial: A Cop Testifies Against the NYPD, and The City Reveals Its Drip, Drip, Drip Strategy

By Graham Rayman — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The Villiage Voice’ / Manhattan

 

 

In the second day of the historic stop and frisk trial in federal court in Manhattan yesterday, there was the start of testimony from Adyhl Polanco, an eight-year veteran of the NYPD who has made the highly unusual and courageous choice to testify against the city's campaign. Meanwhile, as you can read further down, the city's strategy is emerging with great and disturbing clarity.

 

Polanco, who first told his story to the Voice back in 2010 for our "NYPD Tapes" series, talked about his period in the 41st Precinct in the Hunts Point section of the Bronx, and how his views of policing evolved away from the constant quota pressure.

 

Polanco talked movingly about how a police officer's job ranges way beyond just making arrests, doing stop and frisks and writing summonses in service of quotas. "Every radio call brings something different," he said. "Our job is to help the needs of the community. We are referees. We are in between moms fighting for their daughters."

 

As for police policy, he says, "What's on paper, the written policies, is way different from what actually goes on out there. It was all about 'productivity,' it had nothing to do with what we do every day."

 

Stop and frisks, summonses and arrests "are the easy part of the job," he says. "Sometimes you sit on a dead body. Sometimes, you bring an accident victim to the hospital and he dies in the car. Sometimes you deal with children who are raped, or women."

 

But his precinct commander, his sergeants and his lieutenants didn't want to listen. They just wanted numbers, he testified. "They only care about one thing--arrests, summonses and stop and frisks."

 

Plaintiffs lawyer Darius Charney asked: did they care about the number of radio runs you did? The number of domestic disputes you responded to? The number of injure you cared for? "They didn't care," Polanco testified.

 

"They never cared about the quality of the work we were doing," he testified. "They wanted quantity. And how we got there, they didn't care. They never asked me about the quality of the stop and frisks. They never cared about reasonable suspicion or probable cause."

 

As the Voice reported more than two years ago, Polanco was even pressured by his own police union delegates, repeatedly. "They were very clear: 'do it or end up working in a Pizza Hut.'"

 

Polanco was told over and over, 'They can make your life very miserable.' "They can change your tours, they can take you away from your family, they can give you low evaluations," he testified.

 

If his numbers were down, precinct commanders ordered him to ride with them, and directed him to make arrests, stop and frisk people or issue summonses just to hit his numbers, even when he didn't witness the misconduct alleged. Polanco didn't say it in his testimony yesterday, but that is very possibly a crime of falsifying government records--not that the NYPD has looked into it.

 

Polanco has a civil lawsuit of his own pending, and is currently assigned to the VIPER unit, a backdoor disciplinary unit for wayward cops in which he earns full salary to essentially just watch security video cameras trained on housing projects. It is a miserable existence. That Polanco, who clearly, based on his testimony, wants to return to doing the job right, is still on the sidelines three years later is something that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly himself should seriously examine.

 

Meanwhile, the city's strategy is becoming clear via the insistent tones of Suzanna H. Publicker, a rail-thin, assistant corporation counsel in her late twenties working for the Law Department.

 

Publicker, an NYU law graduate who records show makes approximately $70,000 lawyering for the city, asks masses of small questions in her efforts to undermine the credibility of the plaintiffs, who claim they were illegally stopped in violation of their civil rights. The city contends the stops mirror crime trends.

 

The tactic was on display yesterday in Publicker's close questioning of 24-year-old Nicholas Peart, of Harlem, who says he was stopped illegally four times between 2006 and 2011. Describing one of those stops yesterday, which led police to wrongly detain him, Peart wept at the memory.

 

Later, not moved by his display of emotion, Publicker built from seemingly innocuous questions toward a series of sharp jabs at Peart's credibility, getting him to admit one lie that he claimed to have suffered a cut lip during one stop, when he did not. And she pointed out that he had no documentation for at least two of the stops.

 

Publicker also used NYPD radio transmissions to try to show that in at least one of the stops, Peart was dressed similarly to someone the police were looking for when he was stopped.

 

"Your memory isn't very good, is it?" she tells him.

 

"Regarding your 2006 stops, you didn't give truthful answers, did you?" she says at another point.

 

And then she turned to perceptions of crime in his neighborhood, which underpins the city's argument: "There are shootings in your neighborhood? Robberies? Rapes? Drugs? You don't believe your community has high crime?" she asks.

 

Peart responds, "I don't know, compared to what?"

 

"You don't believe the police officers protect you from crime?"

 

"Not all of them. I really don't know."

 

Publicker's drip, drip, drip mode of questioning recalls that old maxim that little questions build brick walls--perhaps she is trying to set up a record for appeal--but we can't help but wonder if they are annoying the judge. On multiple occasions, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin rephrased Publicker's questions and asked them herself. More later today.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Stop and Frisk: Necessary Practice or Discriminatory Tactic?

