Friday, April 26th, 2013 ― Good Afternoon, Stay Safe
- - - - -
City Council loosens NYPD grip on crime data
New York set to get neighborhood-level maps of incidents reported to police
By Beth Morrissey & Maura R. O'Connor ― Thursday, April 25th, 2013 'The New York World' / New York, NY
The City Council voted unanimously on Thursday to approve a bill that will create a crime mapping database, allowing the public for the first time to view and search reports of criminal activity at a neighborhood level.
The measure, sponsored by Councilmember Fernando Cabrera of the Bronx, requires the New York City Police Department to provide monthly data on criminal complaints to the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DOITT), which would create and maintain the map.
The public would not only be able to see the total number of reports citywide but also search reports by street, address, zip code or NYPD patrol sector ― districts within precincts. Currently, the information is only available at the precinct level, in PDF format.
Councilmembers say that the creation of the map will help them and their constituents improve public safety by highlighting hotspots of criminal activity.
"As a councilmember I need to know where to allocate my resources, into which organizations," said Cabrera. He noted that other decision-makers would also be able to make ample use of the information. "Businesses make decisions based on data," he said. "Community boards should be able to do that as well."
Before the vote, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn voiced support for the crime map.
"Open data embraces the beauty of a more transparent government," said Quinn. "It is the building block of the digital age."
The City Council developed the measure in part because of testimony at community board meetings from journalists at the Norwood News, a newspaper in the Bronx, who complained that the 52nd Precinct stopped providing data on crime reports. The NYPD was also not complying with Freedom of Information Law requests for the data.
According to a just-released "Transparency Report Card" from Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, the NYPD was one of only two agencies to receive a failing grade. Along with the New York City Housing Authority, the NYPD ignored nearly one-third of all FOIL requests submitted.
The office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg declined to comment on the measure, but even if he were to veto, the council has enough votes for an override. During testimony in March, a representative of the city agency charged with building an online crime map offered support in principle.
"The overall intent of the bill would seem to fit with the Bloomberg Administration's long-held commitment to making more City information available, to more people, in more easy-to-use ways," said Nicholas Sbordone, director of intergovernmental affairs at DOITT, in his written statement submitted to the council.
New York is hardly a frontrunner in mapping crime online. Numerous other cities, including Philadelphia, Chicago and Baltimore, already make detailed crime data available to the public through online maps and downloads.
Law enforcement watchdog groups hailed the crime transparency bill as a move toward greater public accountability for the city's police department.
"The NYPD is a notoriously closed institution and holds onto whatever data it gathers with a fierce grip," said Robert Gangi of the Police Reform Organizing Project. "So this is a positive step toward more openness and more accountability."
Enabling citizens to have an objective view on the level of criminal activity in their communities is important, said Gangi. "And who knows ― it could take a step towards breaking the department's habit of saying no to even the most reasonable requests for information."
Councilmember Gale Brewer, who last year championed the city's groundbreaking open data law, concedes that the police department can be reluctant to share information with the public. "The NYPD does need to be pushed," she said.
According Brewer, mapping criminal activity could encourage community organizations to reach out to local precincts with proposals to improve public safety. "I'm a big believer in community input on crime solving," said Brewer. "If you don't know where crimes are, it's hard to be helpful."
The bill requires DOITT to launch the map within 180 days of enactment. Sbordone testified that this is ample time to create map ― provided the NYPD cooperates.
"Six months development time should be enough, but that's from the point at which we have everything we need to start building," he said during the hearing.
The legislation does not explicitly require that the data used for the map also be made available to the public for download. But the new open data law does require that all of the city's public data ― including that which is only available through FOIL requests ― be posted online in a machine-readable format by 2018.
The NYPD did not respond to requests for comment.
_______________________________________________________________________
S/Q/F/ and an Independent Inspector General for the NYPD
Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Times' Editorial:
Public Safety and the Mayor's Race
Six Democratic candidates for mayor of New York City met in a live televised debate Wednesday night to discuss the topic of public safety. They were all for it.
Where they differed was in how such safety should be preserved and by whom. For an hour they batted around ideas worth listening to ― at least until the Rev. Erick Salgado from Staten Island said that he might appoint Rudolph Giuliani as police commissioner.
After Mr. Salgado, the one with the next-most-troubling argument, wearing the front-runner's Velcro, was Speaker Christine Quinn, who espoused positions both dissonant and contradictory. She stoutly defended Commissioner Raymond Kelly of the New York Police Department, while supporting the creation of an inspector general with broad powers to rein in abuses at the department.
This was odd because the main reason the calls for an inspector general have become so acute ― and necessary ― is that the Police Department under Mr. Kelly has vastly expanded its widely loathed and constitutionally offensive tactic of stopping and frisking hundreds of thousands of citizens a year. Ms. Quinn says she wants to reduce abuses of that tactic ― which she calls "stop, question and frisk" ― while keeping Mr. Kelly, stop-and-frisk's architect, enforcer and, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of its most strident defenders.
Ms. Quinn's rivals had fun with the contradictions. William Thompson, the former city comptroller, said if he were mayor, an inspector general would not be necessary because he would keep the Police Department from doing such things. When John Liu, the current comptroller, yelled, "Stop and frisk in New York City is the biggest form of systemic racial profiling we have anywhere in the United States of America, and it has to be ended," you could almost see him counting characters for Twitter.
The city's public advocate, Bill de Blasio, zinged Ms. Quinn for opposing ― along with Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Kelly ― a City Council bill that would allow New Yorkers to sue in state court if they have been racially profiled by the police. "I think we need that bill," he said, "as another step toward healing and strengthening the relationship between police and community." (Ms. Quinn says she will allow the bill to come to a vote but not support it.)
The Democrats face a challenge in trying to follow a mayor who ― with much credit to Mr. Kelly ― is running a city where crime has fallen. But they correctly noted that stop-and-frisk is not the cause of falling crime and, in fact, creates a host of other problems.
They stressed that the Police Department badly needs to reset its relations with residents ― particularly young black and Hispanic men who are the subjects of unlawful stops. The price of stop-and-frisk is hard to add up: how do you measure humiliation, disrespect, community suspicion and fear, or the cost when young men's lives are derailed or suspended by abusive police tactics?
The city and its next mayor can and should go forward with a new police commissioner. Here is where most of the Democrats have an edge over the Republican candidates ― the former Giuliani deputy mayor Joseph Lhota, the supermarket billionaire John Catsimatidis and the philanthropist George McDonald ― who appeared at a forum on Tuesday and fell over themselves praising Mr. Kelly. "If we don't have stop-and-frisk, it could be stop-and-mug," Mr. Catsimatidis said. It was clear that the muggers he was speaking of were not the cops.
_______________________________________________________________________
NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk Trial
Stop-and-frisk trial defense
By REBECCA ROSENBERG ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Post'
The city's first defense witness in a high-profile federal stop-and-frisk trial said yesterday that police officers are trained to look for suspicious behavior before conducting a weapons search.
Deputy Chief James Shea was, until October, the commanding officer of the department's Police Academy, where cadets get their first lessons about what to look for on the street.
He said cops are trained to stop and frisk only when they have a good reason to.
"You need more than just a suspicious bulge," Shea told jurors in Manhattan federal court. "Every sort of movement could have an innocent explanation."