By Randolph M. McLaughlin and Jonathan A. Jarrell — Tuesday, March 19th, 2013 ‘The Jurist’ / University of Pittsburg School of Law, Pittsburg, PA

(Legal Issue Op-Ed / Commentary)

 

 

For years, New York City police officers have practiced a crime prevention method in which they stop, question and frisk individuals they suspect of engaging in criminal activity. This tactic is commonly known as "stop-and-frisk." Particularly in the Bronx, police officers are allowed to implement this method inside and around certain residential buildings. The practice has led to several lawsuits challenging its constitutionality.

 

The stop-and-frisk practice of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has proven to be a discriminatory tool that targets racial minorities and has led to the violation of constitutional rights of thousands of African-Americans and Hispanics in New York City. In 2012, Jacqueline Yates, Letitia Ledan, Roshea Johnson, Kieron Johnson, Jovan Jefferson, Abdullah Turner, Fernando Moronta and Charles Bradley ("plaintiffs") commenced a class action lawsuit, Ligon v. City of New York, and moved for a preliminary injunction on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals who are (or could become) victims of NYPD stop-and-frisk practice in the Bronx.

 

The plaintiffs are African-American or Hispanic residents of New York and alleged that the NYPD's widespread practice of stopping individuals outside buildings that are enrolled in the Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP) is not merely unlawful but unconstitutional. The plaintiffs seek new policies, training and monitoring that will prevent the problems the stop-and-frisk practice presents. TAP was previously known as Operation Clean Halls, and allows the NYPD to stop and frisk individuals they encountered while patrolling inside and around private residential apartment buildings throughout New York City. Property owners must consent to the NYPD officers searching their buildings.

 

US District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin initially granted a preliminary injunction against the NYPD to restrain them from using the stop-and-frisk method while the matter was pending. The court found it likely that the plaintiffs' claims would be successful on the merits, and that building residents would likely suffer irreparable harm without the issuance of an injunction. Among other factors, the court found that the testimony of plaintiffs concerning their allegations and the failure of hundreds of NYPD forms to support any reasonable suspicion of stops made supported the conclusion of a widespread, abusive practice that was a custom of the NYPD and in violation of the Fourth Amendment that protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. After balancing the equities and public interest in favor of the plaintiffs, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the NYPD to immediately "cease performing trespass stops outside TAP buildings in the Bronx without reasonable suspicion of trespass."

 

Scheindlin also presides over a stop-and-frisk class action, Floyd v. City of New York, that commenced in 2008. Although both cases focus on racial profiling, in Ligon the plaintiffs are specifically challenging the practice of stop and frisk in Bronx residences enrolled in TAP. The plaintiffs in Floyd are addressing problems of the practice throughout all New York City boroughs.

 

On appeal by the NYPD, Scheindlin stayed the preliminary injunction, in Ligon, reasoning that immediate reform that may later require alteration would be inefficient and burdensome to the NYPD, and that it would be a relatively short period of time before a final decision is rendered on the scope of relief. However, the court made it clear that the stop-and-frisk practice as implemented was unconstitutional and must be discontinued. The court maintained that many of the stops made under the stop-and-frisk method violated the Fourth Amendment. Because of the similarities between Ligon and Floyd, the court consolidated the hearings that will determine the appropriate relief. After the consolidated remedies hearing, the court will issue a final decision on the scope of the preliminary injunction.

 

Each of these cases raises the specter of discriminatory policing. The data collected in support of Floyd clearly showed that 87 percent of persons stopped in the first quarter of 2012 by the NYPD were African-American or Hispanic. Of those stops only 1.3 percent resulted in the seizure of a firearm. The high proportion of minority group members stopped by the police was the same whether the neighborhood was predominantly minority or predominantly white. This type of policing has been called being stopped for "walking while black." There is absolutely no evidence that such tactics contribute to a decrease in crime. There can be no question that such tactics contribute to a distrust of police and a lack of cooperation in criminal investigations. While no one can question the need for the police to use tactics that will ferret out criminal activity, the use of discriminatory practices does not contribute to that goal.

 

 

Randolph M. McLaughlin is a professor at Pace Law School and co-chair of the Civil Rights Practice Group at Newman Ferrara LLP.

 

Jonathan A. Jarrell is a third-year law student at Pace Law School and a Civil Rights extern at Newman Ferrara LLP.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Former 47 Precinct SNEU P.O. Richard Haste

 

Cop Who Shot Ramarley Graham Back in Court

By Stephen Nessen — Tuesday, March 19th, 2013 ‘WNYC News’ / New York, NY

 

 

A police officer accused of shooting an unarmed 18-year-old in the Bronx last February was back in court Tuesday.

 

Officer Richard Haste is charged with two counts of manslaughter. Haste has pleaded not guilty in Bronx Criminal Court. His lawyer Stuart London said Haste believed he saw a weapon on Ramarley Graham and “acted accordingly.” No gun was recovered at the scene.

 

“He continually asked the individual to see his hands. ‘Let me see your hands, let me see your hands.’ The officer’s state of mind, we feel, indicated he thought his life was in serious physical danger, and he had no option but to discharge that weapon,” London said.

 

Graham’s family and friends attended the proceedings, taking up an entire bench in the courtroom. More than a dozens of activists who’ve been outspoken critics of the NYPD’s use of stop-and-frisk were also at the court house. Francelot Graham, Ramarley’s father, has become an outspoken critic of stop-and-frisk since his son’s death.

 

Francelot Graham has attended vigils in East Flatbush for another teen shot and killed by police on March 9, Kimani Gray.

 

“It's sad to see another family going through that, of course it’s sad. I know how the family is feeling right now. I know the pain his mom’s is in. These things shouldn't be happening still,” Francelot said outside the courtroom.

 

The Kimani Gray investigation is ongoing. Unlike with the Graham shooting, police say a gun with four bullets was recovered at the scene of the Gray shooting. The NYPD have placed the officers involved in both shootings on administrative duties.

 

In Tuesday’s hearing, the judge agreed to inspect the grand jury’s indictment of Officer Haste, and set a future court appearance for May 7.

 

“We're not fighting against the entire NYPD, I'm quite sure there's a good majority of the police officers there,” Francelot said. “We just want the bad cop out of our city not to be carrying a badge and a gun.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Confines of the 26 Precinct: Off-Duty P.O. Paule Rivera Acting as a Security Guard Takes a Collar

 

Off-duty officer in fight bust

By JESSICA SIMEONE, ERIN CALABRESE, DAN MANGAN — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Post’

 

 

An off-duty NYPD officer moonlighting as a Fairway security guard was arrested yesterday for assaulting a customer, becoming the seventh department employee to be busted since Friday, authorities said.

 

Paule Rivera, 35, allegedly got into the physical confrontation with the 44-year-old customer at the store on 12th Avenue in Harlem at around 12:50 a.m.

 

A store worker said he was told Rivera, who was working security, was eyeing two youths who had entered around closing time.

 

When Rivera asked them to leave, a male customer intervened and told him to leave them alone, according to the worker.

 

Rivera then allegedly touched the customer on the arm to direct him out of the store, setting off the tussle, according to the worker.

 

Rivera was charged with assault, and later released on a desk-appearance ticket. The customer was not charged.

 

Rivera had a cast on his right wrist when a reporter contacted him at his home, and confirmed the injury stemmed from the fight. He declined to comment on what led to the fight.

 

The NYPD has suspended him without pay.

 

Before Rivera’s arrest, four cops and two civilian NYPD employees had been busted since Friday for a variety of offenses, including DWI.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Confines of the 68 Precinct:  Off-duty 75 Pct. P.O. Lester Sanchez and 75 Impact Rookie Janice Caban

 

Queens cop suspended for firing gun into the air after Brooklyn bar scuffle involving girlfriend
Officer Lester Sanchez, living in South Ozone Park and working in Brooklyn's 75th Precinct as a rookie, fired off his 9 mm Glock following argument with women who were confronting his lover, who then attempted to hide the gun for him, according to report obtained by the News.

By Rocco Parascandola , Chelsia Rose Marcius AND Oren Yaviv — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

A drunken Brooklyn cop fired his gun in the air after a bar fight and then apparently involved his girlfriend — a fellow officer — in a botched attempt to hide the weapon, the Daily News has learned.

 

Officer Lester Sanchez of the 75th Precinct was arrested and suspended from duty without pay after the March 9 off-duty incident in Bay Ridge, officials said.

 

Gal pal Janice Caban, assigned to the same precinct, was suspended without pay, sources said.

 

A confrontation preceded the incident just before the 4 a.m. closing time at AM on Third Ave.

 

A prosecutor at Sanchez’s arraignment said the officer pointed his gun at Caban’s face, but both Sanchez’s lawyer and an internal police report said the gunfire occurred after a group of women attacked Caban.

 

After the bouncer ejected everyone involved, Sanchez got his 9 mm Glock out of his white Honda Accord and ran back toward the bar, the report said. He allegedly waved the gun at Caban’s antagonists, then pointed it directly at one of the women before stepping back into the street and firing a shot in the air, the report said.

 

Sanchez then drove off alone without his gun, the report said.

 

By then a bar employee had called 911 to report the shooting, and Sanchez was pulled over a block away by 68th Precinct cops.

 

Court papers said Sanchez was disheveled and combative and had watery eyes and booze on his breath. A three-quarters empty 13-ounce bottle of Hennessy cognac was found in his car, the papers said.

 

Asked about his gun, Sanchez told officers it was in his locker, the police report said.

 

But at the 68th Precinct stationhouse, an Internal Affairs sergeant noticed a woman named “Crystal” kept calling Sanchez’s cell phone, the report said.

 

When the sergeant answered, the woman calling said she knew where Sanchez’s gun was but wanted to speak to a police union delegate. The call got cut off, but Crystal called back a half hour later, identified herself as Caban and brought the gun to the station.

 

Sanchez, 29, joined the force three years ago and lives in South Ozone Park, Queens.