A bulge under a jacket could be as innocent as a construction tool or a thick wallet, Shea said. If that bulge is accompanied by suspicious behavior or a report of a crime in the area, cops have more reason to move in, he said.
Asked to explain, Shea said a person might be stopped and frisked if he is wearing a heavy coat on a warm day, turns away abruptly at the sight of a cop, or stands in a way that shields part of his body.
One frequent tipoff to the presence of a weapon, Shea said, is where a person places his hands.
"People will touch where they keep their gun," Shea said. "Most criminals don't have the benefit of a holster, so they tend to touch where their gun is to safeguard it."
Several years ago, Shea was involved in a federal investigation into government leaks in high-profile terror cases.
Shea, who is currently assigned to the NYPD's anti gang initiative, was the head of the Joint [FBI-NYPD] Terrorism Task Force in 2011 when he refused an order to provide sensitive information to his NYPD superiors.
Shea was later transferred to the police academy.
_______________________________________________________________________
Cop: Racial profiling is not taught
A witness for the city at the stop-and-frisk trial testified that the police academy teaches that racial profiling is prohibited.
By Robert Gearty ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Daily News'
The first witness for the city at the stop-and-frisk trial testified Thursday that the NYPD Police Academy teaches recruits that racial profiling is prohibited.
"They are taught that in addition to racial profiling being forbidden and against the law, it is bad policing," Deputy Chief James Shea, a former Police Academy commanding officer, said in Manhattan Federal Court.
The trial, now in its sixth week, alleges that the NYPD crime-fighting tactic targets blacks and Latinos for illegal stops and pat downs.
In a humorous aside, Judge Shira Scheinlin expressed surprise during Shea's testimony when she was shown a slide of a gun that looked like an old-style cell-phone.
Shea said recruits are taught to look for unusual weapons.
"That really exists?" the judge asked.
"Yes," said Shea. "It's a little outdated. I don't think we'd pick that up right away because no self-respecting kid would carry it these days."
_______________________________________________________________________
Too frisky
A challenge to the constitutionality of stops by New York's police department
By Unnamed Author(s) ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The Economist' / St Louis, MO
ON HIS way home from a local bodega, 13-year-old Devin Almonor, who is black, was stopped by an unmarked car that pulled up beside him. Two white plain-clothes police officers got out and began questioning him. They patted him down as they questioned him, but found only his mobile phone in his pocket. They then pushed the boy up against the car and handcuffed him, then put him in the back seat of their car. He began to cry. One officer asked him why he was crying "like a little girl". Devin, the son of a retired policeman and now 16, believes he was targeted because of his race.
He was the first witness in the federal class-action lawsuit filed against the New York Police Department (NYPD) and New York City. The plaintiffs contend that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy amounts to racial profiling and is thus unconstitutional. Stops increased from 115,000 in 2002 to 685,000 in 2011. More than half of those stopped were also frisked. Nearly 90% of the stops were of black and Latino men, even though they make up only 25% and 28% of the city's population. Most of those stopped were innocent, and only 6% of stops led to an arrest. Only 780 guns were found last year, a rate of 0.15%.
Police may stop people on suspicion that they are committing or about to commit a crime. City Hall and the police say stops have helped cut crime, making New York America's safest big city. Joseph Esposito, who recently retired as police chief, testified that performance goals exist, to fight crime, not to meet quotas.
Not everyone is convinced. The NAACP, a civil-rights group, says that ending stop and frisk is "a national priority". The policy has become political, with candidates in the race for mayor calling for it to end. Christine Quinn, the front-runner and the council Speaker, supports a bill that would create an inspector-general, much like the one in Los Angeles and in the FBI, to investigate and monitor police practices. Others, like ex-cop Eugene O'Donnell of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, think an inspector-general would be a toothless layer of bureaucracy that the beat police officer does not need.
In 2011 Philadelphia also found itself in federal court over stop and frisk. The city agreed to retrain its police. The number of stops fell by 15% between 2009 and 2012. Oakland, California, which is in the middle of a crime wave, recently hired William Bratton, a former New York police commissioner, as a consultant to advise on police tactics. Many in this left-leaning city are none too happy about the arrival of "Mr Stop and Frisk". James Forman, of Yale Law School, prefers "focused deterrence", which targets a few known criminals and relies on community involvement. High Point, a city in North Carolina, saw violent crime fall by half after implementing it.
A decision in the New York case is not expected soon. The judge has had to remind both sides that the case is about the policy's constitutionality, not stop and frisk's effectiveness. After a public outcry, new police training and the rank and file's reluctance to stop people, the number of stops in New York City fell to 533,042 in 2012. Shootings and murders fell, too.
_______________________________________________________________________
S.B.A. President Ed Mullins on S/Q/F
NYPD sergeant weighs in on Inspector General, stop & frisk
By Danielle Tcholakian ― Thursday, April 25th, 2013 'Metro New York.Com'
According to one NYPD sergeant, an NYPD inspector general is simply unnecessary.
Ed Mullins, a sergeant with the 67th precinct in Brooklyn, accused politicians who are pushing for an Inspector General of "political pandering."
"The NYPD is overloaded with people watching what we do," he said. "The standards that we're held to are already in place."
The argument echoes Christine Quinn's recent explanation of her choice not to … racial profiling: we already expect law enforcement, and public officials generally, not to engage in racial profiling.
"We do an enormous job on our own as far as discipline goes," Mullins said. "The penalties in the police department are harsh, people get terminated."
Mullins thinks the Inspector General proposal is simply a pivot off of the stop and frisk controversy, and he "sympathizes with people on the issue."
But he insists an Inspector General isn't the answer―and that the issue of stop and frisk is "not really a racial issue."
"I don't believe the police department is targeting male blacks [because of race]," Mullins asserted. "We don't determine who the perps are, they're described by the victims of crimes, then we go into specific neighborhoods where the crimes are committed."
The pressures of CompStat
CompStat was originally a managerial tool brought in by Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, Mullins explain, meant to create accountability for the precinct commanders to do something about the crimes in their commands.
And it has enabled the police to do their jobs with maximum efficiency, Mullins said. By pinpointing specific areas where crimes are taking place, CompStat can help make the city safer block-by-block.
He gave the example of 42nd Street between 7th and 8th avenues where, in the early 1990s, there would be about 100 robberies a month on that one street alone.
"I'm in favor of CompStat, I don't think it's a bad thing," Mullins said.
But, he added, "what it wasn't designed for was to keep creating demands for more and more and more."
Mullins explained it's especially difficult for a brand new commander in a precinct. If crime plummeted the year before, there's pressure felt to prove oneself with an even greater decrease.
But Mullins pointed out there's always going to be crime: "The question is, how much crime? Can we try to keep it to where it is?"
Mullins said that while he doesn't believe there is a quota specifically for stop-and-frisks, "there's no doubt there's a quota" system generally.
NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne rejected Mullins' take on the situation, noting that there has been a 25 percent decrease in the number of stops citywide.
Mullins also suggested that the NYPD may not be doing the most effective job of communicating with the communities they're operating within.
Mullins suggested that police engagement with the community should start "at the grammar school level."
"We need to educate children and families so that in the future… they don't see police as the bad guys," Mullins said.
"At the end of the day, we all want to go home safe," Mullins said. "So shouldn't we be on the same team?"
Browne also dismissed Mullins' allegation that more community engagement is needed.