 

His lawyer did not return a call for comment.

 

Caban, who is 25 and joined the force less than two years ago, is often at Sanchez’s home, a neighbor said.

 

Caban, who suffered a bruise on her face, is considered a rookie and could be fired without a hearing.

 

Her lawyer had no comment.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD Spent 1 Million Hours Making 440,000 Marijuana Possession Arrests Over Last Decade

By Matt Sledge — Tuesday, March 19th, 2013; 1:18 p.m. ‘The Huffington Post’ / New York, NY

 

 

NEW YORK -- The NYPD spent 1 million hours making 440,000 arrests for low-level marijuana possession charges between 2002 and 2012, according to a new report released Tuesday -- just as legislative leaders in Albany are deciding whether to pass a bill reforming drug laws.

 

The Drug Policy Alliance and the Marijuana Arrest Research Project, pro-drug law reform groups that commissioned the report, said its findings show a "huge waste" of police resources.

 

"We cannot afford to continue arresting tens of thousands of youth every year for low-level marijuana possession,” Alfredo Carrasquillo, a civil rights organizer with the activist group VOCAL-NY, said in a release. “We can't afford it in terms of the negative effect it has on the future prospects of our youth and we can't afford in terms of police hours."

 

The drug reform proposal from Gov. Andrew Cuomo would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana in public view. Possessing 25 grams or less of marijuana kept out of sight is currently a violation, subject to a $100 penalty in New York state.

 

Thousands of New York City residents, a disproportionate number of them black or Latino, have been arrested for emptying their pockets on the order of police during stop-and-frisk encounters.

 

Cuomo has made reforming the marijuana law a top legislative priority this year. In June, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York City Police Department Commissioner Raymond Kelly made the surprise announcement that they, too, supported Cuomo's plan.

 

In 2012, according to the report, the NYPD made 39,218 low-level possession arrests. The report assumed police spent an average of 2.5 man-hours on such arrests, amounting to 98,045 hours in 2012.

 

The NYPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Drug Policy Alliance's numbers.

 

Activists have been sharply critical of Bloomberg's record on marijuana, pointing out that during his tenure, the NYPD has arrested more New Yorkers for marijuana possession than the last three mayors combined. But in February, Bloomberg announced that New Yorkers would no longer have to be held in jail overnight for possession.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

New York Thinks Decriminalizing Pot Is Easier than Confronting Bloomberg

By Philip Bump — Tuesday, March 19th, 2013 ‘The Atlantic Wire’ / Washington, DC

 

Excerpt; desired to read the article in its entirety and view the graphs, go to:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/03/new-york-decriminalizing-pot-bloomberg-charts/63302/

 

 

In a bit of happy news for a healthy percentage of New Yorkers, the state legislature appears to be on the brink of decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana in New York City. This isn't an effort to curtail crime — it's an (overdue) effort to rein in the NYPD and stop-and-frisk. The data shows why.

 

During his State of the City address in February, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that marijuana possession would no longer result in the person being jailed overnight. "It's consistent with the law," he said, "it's the right thing to do and it will allow us to target police resources where they’re needed most." It is indeed consistent with the law, as Gothamist notes.

 

[P]ossession of small amounts of marijuana was decriminalized in New York State in 1977 for 25 grams or less, as long as it's not in public view. But the NYPD, especially under Bloomberg and Giuliani administrations, has widely disregarded this law, and the department's stop-and-frisk policy has been instrumental in driving up the numbers of pot possession arrests.

 

"Stop-and-frisk" is the name of the New York City Police Department's policy of approaching people on the street and performing a search. Ostensibly, the police officer needs a reason for the stop, but since the necessary reason basically amounts to "he looked suspicious," use of the practice increased dramatically last decade. Here are the stops, broken down by race, from the ACLU.

 

That steep decrease in 2012 followed enormous public backlash. Earlier today, a court heard testimony from those stopped under the program as part of a civil-rights lawsuit in a trial that's expected to last for at least a month. Over the course of the past decade, the ACLU estimates that some 90 percent of those stopped have not been charged with any crime.

 

The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg has consistently defended the practice, arguing that it helps reduce crime. And, to be fair, there's a broad correlation between the increased use of stop-and-frisks and a drop in crime.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Brooklyn South Narcotics Det. Washington Mosquera

 

NYPD Detective Who Accidentally Shot Japanese Tourist Now Charged With DWI

By Aidan Gardiner and Trevor Kapp — Tuesday, March 19th, 2013; 2:35 p.m. ‘DNAinfo.Com News’ / Manhattan

(Edited for Det. Washington Mosquera)

 

 

CYPRESS HILLS — An NYPD detective accused of driving drunk — who made news last year when he accidentally shot a Japanese tourist in Brooklyn — became the sixth NYPD employee arrested in four days on Tuesday, officials said.

 

Washington Mosquera, a 37-year-old detective who works Brooklyn narcotics, allegedly sideswiped an ambulance early Monday morning after swerving into oncoming traffic in East New York.

 

Mosquera was driving a 2000 Ford Windstar near Highland Boulevard and Jamaica Avenue about 1:30 a.m. when he veered into oncoming traffic and struck an FDNY ambulance, according to the criminal complaint and an FDNY spokesman.

 

Sources say Mosquera was heading home when he crashed his car.

 

Macdonald Eze, an EMT who was in the ambulance at the time, told prosecutors that the detective was red-eyed and slurring his words, reeked of booze and couldn't walk straight, documents show.

 

There were no injuries in the crash, an NYPD spokeswoman said.

 

Mosquera refused to take a breathalyzer test after the accident, and he was immediately charged with driving while intoxicated and driving in the wrong lane. He was also suspended from the NYPD.

 

Reached by phone Tuesday afternoon, Mosquera declined to comment on the charges.

 

"I don't want to talk to nobody," he said, but added that he's maintaining a positive outlook. "I'm doing good, thank you, sir."

 

A year ago, Mosquera, then a member of Brooklyn South Narcotics, accidentally discharged his 9 mm Glock during an East New York drug raid when an ex-con wanted for drug dealing suddenly kicked a protective barrier the cops were also holding. Mosquera's bullet ripped through the floor, grazing sleeping tourist Kyoko Tachimoto, who was visiting a friend.

 

After the near-tragic incident, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly visited Tachimoto in the hospital and provided a police escort for her to make a pre-scheduled vacation flight to Barbados.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

New Jersey

 

S. Jersey man gets visit from cops after posting photo of son with rifle on Facebook
(No Search Warrant / 2nd and 4th Amendment Violation Issues)

By JASON NARK — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The Philadelphia Inquirer’ / Philadelphia, PA

 

 

IN AMERICA, some boys get bicycles for their birthdays and others get military-style rifles.

 

One South Jersey boy got the latter recently for his 11th birthday, and his father, Shawn Moore, posted a picture of him on Facebook, bedecked in camouflage, cradling his new semiautomatic Smith & Wesson M&P15-22.

 

But someone saw the picture on Facebook and reported it to New Jersey's Division of Children and Families, and the agency came knocking Friday, with the police.

 

"Last night I was out with a buddy of mine. I got a text from my wife that the cops and [DCF] are at the house and they wanna check out my guns and needed me to open my safe," Moore wrote over the weekend in a post titled "The fight has officially been brought to my front door" in the Delaware Open Carry forum.

 

Moore had prominent firearms lawyer Evan Nappen on speaker- phone before he even got back to his home in Carneys Point, Salem County.

 

"After a while of them threatening to take my kids, get warrants and intimidation they left. Empty handed and seeing nothing," Moore wrote. "People it can happen that fast. Most people wouldn't have stood up to them like I did."

 

Moore's story spread quickly to the Blaze, a conservative news site founded by former Fox News host Glenn Beck - where Moore, a self-described libertarian, was commended for his stance.

 

Carneys Point Police Chief Robert DiGregorio declined to comment on the incident but said his department was still investigating with assistance from the Salem County Prosecutor's Office. The prosecutor's office did not return a phone call for comment.

 

DiGregorio said the police report would help explain the matter, but that report was not made available Tuesday.

 

The gun in the photo resembles an AR-15, the same weapon Adam Lanza used when he stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in December and mowed down 26 children and adults. Nappen said Moore's gun is actually a smaller, .22-caliber rifle that holds fewer rounds, designed to resemble an AR-15-style rifle.

 

Bryan Miller, of the gun-violence group Heeding God's Call, said it's understandable that someone grew concerned over the photo of Shawn Moore's son holding the rifle. "Looking at the photo, it's impossible to tell by sight that the gun is not an assault weapon," Miller said.

 

According to New Jersey law, a child younger than 18 can possess a gun only under "direct supervision of his father, mother or guardian, or some other person who holds a permit to carry a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card."

 

Moore, a National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor and range-safety officer, bought the gun so that he and his son could target-shoot together, and it is kept in a safe when not in use, Nappen said.

 

"This was his birthday present," the lawyer said. "This is father and son bonding."

 

Nappen said DCF still wants to see Moore's guns, but he said that's "not going to happen." Kristine Brown, a DCF spokeswoman, said she couldn't comment on the incident, but added that her office is required to follow up on any allegation made to a tip line.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

N.J. family: Facebook photo of boy holding gun brought social workers to home

By Unnamed Author(s) (The Associated Press)  —  Wednesday, March 20th, 2013; 10:30 a.m. EDT

 

 

The ruddy-cheeked, camouflage-clad boy in the photo smiles out from behind a pair of glasses, proudly holding a gun his father gave him as a present for his upcoming 11th birthday.

 

The weapon in the photo, posted by his dad on Facebook, resembles a military-style assault rifle but, his father says, is actually just a .22-caliber copy. And that, the family believes, is why child welfare case workers and police officers visited the home in Carneys Point last Friday and asked to see his guns.