The NYPD has an "extensive and mandatory community immersion program that has been part of police training since Commissioner Kelly instituted it after the [Sean] Bell shooting," Browne said.
Police reportedly participate is the very kind of activities Mullins suggested.
Browne said they also engage in role-playing, including role reversal exercises, with teens and young adults in a separate police-community program, and yet another program engages teens and young adults in actual police training themselves.
_______________________________________________________________________
'The sky is falling; the sky is falling.' The Chicken Littles: Michael Bloomberg & Raymond Kelly
The New York leg of the Tsarnaevs' terror plan, according to Bloomberg and Kelly
By Dana Rubinstein ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'Capital New York' / New York, NY
COMMENT: From day one, Raymond Kelly and Michael Bloomberg have turned terrorism into one huge political football and have continuously used terrorism and terror related issues to advance their political agendas.
Facts: One terrorist is room temperature. The second terrorist was shot and is in custody, going nowhere. Furthermore, the F.B.I. had already determined that they were acting alone.
Besides, Kelly had already flooded Times Square with automatic weapon toting ESU and anti-terrorism cops. So what's the beef? Maybe just not enough face time for Raymond.
See John Miller below for some real common sense logic and excellent Bloomberg/Kelly rebuttal below - Mike Bosak
The two alleged Boston bombers had been planning to make Times Square their next target, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and police commissioner Ray Kelly said this afternoon.
"Last night we were informed by the F.B.I. that the surviving attacker revealed that New York City was next on their list of targets," said Bloomberg in City Hall, referring to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger of the two brothers who allegedly detonated explosives at the Boston Marathon finish line. "He told the F.B.I. apparently that he and his brother had intended to drive to New York and detonate additional explosives in Times Square."
The Tsarnaevs had the six bombs, including one pressure-cooker bomb and five pipe bombs, with which to carry out an attack.
Times Square is heavily policed and equipped with extensive networks of cameras that can detect packages left on the street, but "we don't know if we would have been able to stop the terrorists had they arrived here from Boston," said Bloomberg.
According to police commissioner Ray Kelly, Tsarnaev had initially told authorities that he and his brother decided after the Boston bombings that they would go to New York City to party.
Subsequent questioning revealed that while the brothers were driving around in the Mercedes SUV they had hijacked after allegedly killing an M.I.T. police officer in Cambridge, they had decided spontaneously to travel to Times Square that very night and bomb it.
That plan fell apart after the brothers realized the SUV was low on gas. They stopped at a gas station, the driver they'd been holding hostage escaped, and the Watertown shootout ensued.
In April of last year, Tsarnaev was photographed with friends in Times Square, and he was in the city again in November.
"We don't know if those visits were related in any way to what he described as the brothers' spontaneous decision to target Times Square," said Kelly. "The NYPD intelligence division is actively investigating to determine Dzhokhar's movements in New York City as well as who he might have been with here."
"There's no evidence at this time however to indicate that New York City is currently a target of another terrorist attack stemming from the Boston bombings.
_______________________________________________________________________
2 Tied to Boston Bombings Talked of Times Sq. Attack, Officials Say
By J. DAVID GOODMAN ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Times'
Not long before they engaged in a fevered shootout with the police, the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing discussed heading to New York to detonate their remaining explosive devices in Times Square, city officials said on Thursday.
The New York police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, said at a news conference that the suspects still had five pipe bombs and another device, similar to the pressure-cooker bombs used in the marathon attacks on April 15, that they intended to use.
But those last-minute intentions, seized upon as they drove around the Boston area on the night of April 18, were foiled because the vehicle they had carjacked did not have enough gas to reach New York, Mr. Kelly said. When the suspects stopped for fuel, the carjacking victim escaped and the police were notified.
Mr. Kelly repeatedly described the suspects' discussions as spontaneous.
One suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who survived the shootout and was later arrested, "initially told investigators that he and his brother decided after the Boston bombings that they would go to New York City to party," Mr. Kelly said.
"However," he continued, "a subsequent questioning of Dzhokhar revealed that he and his brother decided spontaneously on Times Square as a target."
Mr. Kelly and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said they were not aware of any other terrorist threat against New York that stemmed from the attack in Boston.
Mr. Kelly said the information about a "party" appeared to have come from an interrogation of Mr. Tsarnaev on Saturday. That changed during an interrogation that began on Sunday evening, Mr. Kelly said, during which Mr. Tsarnaev discussed the last-minute plan for an attack. In the second interrogation, Mr. Kelly said, Mr. Tsarnaev was "more lucid" and provided details to investigators; Mr. Kelly declined to describe those details.
While Mr. Bloomberg said the Federal Bureau of Investigation had informed New York authorities that Mr. Tsarnaev, 19, told federal investigators that New York City was "next on their list of targets," several federal law enforcement officials played down that notion, saying Mr. Tsarnaev's statements made it clear that his discussions with his brother, Tamerlan, were far shy of any sort of plan.
One federal official, while noting there was no question that the two men were extremely dangerous, characterized the reported discussion between the brothers as "a stream of consciousness as opposed to 'Bomb Boston, then bomb New York.' "
"How this thing flows is they hijack the car, they get $700 from this guy, and basically, they have gas money, and they say, 'Now we can go to New York and use the rest of the explosives,' " the official said.
A short time after the carjacking victim escaped, the brothers were spotted by the police. In the ensuing confrontation, the brothers threw some of the explosive devices at the police, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was killed.
Mr. Bloomberg noted that he and Mr. Kelly were passing along information from federal agencies and Boston authorities. "Keep in mind, we didn't interrogate the suspect ourselves," he said.
In his opening remarks at the news conference, Mr. Bloomberg pivoted from describing Mr. Tsarnaev's comments about New York to emphasizing the city's continuing need for federal money to support the Police Department's counterterrorism efforts. "Homeland security funding should be based on threat, and threat alone, and not pork barrel politics," he said. "The fact is, New York City remains a prime target for those who hate America and want to kill Americans."
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had been to New York on at least two occasions, Mr. Kelly said. During one trip "on or before April 18th of 2012," he was photographed with friends in Times Square; he was in the city again in November, Mr. Kelly said. The Police Department is seeking to retrace his steps and find out who he saw while here.
"The attacks in Boston and the news that New York City was next on the terrorist list," Mr. Bloomberg said, "shows just how critical it is for the federal government to devote resources to high-risk areas."
William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.
_______________________________________________________________________
Boston Marathon bombers next target was New York City: Mayor Bloomberg
New York City was next, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told investigators as he recovered in a Boston hospital more than a week after he and his brother allegedly set off two deadly bombs at the Boston Marathon. The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg just learned on Wednesday what the FBI had been told on Sunday.
By Larry McShane ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Daily News'
Excerpt; desired to read the article in its entirety, go to:
The FBI knew as early as Sunday night that the Boston Marathon bombers planned a fiery Times Square finale to their lethal terror spree, but left the NYPD in the dark for days.
The stunning revelation came Wednesday night: Brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were armed to the teeth and planned to detonate the last of their arsenal in the midtown tourist mecca.
Dzhokhar "revealed that New York City was next on their list of targets," Mayor Bloomberg said at a news conference Thursday. "He told the FBI, apparently, that he and his brother intended to drive to New York and detonate additional explosives in Times Square."
_______________________________________________________________________
Some Excellent Common Sense and Logic
Should NYC have been informed of bombers' plans sooner?
Interview of former NYPD DCPI and former Assistant FBI Director John Miller on this Morning's CBS TV News
NOTE: John Miller was also the LAPD's Bureau Chief for Counter-Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau.
After going to the CBS website, click on the John Miller video, "Should NYC have been informed of bombers' plans sooner?"
_______________________________________________________________________
Bloomberg Uses Terror Announcement to Bash Anti-Camera 'Special Interests'
By Jill Colvin ― Thursday, April 25th, 2013; 3:55 p.m. 'The Politicker' / New York, NY
During his press conference announcing that Boston Marathon bombers intended to target Times Square, Mayor Michael Bloomberg slamed "special interests" he accused of trying to block the city from installing crime-fighting surveillance cameras.
"The role that surveillance cameras played in identifying the suspects was absolutely essential to saving lives, both in Boston, and now we know here in New York City as well," Mr. Bloomberg told reporters at City Hall.
"We've made major investments in camera technology�not withstanding the objections of some special interests," he continued. "And the attacks in Boston, I think, demonstrate just how valuable those cameras can be."
Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly butted heads with civil liberties advocates, including the New York Civil Liberties Union, over the city's aggressive policing and counter-terrorism efforts post-9/11.
The group filed an ongoing lawsuit against the city in 2008 for information about the scope of the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, the city's network of thousands of cameras spanning the Financial District, which is a cornerstone of Mr. Bloomberg's counter-terrorism investments. The program was expanded to Midtown in 2010.
But NYCLU Executive Director, Donna Lieberman, said after Mr. Bloomberg's remarks that the group's red flags were justified.
"Our thoughts remain with the victims of this great tragedy. And we understand and agree that there are times, locations and circumstances that clearly call for increased security and protections," she said. "But solutions that seriously undermine our freedom and fail to address the security failures of the past may give us a false sense of security while unnecessarily sacrificing individual privacy.
"We must not play into the hands of those that seek to hurt us by abandoning our free society and allowing our liberties to be needlessly eroded," she added.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said that, while Times Square is already under heavy surveillance, the NYPD is planning to further extend the surveillance network with cutting-edge technology.
"We want to expand our cameras�the number of cameras that we have. And we'd like to, also, in that universe, expand our smart camera capability," he said. "We've talked about that, now adding algorithms�'video analytics' it's called. So that's sort of an additional aspect�it doesn't come with every camera, believe me. So just the number of cameras, throughout all five boroughs, and to increase the number of cameras capable of video analytics," he said.
Mr. Bloomberg also re-affirmed his commitment.
"We're working wherever there's large groups of people, that would be the logical place to put your cameras. But one of the thing for sure, you're never going to know where all of our cameras are," he said. "And that's one of the ways you deter people; they just don't know whether the person sitting next to you is just somebody sitting there or a detective watching."
He also thanked President Barack Obama and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano "for recognizing that homeland security funding should be based on threat, and threat alone; not poke-barrel politics."
Additional reporting by Colin Campbell.
_______________________________________________________________________
Mayor Bloomberg on Post-Boston Security: "You're Never Going to Know Where All Our Cameras Are"
By Sydney Brownstone ― Thursday, April 25th, 2013; 4:28 p.m. 'The Villiage Voice' / Manhattan
Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly delivered a press conference at City Hall this afternoon, revealing information about the Boston bombers' plans to come to New York City. Upon earlier information and belief, Dzhokar Tsarnaev said he had planned to come to New York to "party," but Bloomberg and Kelly told reporters that, in fact, Dzhokar and his brother spontaneously decided after the Boston bombings to bomb Times Square.
"God forbid they had gone to Times Square," the mayor said, but added that if they had, "they would not have seen the extensive networks of cameras."
The mayor stressed the investment the city has made in maintaining and expanding surveillance with help from the federal government. "The fact that New York City was next on the terrorists' list...shows just how crucial it is for the NYPD to continue to expand its counter-terrorism capabilities and intelligence gathering capabilities," he said. The mayor also repeated a line Politicker's Colin Campbell highlighted at a previous post-Boston press conference: "special interests" shaping security policy.
"We made major investments in camera technology, not withstanding objections of some special interests," the mayor emphasized today. He did not say who or what those special interests were.
The dominant, resounding cry in media and politics seems to be clamoring for more cameras, but last week, the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney argued that more cameras could mean less control and safety, not more. "Give the government eyes on every street corner, and you mostly aid the ability of law enforcement to track us without public cooperation, warrants or legal paperwork," he wrote.
"You're never going to know where all our cameras are," the mayor said at today's press conference. "And that's how you deter people."
The New York branch of the ACLU doesn't agree that more cameras equal more security. When the Voice reached out to the NYCLU for comment, or any insight into what these "special interests" could be, NYCLU executive director Donna Lieberman responded with the statement below.
"Our thoughts remain with the victims of this great tragedy. And we understand and agree that there are times, locations and circumstances that clearly call for increased security and protections. But solutions that seriously undermine our freedom and fail to address the security failures of the past may give us a false sense of security while unnecessarily sacrificing individual privacy. We must not play into the hands of those that seek to hurt us by abandoning our free society and allowing our liberties to be needlessly eroded."
_______________________________________________________________________
Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Daily News' Editorial:
Boston Marathon bombing has not been the FBI's finest hour
Failure to keep the NYPD in the loop could have had disastrous consequences
The FBI's dereliction in failing to instantly notify Police Commissioner Ray Kelly that the Boston Marathon bombers planned to attack New York was irresponsible, unforgivable, terrifying and grounds for overhauling its anti-terror protocols.
The bureau allowed well more than 48 hours to pass before sending word that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had told agents that, in the massacre's aftermath, he and his brother, Tamerlan, had determined to head to Times Square for more mayhem.
The delay blocked the NYPD from immediately investigating whether the Tsarnaevs had allies in the city, a lag that would have been costly had the brothers been in league with conspirators here.
Still worse, the FBI earlier told the NYPD that, questioned in his hospital bed, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had said the pair intended to come to New York only to "party," leading Kelly to publicly minimize their threat based on misinformation.
The worst attack on American soil since 9/11, the bombing was precisely the type of event that demanded full, fast information sharing among intelligence and law enforcement agencies nationwide ― most definitely including New York, the country's repeated terrorist target.
Yet, the Boston field office circulated its findings with all the efficiency of a clogged drain pipe. As the explanation goes, the bureau's bombing team employed a complex information management system designed to handle large amounts of data gathered by numerous sources.
It took time to put the facts in, synthesize them and get them out to interested parties. A rough timeline shows the cost of all that time wasted:
Thursday, April 18: During a carjacking three days after the bombing, the Tsarnaevs mention "Manhattan" while speaking Russian. The carjack victim reports what he had heard.
Friday, April 19: Police kill Tamerlan Tsarnaev in a gunfight, wound Dzhokhar and find him after an all-day manhunt.
Saturday, April 20: Under FBI questioning, Dzhokhar mentions a trip to New York to party. Agents enter the information into their system. No one calls the NYPD or, it seems, fellow agents assigned to the city's Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Sunday, April 21: Questioned again, Dzhokhar reveals that before the shootout, he and Tamerlan planned to drive to Times Square with a pressure cooker bomb and five pipe bombs. Again, the FBI sends no alert to the city.