 

New Jersey's Department of Children and Families declined to comment specifically on the case but says it often follows up on tips. The family and an attorney say father Shawn Moore's Second Amendment rights to bear arms were threatened in a state that already has some of the nation's strictest gun laws and is considering strengthening them after December's schoolhouse massacre in Connecticut.

 

In this case, the family believes someone called New Jersey's anonymous child abuse hot line.

 

Shawn Moore said he gave his son Josh the gun as a present to use on hunting trips. The elder Moore was at a friend's house when his wife called, saying state child welfare investigators, along with four local police officers, were at the house, asking to inspect the family's guns.

 

Moore said he called his lawyer Evan Nappen, who specializes in Second Amendment cases, and had him on speaker phone as he arrived at his house in Carneys Point, just across the Delaware River from Wilmington, Del.

 

"They said they wanted to see into my safe and see if my guns were registered," Moore said. "I said no; in New Jersey, your guns don't have to be registered with the state; it's voluntary. I knew once I opened that safe, there was no going back."

 

With the lawyer listening in on the phone, Moore said he asked the investigators and police officers whether they had a warrant to search his home. When they said no, he asked them to leave. One of the child welfare officials would not identify herself when Moore asked for her name, he said.

 

The agents and the police officers left, and nothing has happened since, he said.

 

"I don't like what happened," he said. "You're not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that's not freedom; it's like tyranny."

 

State child welfare spokeswoman Kristine Brown said that when it receives a report of suspected abuse of neglect, it assigns a caseworker to follow up. She said law enforcement officers are asked to accompany caseworkers only if the caseworkers feel their safety could be compromised.

 

"It's the caseworker's call," she said. "It is important to note the way an investigation begins is through the child abuse hotline. Someone has to call to let us know there is a concern."

 

Carneys Point Police Chief Robert DiGregorio did not answer a call late today to his office, which said only he would be able to comment.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

U.S.A.

 

Assault weapons ban dropped from gun bill

By Ed O’Keefe and Philip Rucker — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The Washington Post’ / Washington, DC

 

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid on Tuesday declared politically dead the effort to ban military-style assault weapons, a setback for President Obama and gun-control advocates who are pushing the Senate to move quickly on bills to limit gun violence.

 

Reid (D-Nev.) is preparing to move ahead with debate on a series of gun-control proposals when the Senate returns from a two-week Easter recess in early April. Although he has vowed to hold votes on measures introduced after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn., in December, Reid told reporters Tuesday that the proposed assault-weapons ban isn’t holding up against Senate rules that require at least 60 votes to end debate and move to final passage.

 

The proposed ban, “using the most optimistic numbers, has less than 40 votes. That’s not 60,” Reid said.

 

Still up for consideration are three other bills approved last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee: bipartisan legislation to make gun trafficking a federal crime, a bipartisan measure to expand a Justice Department grant program that provides funding for school security, and a Democratic proposal to expand the nation’s gun background check program.

 

Reid is working to determine whether to merge the three bills into one comprehensive package or to hold separate votes on each measure, said aides familiar with ongoing negotiations. The decision will be based on whether one or all of the bills receive enough support to ensure final passage, they said.

 

“I want people to have the ability to vote on assault weapons, mental health, safety in schools, federal trafficking, clips — everything,” Reid told reporters. “But I cannot do that until I get a bill on the floor, and it’s been very clear that the Republicans want us to have bills coming to the floor that have gone through committee.”

 

The assault-weapons ban is the most ambitious and controversial proposal backed by Obama. Introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the bill would bar almost 160 specific semiautomatic weapons and rifles and assorted military-style parts, and would limit the size of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, banning the larger magazines used in some of the more recent and brazen mass shootings. The ban has 22 Senate Democratic co-sponsors, including Feinstein.

 

A bill limiting the size of ammunition magazines was originally introduced by Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), but was merged with Feinstein’s measure and approved by the judiciary panel.

 

Feinstein said Tuesday that Reid has assured her that the assault-weapons ban will earn an up-or-down vote in the full Senate, probably as an amendment to one of the other bills under consideration. A separate up-or-down vote can then be held on the ammunition proposal, she said.

 

“Obviously I was disappointed,” Feinstein said Tuesday, but she acknowledged that including her bill in any comprehensive package would sink the prospects of passing gun-control legislation this year.

 

“The enemies on this are very powerful; I’ve known that all my life,” she added, referring to the National Rifle Association. “But I’m confident this bill would be constitutional.”

 

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday that Senate Democrats’ decision is not a setback for Obama’s gun-control efforts. He said that the bill can still be brought up as an amendment and that there should be a concerted effort to pass it.

 

“We’re going to work on this. We’re going to find the votes,” McDonough said, according to a transcript. “It deserves a vote, and let’s see if we can get it done.”

 

Still unresolved is whether Democrats can secure Republican support for expanding the gun background check program. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) is working with other Democrats to find potential GOP co-sponsors for a revised bill with exceptions for firearm exchanges between family members or close friends. But talks have been hampered by disagreements about whether to establish a record-keeping system for non-commercial gun transactions.