Tuesday, April 23: The data system gets around to alerting the task force that Dzhokhar had talked about partying in New York. Kelly is notified and, believing he'd gotten a full briefing, relays the information to the public.
Wednesday, April 24: Finally, the system sends word to the task force about the Tsarnaevs' Times Square intentions.
Speed and thoroughness are of the essence in active terror investigations. Every tip and suggestion must be run to ground as quickly as possible because lives hang in the balance.
Did the FBI have reason to accept Dzhokhar's initial word that he only wanted to party in New York? No. Should the FBI have taken at face value that Tamerlan's death and Dzhokhar's arrest ended New York's peril? Absolutely not.
The FBI had a duty to head off the worst possibilities ― all the more so because Dzhokhar was photographed with associates in Times Square in April 2012 and came back that November. Those associates were, and are, people of high interest.
The FBI did a smashing job in tracking down the Tsarnaevs. That triumph has now been marred, first by the revelation that agents had Tamerlan on their radar screen as early as 2011 and now by their inexplicable and inexcusable failure to pick up the phone at first mention of New York.
After 9/11, Kelly built a worldwide intelligence unit in the NYPD. Many in the FBI bristled at his aggressiveness, but time and again, with the disruption of 14 terror plots, his wisdom in refusing to rely on the bureau has proven dead-on right.
_______________________________________________________________________
Chief Thomas Chan
New NYPD Community Affairs Chief Thomas Chan grew up in city housing
Chief Chan, who will be officially promoted to his new command on Friday, speaks three languages
By Thomas Tracy ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Daily News'
The new head of the NYPD's community policing initiative has 31 years on the force, is fluent in three languages, and grew up in a Manhattan housing project.
Chief Thomas Chan, 55, the first Asian-American to be made a two-star NYPD chief, will be elevated to command of the Community Affairs Bureau during a promotion ceremony Friday, police said. He is currently commanding officer of Patrol Borough Brooklyn South.
He'll succeed Chief Philip Banks III, who was named chief of department ― the highest uniformed position in the NYPD ― on March 27.
As head of the Community Affairs Bureau, Chan will oversee a stable of cops throughout the city who are tasked solely with fostering good will between the department and community leaders, civic organizations and the general public. In addition to the Community Affairs Bureau, Chan will also oversee the Juvenile Justice Division, which includes 5,000 school safety agents.
"Chief Chan has demonstrated throughout his career the ability to build bridges between the police department and New York City's richly diverse communities," NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in a statement Thursday announcing Chan's impending promotion.
Chan, a graduate of the prestigious Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan, is fluent in English, Cantonese and Toisan. He was raised in the Alfred E. Smith Houses on the Lower East Side. He joined the force in 1982, assigned initially to a beat in Manhattan, after a period spent working as city paramedic.
_______________________________________________________________________
Transfer of Ranking Officers
***Effective 0001 HRS, MAY 1, 2013***
The Following M.O.S. Are Transferred And Designated As Follows:
RANK NAME FROM TO
ASST CHIEF MICHAEL V. QUINN CD OFF OCCB
(EXECUTIVE OFFICER CONTINUED)
ASST CHIEF OWEN J. MONAGHAN TB PBBS
(DESIGNATED COMMANDING OFFICER)
DEP CHIEF MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON PBBN CHIEF OF DEPT
(EXECUTIVE OFFICER CONTINUED)
DEP CHIEF VINCENT M. COOGAN SS DIV TRANSIT BUREAU
(EXECUTIVE OFFICER CONTINUED)
INSP GALEN D. FRIERSON SSD QBSZ SCHOOL SAFETY DIV
(DESIGNATED EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
D.I. JOSEPH G. COURTESIS 105 PCT OFF OF CH OF DEPT
(DESIGNATED EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
D.I. BRANDON DELPOZO 006 PCT CHIEF OF DEPT
(DESIGNATED SPECIAL PROJECTS)
D.I. ELISA A. COKKINOS 010 PCT 006 PCT
(COMMANDING OFFICER CONTINUED)
D.I. DONALD T. POWERS 108 PCT PBMN
(DESIGNATED ADMINISTRATOR)
D.I. JON E. BLOCH 042 PCT PBBX
(DESIGNATED ADJUTANT)
D.I. ELVIO CAPOCCI 077 PCT HB BRONX/QUEENS
(DESIGNATED EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
D.I. MICHAEL COYLE 107 PCT 105 PCT
(COMMANDING OFFICER CONTINUED)
D.I. JOHN D. DEROSE TB DT30 HB BROOKLYN
(DESIGNATED EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
_______________________________________________________________________
Will anyone be running the NYPD?
By THOMAS A. REPPETTO [Known Kelly Shill] ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Post'
(Op-Ed / Commentary)
Everyone knows who runs the NYPD today ― Commissioner Ray Kelly. You may have seen him with Mayor Bloomberg yesterday, breaking the news that the Tsarnaev brothers had planned to hit Times Square in New York City next.
But a year from now, it may be much tougher to say who's in charge of the city's police.
I recently wrote about the circus atmosphere that will prevail if the next mayor allows, or can't prevent, a division of responsibility for policing among several officials. Now I'll provide advice to those interested in running the NYPD, based on my studies of a number of US cities where wars for control over the police have been fought out.
The first post in which power can be exercised is, of course, police commissioner. But the next mayor's pick for the job may have to carry out irresponsible measures favored by various pressure groups, such as cutting back on proactive policing like stop, question and frisk or counter-terrorism work.
But if crime starts to zoom up or bombs go off ― and sites like Times Square always seem to be on the terrorists' radar ― the commissioner will get the blame. And even the mayor's support can't keep him safe from inglorious dismissal ― by law, the governor can also remove the police commissioner.
For those who prefer power without responsibility, there are other possibilities. One is to become the New York City criminal justice coordinator. The job, around since the 1970s, has been held by competent individuals, some of them also carrying the title of deputy mayor. None tried to boss the police commissioner, but the next one might want to try. Let me warn anyone who'd try that: The commissioner's post is an historic, prestige-laden one; the coordinator post is virtually unknown. In a struggle between the two, the latter would probably be crushed.
An even more desirable position, likely to be created soon, is as inspector general over the NYPD. Though highly touted by advocates, the job is as yet undefined and its power will depend upon the desires of the mayor and the ambitions of the appointee. A police IG may be able to blow minor derelictions into major scandals, so as to garner headlines and impose his own policies; this will win applause from those who are now carrying on what's been called "a political war against the police."
But that trick won't work for too long. Consider how the events in Boston have temporarily stopped New York's cop-bashers from complaining about police "spying" or questioning possible terrorists.
When the facts come out about the Marathon Bombers, we may learn that law enforcers did not vigorously pursue investigations of the Tsarnaev Brothers because they feared being accused of treading on the suspects' civil rights. This is what happened before 9/11. Then, despite receiving reports about Middle Eastern gentlemen learning to fly, but not land, jetliners, federal officers bent over backward to avoid "profiling."
Perhaps the most desirable position for a would-be police czar may be that of court-appointed federal monitor over the NYPD. There's no limit to the amount of money the monitor will be able to charge, as long as the judge who appoints him or her is willing to approve the bills. The monitor will be in an ideal position to compel the scrapping of successful anticrime or anti-terror programs.