 

Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said gun-control advocates are hoping that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) will give what Glaze called his “hyper-conservative” stamp of approval to the background check proposal.

 

“That would give a lot of moderate Democrats and other Republicans some cover, which for whatever reason they feel we need, but if not we press on,” Glaze said. Of all the gun measures under consideration in the Senate, he added, universal background checks are “the biggest policy fix with the greatest public support and the most momentum.”

 

Nine in 10 Americans support expanding the nation’s background check program, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.

 

As Congress prepares to leave for a recess, the White House is quietly coordinating with advocates to ensure that they remain united in message and focus as they lobby senators of both parties who have not taken a public stand on the issue, according to people familiar with the talks.

 

Glaze said his group, founded by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), has hired several dozen field operatives and sent them to states where polling shows overwhelming support for an expanded background check program, including Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana and Nevada.

 

As part of its outreach, Glaze said the group plans to mobilize more than 900 mayors and hundreds of police chiefs and shooting survivors to stage events in congressional districts aimed at pressing lawmakers to support expanded background checks. The group is planning a “national day of action” on March 28 that will include petition drives, rallies and news conferences.

 

The objective, Glaze said, is “to pound the point home on these members that their constituents are watching, and if Congress can’t find a way to support a reform that has the support of 90 percent of the public, that’s going to be a pretty hard decision to defend.”

 

Separately, Organizing for America, an Obama-backed advocacy group, is planning its own day of action on March 28 to galvanize support around the gun-control proposals, a spokesman said.

 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who is co-sponsoring Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban, said that personal stories from the victims of gun violence are resonating most effectively with his colleagues.

 

“I think we have growing momentum on our side,” he said. “Newtown was a call to action and I think we’ve made tremendous progress. Three-plus months ago, this issue was politically untouchable. This time is different.”

 

Aaron Blake contributed to this report.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Assault weapons ban dropped due to lack of support as gun control package with tighter background checks moves forward for vote
With suprising gun lobby victory, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein has assured she will offer the assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban as an amendment to the package instead. But the move, which was expected, suggests the ban has little chance of overcoming resistance from Republicans.

By Dan Friedman In Washington , Daniel Beekman AND Bill Hutchinson — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Daily News’

 

 

The NRA has won. Congressional leaders said Tuesday a proposed federal ban on assault weapons is all but dead, crushed by the powerful gun lobby.

 

Although anticipated, the move let down still-grieving loved ones of those massacred in Newtown, Conn., and more than 140,000 Daily News readers who petitioned for the legislation.

 

“It’s heartbreaking that this tragic incident can’t get some common sense laws passed, such as the assault weapons ban,” said Jim Wiltsie, whose cousin, Victoria Soto, a teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary School, died trying to protect her students on Dec. 14.

 

“It’s a weapon designed for the battlefield and the battlefield only,” Wiltsie said. “Apparently the gun lobbyists and gun companies have a lot of power still.”

 

Support for reinstating the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines seemed to mount in the weeks after 20-year-old Adam Lanza mowed down 20 kids and six adults with an AR-15 assault rifle at Sandy Hook.

 

President Obama, who vowed to push for the ban, delivered a powerful speech Feb. 10 that invoked Newtown and the July 2012 Colorado movie theater massacre that left 12 people dead and 58 injured.

 

“The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with high-capacity magazines, has one purpose: to pump out as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible to do as much damage using bullets often designed to inflict maximum damage,” Obama said.

 

But the Senate’s top Democrat said Tuesday that there wasn’t enough support in the Senate to pass the ban on the manufacture and sale of 157 types of semi-automatic assault weapons.

 

Though the ban was approved by a Senate committee, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he stripped it from the gun control bill that’s going to the full Senate because it would have likely caused Republicans to block the entire gun-control package, including measures that have bipartisan support.

 

“We can’t have votes on everything unless I get something on the floor,” Reid said, of various gun control proposals. “It’s a legislative impossibility.”

 

Senior Senate aides have said for months that Reid would leave the ban out of the legislation but the news remained a bitter disappointment to gun control advocates and relatives of those whose lives have been lost in mass shootings.

 

Reid’s decision came just 20 days after heartbroken father Neal Heslin, whose 7-year-old son, Jesse, was killed at Sandy Hook, tearfully pleaded for an assault weapons ban at a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing.

 

“Some guns just don’t have any place in the hands of civilians,” Heslin told the panel. “The assault weapons we’re talking about today, their sole purpose is to put a lot of lead out in a battlefield quickly. That’s what they do. That’s what they did at Sandy Hook Elementary. That wasn’t a killing — it was a massacre.”

 

The ban’s chief proponent, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), was crestfallen to see her bill cast aside.

 

“I very much regret it. I tried my best. I guess it wasn’t good enough,” said Feinstein, who won passage of a 1994 assault weapons ban that expired after 10 years.

 

Feinstein let loose her disappointment to reporters after a meeting in which Reid informed her of his decision.

 

Reid “just said, ‘I’ve decided,’ ” Feinstein said of the meeting.

 

“How many assault weapons do you need circulating?” Feinstein asked. “They get sold out of trunks. They get sold in gun shops and they fall into the hands of grievance killers, young people, gangs. To have these massive killings is such a blight on everything that America stands for.”

 

Feinstein, referencing the National Rifle Association in particular, said her bill was dropped because “the gun lobby is inordinately powerful.”

 

The main pieces of Reid’s legislation will focus on broadening background checks on gun buyers and making gun trafficking a federal crime — a step to fight “straw purchases” of firearms, Democratic aides said.

 

The legislation is expected to be debated on the Senate floor next month.

 

Those bills are backed by New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both Democrats. Schumer, who is effectively Reid’s top policy and political advisor, supports an assault weapons ban, but did not support including the ban in the so-called “base” gun control package out of concern it would cause defeat of provisions that can pass.

 

“This is critically important to make our communities safer,” Schumer said in a statement Tuesday. “We are going to keep fighting until we get it.”

 

Gillibrand’s spokesman Glen Caplin said that while the senator had strongly supported the assault weapons ban, she believes Reid’s “strategy will provide an opportunity for the American people to get the vote they deserve on this and other common sense gun safety proposals.”

 

Feinstein plans to still offer her assault weapons ban bill, which also outlaws ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds, as an amendment to the gun package on the Senate floor. But she acknowledged it will likely be defeated because she doesn’t have the 60 votes to keep it alive.

 

Reid said he understood Feinstein’s frustration, but said her proposal has too little support.

 

“Right now her amendment, using the most optimistic numbers, has less than 40 votes,” Reid said. “That’s not 60.”

 

Lenny Pozner, whose 6-year-old son, Noah, was killed in the Newtown shooting, said that if Sandy Hook couldn’t change minds on assault weapons, he doesn’t know what will.

 

“I don’t think this event, however painful it is, will be strong enough to make people decide that society is better off without assault weapons,” Pozner said.

 

Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son, Daniel, also died at Sandy Hook, took solace in the fact that some progress is being made on gun control, despite the weapons ban getting axed.

 

“Maybe not this time, but we’re not going anywhere. We’re not going to give up,” Barden said. “We’re optimistic we’re going to make some vast changes in a lot of areas. An assault weapons ban is part of it. There’s a lot more to come and we’ll be right there.”

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Immigration Enforcement  /  Illegal Aliens

 

Administration Official Defends Release of Detainees

By JULIA PRESTON — Wednesday, March 20th, 2013 ‘The New York Times’

 

 

Under fierce questioning from Republicans at a hearing in the House of Representatives, the top Obama administration official in charge of immigration enforcement insisted Tuesday that the release of more than 2,200 immigrants from detention in February was solely a budgetary savings measure, and he disputed accusations that they had included many dangerous criminals.

 

But the official, John T. Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, acknowledged to the House Judiciary Committee that about two dozen of the immigrants had since been returned to detention.

 

The release of 2,228 immigrants over three weeks last month has been sharply criticized by Republicans, who said the Obama administration was freeing foreign criminals to dramatize its opposition to the automatic federal spending cuts that went into effect on March 1.

 

Mr. Morton said the decision to release the immigrants was made by officials within his agency, with his approval. He said there was no prior consultation with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano or with White House officials.

 

This week, the politics of immigration have been shifting rapidly among Republicans. A strategy report from the Republican National Committee urged the party to embrace legalization measures for illegal immigrants in the country. On Tuesday, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a favorite of the Tea Party, also called for a path to legal status for those immigrants, saying they should be treated with “understanding and compassion.”

 

But House Republicans used the hearing to press their view that the Obama administration had been grossly lax on enforcement, and they said the releases of detainees had added new strains to the debate about an overhaul of immigration laws.

 

Representative Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina who is chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, assailed Mr. Morton for what he called “a public relations stunt gone wrong” that had created safety risks for Americans. He said Mr. Morton could have found other ways to make savings.

 

“You could easily have done that,” Mr. Gowdy told Mr. Morton, raising his voice. “Don’t act like you could not have.”

 

Mr. Morton said his agency deported 409,849 people in the 2012 fiscal year, the most under the Obama administration. He said the agency had detained an average of 34,000 foreigners a day, based on financing by Congress. But late last year, he said, the numbers were up to 36,000 on some days.

 

The agency has financing only through the end of March, he said, and the automatic cuts would force reductions this year of 5 percent, or $300 million.

 

“There were no mass releases of criminals,” Mr. Morton said, “just efforts to live within our budget.”

 

Of the immigrants released, 629 had past criminal convictions, he said. But most had been determined by officials not to pose security risks and were released on bond, with monitoring bracelets or with other measures to prevent them from fleeing.

 

A review by Mr. Morton of the releases, prompted by the criticism, determined that eight immigrants had committed serious offenses, and four of those were rearrested by immigration agents. He said two dozen other immigrants with less serious offenses had also been returned to detention.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

                                                          Mike Bosak