But, again, it may not last. In 1985, based on suits from a handful of supposedly aggrieved parties, the NYPD was required to submit to monitoring that limited its ability to investigate possible security threats. When the unwisdom of this became apparent after 9/11, a federal court scrapped the requirement.
The struggle for power over the NYPD will affect average New Yorkers ― a lot. If it ends up handcuffing cops, the public may become angry and frightened enough to throw out the mayor, or carry their protests to the governor, the White House or the Supreme Court.
_______________________________________________________________________
WSJ Op-Ed Pushes Controversial NYPD Surveillance Of American Muslims
By SERGIO MUNOZ ― Thursday, April 25th, 2013 'Media Matters for America'
Fox News contributor Judith Miller wrote a highly speculative Wall Street Journal op-ed that claimed New York City police surveillance practices "may well have... prevented" the Boston bombing, ignoring that the constitutionality of these programs is currently being challenged in court and their efficacy is questioned.
In the April 24 op-ed, Miller lauded the New York Police Department (NYPD) for its blanket surveillance of American Muslim communities, which has extended beyond the jurisdiction of New York City. According to Miller, this extensive spying program "is a model of how to identify and stop killers like the Tsarnaev brothers before they strike" and should be emulated by other cities. From the WSJ:
[T]he city has developed a counterterror program that is a model of how to identify and stop killers like the Tsarnaev brothers before they strike. The 1,000 cops and analysts who work in the NYPD's intelligence and counterterrorism divisions, for instance, would likely have flagged Tamerlan Tsarnaev for surveillance, given Police Commissioner Ray Kelly's insistence on aggressively monitoring groups and individuals suspected of radicalization.
[...]
The NYPD maintains close ties to Muslim preachers and community leaders, as well as a network of tipsters and undercover operatives.
Once the department had Tamerlan under surveillance, the NYPD's cyberunit might have detected his suspicious online viewing choices and social-media postings. Other detectives might have picked up his purchase of a weapon, gunpowder and even a pressure cooker--an item featured in an article, "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom," in the online al Qaeda magazine Inspire.
Even if the NYPD hadn't been watching Tamerlan, it might have been tipped off to such suspicious purchases thanks to its Nexus program. Since the program's launch in 2002, the department has visited more than 40,000 businesses in the metropolitan area, encouraging business owners and managers to report suspicious purchases or other activities potentially related to terrorism.
These surveillance programs - like other aspects of NYPD's aggressive policing - are currently being challenged in court. But Miller ignored claims that the spying unconstitutionally profiles American Muslims, interferes with freedom of religion rights under the First Amendment, and violates a court order that attempts to ensure surveillance focuses on illegal activity.
Furthermore, although she mentions it won a Pulitzer Prize, Miller completely ignores the substance of an Associated Press series critical of these programs. The AP's award-winning reporting on the NYPD's surveillance unearthed multiple details that undermine Miller's narrative. For example:
■The "network of tipsters and undercover operatives" described by Miller were explained by AP to be paid informants for the NYPD that "'bait' Muslims into saying inflammatory things" and "trawl the mosques -- known informally as 'mosque crawlers' -- [to] tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there's no evidence they committed a crime."
■The op-ed's description of the NYPD's search for "warning signs among New York's Muslim population" was reported by AP to be racial profiling that "put American citizens under surveillance and scrutinized where they ate, prayed and worked, not because of charges of wrongdoing but because of their ethnicity."
■The NYPD's monitoring of mosques through "close ties to Muslim preachers and community leaders" - as described by Miller - was reported in the AP series as "targeting mosques and their congregations with tactics normally reserved for criminal organizations," resulting in situations where "the same mosques that city leaders visited to hail their strong alliances with the Muslim community have also been placed under NYPD surveillance -- in some cases infiltrated by undercover police officers and informants."
■Miller's detail that the NYPD visited "more than 40,000 businesses in the metropolitan area, encouraging business owners and managers to report suspicious purchases or other activities potentially related to terrorism" was described by AP as part of an aborted collaboration with the CIA that entailed "surveillance of entire neighborhoods" and "intelligence databases" of "Muslims not suspected of any wrongdoing."
■Miller's assurance that "court-ordered guidelines" controlled the NYPD's "plainclothes officers [covertly sent] to mosques, restaurants and other public venues where Muslims congregate" was a reference to a revised 1985 settlement over previous illegal spying, which the AP reported is the core of ongoing litigation over its potential violation due to "intrusive methods to conduct investigations into organizations and individuals associated with Islam and the Muslim community in New York even though there were no signs of unlawful activity."
This AP coverage led to lawsuits filed over the programs' constitutionality and public grievances by state and federal officials worried about the unsupervised reach and nature of these NYPD surveillance efforts.
Yet this is arguably a separate issue from whether the programs actually work to prevent terrorist attacks, which Miller highlights as worthy of a "fresh look" across the country. That is, some say the potential illegality of this widespread and indiscriminate surveillance of American Muslims is irrelevant if its utility is worth breaking from American tradition and law. But according to the AP's reporting, this too is questionable, as the core of the surveillance program "never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation." From the AP:
In more than six years of spying on Muslim neighborhoods, eavesdropping on conversations and cataloguing mosques, the New York Police Department's secret Demographics Unit never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation, the department acknowledged in court testimony unsealed late Monday.
The Demographics Unit is at the heart of a police spying program, built with help from the CIA, which assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Police infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.
Police hoped the Demographics Unit would serve as an early warning system for terrorism. And if police ever got a tip about, say, an Afghan terrorist in the city, they'd know where he was likely to rent a room, buy groceries and watch sports.
But in a June 28 deposition as part of a longstanding federal civil rights case, Assistant Chief Thomas Galati said none of the conversations the officers overheard ever led to a case.
_______________________________________________________________________
NYPD $$ Lawyer Lotto $$ Bonanza
Ex-Marine says cops beat him in Jamaica's 103rd Precinct: suit
Dwight Edwards, 35, walked into the 103rd Precinct unscathed and came out beaten, according to a lawsuit corroborated by his girlfriend, Alicia Branford.
By John Marzulli ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Daily News'
The Queens district attorney's office is investigating a former Marine's claim that he was punched and kicked in the face by cops as they ejected him from the 103rd Precinct stationhouse, where he had gone to retrieve a friend's personal property.
Dwight Edwards, 35 ― who served in combat in Afghanistan, where he was severely injured by an improvised explosive device ― suffered a fractured eye socket in the alleged attack.
"He walked into the precinct unscathed and came out beaten," lawyer Joel Berger said Thursday after filing a lawsuit in Brooklyn Federal Court.
Edwards was not arrested or even given a summons.
Already diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a brain injury he suffered in the bombing, Edwards has been severely depressed since the Jan. 2 incident at the police station and checked himself into a hospital for treatment this week, according to his girlfriend, Alicia Branford.
A spokesman for District Attorney Richard Brown said the allegations are under "active investigation" by prosecutors and the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau. A police spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Edwards was interviewed by authorities last month and picked out one cop from a photo array, Berger said.
After a friend was arrested for urinating in public, Edwards went to the police stationhouse in Jamaica to pick up his pal's cell phone and wallet. An unidentified officer near the front desk told Edwards, "Get the f--- out of my precinct," the suit states.
Edwards replied, "There's no law in here," which prompted the cop to shout, "What did you say?" and tackle him. Another officer allegedly kicked Edwards in the face three times, the suit states. "Who the f--- do you think you are?" the kicker allegedly said.
The Marine veteran's girlfriend was waiting for Edwards outside the stationhouse.
"He was yelling, 'You kicked me in the face!' " Branford told the Daily News. "He said, 'I served in the Marine Corps and this is how you treat people?' "
Edwards, who grew up in Bedford-Stuyvesant but now lives in Florida, immediately went to the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Brooklyn for treatment and reported the beatdown.
He has no criminal record, and he served in the Marine Reserves from 2003 to 2006.
_______________________________________________________________________
Ret. Captain Eric Adams
Key backer for DA Hynes
By ANDY SOLTIS ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Post'
State Sen. Eric Adams endorsed Brooklyn DA Charles Hynes for re-election yesterday in what is seen as a snub of rival candidate Kenneth Thompson.
Adams (D-Crown Heights), co-founder of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement, said he backed Hynes because of his "proactive approach to crime."
_______________________________________________________________________
NYPD: 1,182 Pedestrians and Cyclists Injured, 12 Killed in Traffic in March
By Brad Aaron ― Thursday, April 25th, 2013 'Streetsblog New York.Com'
Twenty-one people were killed in New York City traffic in March, and 4,152 were injured, according to the latest NYPD crash data report [ http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/NYPDcrashes0313.pdf ].
As of the end of March, 45 pedestrians and cyclists have been killed by city motorists this year, and 3,590 injured, compared to 33 deaths and 3,519 injuries for the same period in 2012.
Citywide, at least 11 pedestrians and one cyclist were fatally struck by drivers: one pedestrian in Manhattan; three pedestrians in the Bronx; two pedestrians and one cyclist in Brooklyn; four pedestrians in Queens, and one pedestrian in Staten Island. Among the victims were Cheng-Chiu (Corinna) Fang, Victor Lopez, Andrew Quinn, Tenzin Drudak, Roberto Baez, Lillian Cruz, Sook-Ja Kim, Juliana Busto, and Denim McLean. At least one child and one senior were killed by motorists in March: Denim McLean, 2, and Roberto Baez, 75.
Across the city, 990 pedestrians and 192 cyclists were reported hurt in collisions with motor vehicles. Per NYPD policy, few of these crashes were investigated by trained officers.
Of nine fatal crashes reported by Streetsblog and other outlets, no motorists were known to have been charged for causing a death. The truck driver who struck Lillian Cruz was cited for failure to exercise due care. Historically, nearly half of motorists who kill a New York City pedestrian or cyclist do not receive so much as a citation for careless driving.
There were 16,480 motor vehicle crashes in the city last month.
Download March NYPD summons data here: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/NYPDsummonses0313.pdf Crash and summons data from prior months is available in multiple formats here.
After the jump: contributing factors for crashes resulting in injury and death: http://nypd.openscrape.com/#/
_______________________________________________________________________
Traffic Agent Collared
Traffic cop was angry over getting a parking ticket in Brooklyn, so he ran red light... and was arrested: officials
The officer, Oluwatoyin Laoye, received the parking ticket for leaving his car in a No Standing zone, authorities say. He then yelled at the ticket agent who gave him the ticket, and sped off, when he blew through the red light.
By Thomas Tracy ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Daily News'
It's official: Nobody likes getting a parking ticket.
Cops cuffed an NYPD traffic agent who blew through a red light because he was angry about getting a parking ticket in Brooklyn on Thursday, officials said.
Police said a summons for parking in a No Standing zone had just been slapped on Oluwatoyin Laoye's car at Liberty and Pennsylvania Aves. when the 36-year-old allegedly mouthed off to his fellow traffic agent.
"He didn't like getting a ticket," a police source said. "He threw it at the traffic agent, got in his car and sped off."
Laoye, a four-year veteran of the NYPD traffic enforcement bureau, blew through a steady red light as he fled, police said.
Cops pulled him over a few blocks away, charging him with reckless endangerment, reckless driving and obstructing governmental administration, police said.
_______________________________________________________________________
NYPD School Safety Agent Arrested After Fight with City Marshal, Cops Say
By Aidan Gardiner ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'DNAinfo.Com News' / Manhattan
NEW YORK CITY ― An off-duty NYPD school safety agent was arrested Thursday after getting into a fight with a city marshal, cops said.
Crystal Thomas, 38, was charged with criminal mischief and trespassing on Thursday about 6 p.m. after she brawled with the marshal, according to the NYPD.
City marshals are overseen by the city's Department of Investigation and tasked with enforcing judicial verdicts like carrying out evictions, collecting on judgments and towing, among other things.
It is unclear why Thomas got into a dispute with one of the marshals.
She was arrested and processed in the 75th Precinct stationhouse, which covers the Cypress Hills section of Brooklyn, cops said.
_______________________________________________________________________
NY / NJ Port Authority P.D.
Port Authority could hire up to 175 police officers
By Unnamed Author(s) (The Associated Press) ― Friday, April 26th, 2013; 10:06 a.m. EDT
NEW YORK ― The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is starting a recruitment drive for up to 175 new police officers.
The agency is seeking candidates for a new police academy class in 2014.
The recruitment effort will begin May 10 and run through June 17.
Military veterans are encouraged to apply.
The age limit for police applicants is normally 35. However, the authority has increased the maximum age to 41 for veterans. The revised policy will be in place for three years.
The authority's force of nearly 1,600 officers patrols the agency's land, sea, air and rail facilities.
Those include four airports, four bridges and two tunnels. They also include the Port Authority Bus Terminal, the PATH rail system, regional ports and the 16-acre World Trade Center site.
_______________________________________________________________________
New York State
Clarkstown residents skeptical after police report no OT abuse
By Hema Easley ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The Journal News' / White Plains, NY
NEW CITY ― The Clarkstown Police Department found no evidence of overtime abuse by officers in an internal investigation, the chief said, and a Pomona firm that long has audited the town will focus this year on police overtime.
But some residents concerned about high police salaries and overtime are calling for an independent audit by a company with no link to the town. They are worried not only by the possibility of overtime abuse ― police being paid when no extra work was done ― but whether overtime is actually needed.
"Why are we working so much overtime? It does seem to indicate there is a lack of management on the part of the police," said Gerry O'Rourke, president of the Congers Civic Association. "The taxpayers are saturated with the expense of the Police Department."
The department consumes about one-quarter of the town's $137 million budget, not including health care and retirement benefits. Clarkstown officers' income, already among the highest in the region, gets a sizable boost from overtime that is paid at 1.5 times of base salary. Clarkstown had the highest average salary of any local agency, according to 2012 data. Police and fire employees had an average pay of $179,689, and seven town workers were among the 20 highest-paid workers in local government in New York.
Under a clause in every contract since 1995, officers who work on their days off are guaranteed at least four hours of overtime, even if they work less. Police could be called in for a court case, to investigate a crime scene, for canine training or public affairs.
Overtime cost has risen over the years. In 2007, the department spent $2.8 million on overtime. By 2011, that figure had risen to nearly $4.2 million. In 2012, it dropped to $3.8 million.
Chief Michael Sullivan has said though the cost of overtime may have risen, the actual number of hours has been reduced. The hours spiked because the number of officers declined, he said, causing the remaining officers to work extra hours. With recent hiring, overtime is declining, he said.
Michael Hull of Bardonia said he was not satisfied with the internal investigation because it looked only at overtime related to court appearances.
"Good first step, Chief Sullivan. But now continue with an external audit," Hull said.
Sullivan ordered the investigation after the department found fraud in overtime submitted by William Sherwood, a decorated 11-year veteran of the force and the son of a former chief. He was paid a salary of $125,166 in 2012, but his total income for the year, according to SeeThroughNY, was $206,237, including overtime. When it was discovered, Sherwood repaid the money and resigned rather than face departmental charges.
In a much-anticipated presentation, Sullivan on Tuesday laid out the result of the investigation, which reviewed 704 incidents of overtime by 95 officers. The department scoured time cards and overtime submitted by officers and found no abuse, he said. When asked why investigators did not look at all kinds of overtime, Sullivan said it would have been too time consuming.
O'Rourke said only an outside audit would quell the questions.
"It will relieve the police of this cloud of suspicion," he said. "People just don't trust someone auditing themselves."
_______________________________________________________________________
Cuomo plan to help municipalities restructure
Cuomo hopes to beef up planned advisory body for municipal labor pacts
By Jimmy Vielkind ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The Albany Times-Union' / Albany, NY
Albany -- Gov. Andrew Cuomo hopes to give a planned advisory panel for stressed upstate municipalities some teeth for negotiating contracts with police and fire unions, he said.
Cuomo told reporters at a Manhattan news conference that he would use the coming expiration of the system of binding arbitration for police and fire unions as an "opportunity to do something real" to add power to the panel, which he first outlined during his State of the State presentation in January.
"Let's put together a financial restructuring board, and local governments that are in financial distress can come before the board, and this board will work with them to restructure the government so it's economically viable. And part of that will be working out the contracts with their police and fire," Cuomo said. "We have to restructure these local governments so that they're financially solvent I have not wanted to subsidize the problem; I want to solve the problem."
Decades of declining populations and loss of industry have left many upstate cities financially hurt, a crisis compounded by a spike in mandated pension contributions caused by the stock market collapse of 2008.
Mayors, including Stephanie Miner of Syracuse, have asked Cuomo to lead a statewide dialogue on the problem. In January, Cuomo said the panel would include outside experts as well as staff members from the comptroller's office, the Budget Division and the attorney general's office. Larry Schwartz, Cuomo's top aide, told the Times Union in January that "there's no carrots or sticks ― just good, sound advice," but the governor's comments Thursday and in an earlier interview with The Wall Street Journal indicated that he plans to go further.
Peter Baynes, executive director of the New York Conference of Mayors, said Cuomo's plan seemed to be "evolving and expanding."
"It sounds like a hybrid of a bankruptcy and control board without calling it either," he said. "I think it's a good sign that the governor is serious about trying to help local governments avoid being on a path to fiscal ruin. I'm just not sure what the intended approach is."
Steven Madarasz, a spokesman for the Civil Service Employees Association, said even without details the proposal "raises all kinds of red flags for us."
Cuomo suggested he was working on legislation, but spokesmen for both Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Comptroller Tom DiNapoli indicated their offices had not been in contact with the governor's aides.
Police and fire unions may enter binding arbitration if an impasse is declared during contract talks. That empowers a three-member panel ― with one member selected by the union and municipality, the third by consensus ― to make decisions on a contract increase.
As part of his executive budget, Cuomo proposed to cap the wage and benefit increases that arbitration panels could assign if the municipality is deemed to be under "fiscal distress."
Mayors and other municipal officials praised the change, but it was rejected by legislators under pressure from unions.
Cuomo has said he will not sign a renewed law without changes. It expires on June 30.
_______________________________________________________________________
U.S.A.
Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control
By JEREMY W. PETERS ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Times'
WASHINGTON ― Talks to revive gun control legislation are quietly under way on Capitol Hill as a bipartisan group of senators seeks a way to bridge the differences that led to last week's collapse of the most serious effort to overhaul the country's gun laws in 20 years.
Drawing on the lessons from battles in the 1980s and '90s over the Brady Bill, which failed in Congress several times before ultimately passing, gun control supporters believe they can prevail by working on a two-pronged strategy. First, they are identifying senators who might be willing to change their votes and support a background check system with fewer loopholes.
Second, they are looking to build a national campaign that would better harness overwhelming public support for universal background checks ― which many national polls put at near 90 percent approval ― to pressure lawmakers.
Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, have been talking in recent days about how they could persuade more senators to support their bill to expand background checks for gun buyers, which drew backing from only four Republicans last week.
"We're going to work it hard," Mr. Manchin said Thursday, adding that he was looking at tweaking the language of his bill in a way that he believed would satisfy senators who, for example, felt that background checks on person-to-person gun sales would be too onerous for people who live in rural areas far from a sporting goods store.
Those concerns were an issue for Alaska's senators, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, and Mark Begich, a Democrat.
Meanwhile, a separate gun measure, an anti-trafficking bill, is the subject of talks between Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and two Republican senators who voted no on the background check bill. The Republicans, Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, are discussing ways they might support the bill, which would criminalize the shipping or transfer of guns to someone who is barred from possessing a firearm.
While the bill on its own falls short of what the families of victims of mass shootings have been pushing Congress to enact ― and is therefore less controversial ― some Democrats believe it could be a good starting point to build a broader bipartisan compromise.
"I think trafficking can be the base of the bill, the rock on which everything else stands," Ms. Gillibrand said. "I also think it's complementary to background checks because, let's be honest, criminals aren't going to buy a gun and go through a background check. So if you really want to go after criminals, you have to have to do both."
Ms. Ayotte said Thursday that she would continue talking with Ms. Gillibrand and was confident that some areas of agreement, on areas like expanding mental health care, could be reached.
"There's a lot we have agreement on in terms of enforcing our current system," she said. "And so I certainly think we should look for the common elements, including the mental health piece, which I support as well, and try to move as much of that as possible forward."
Ms. Ayotte ― the only one out of 22 senators on the East Coast north of Virginia who voted against strengthening background checks ― has been the target lately of some of the most furious lobbying by gun control proponents, who have inundated local newspapers with letters to the editor denouncing her vote, run radio ads saying she "ignored the will of the people" and swamped her office with phone calls. On Thursday, two receptionists placed one call after another on hold as they politely listened to callers vent and replied, "Thank you for your message."
Next week when Congress is in recess, gun control groups coordinating with the Obama committee Organizing for Action will be fanning out across the country in dozens of demonstrations at the offices of senators who voted down the background check bill.
As talks moved ahead on Capitol Hill, the White House was pressing on with its own efforts. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. summoned a group of gun control proponents to his office on Thursday ― including representatives from Michael R. Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Gabrielle Giffords's Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence ― and reassured them that the issue had become his highest priority.
The vice president recalled the long struggle to enact the Brady Bill, which established a five-day waiting period to buy a gun. And he told them gun control would become his new campaign to end the Iraq war, according to two participants in the meeting, comparing it to the issue he devoted much of his energy to during President Obama's first term. The pressure campaign is evidently already starting to take its toll, the vice president added, because several senators have confided to him that they are feeling the backlash from constituents.
Those senators, he added, told him that they needed to be assured there was adequate support for expanded gun control to pass because they did not want to take such a great political risk on something that was doomed to fail. And some of them are already beginning to ask about what tweaks gun control proponents might entertain that could make the bills more palatable, the vice president said.
"It's not a question of really changing their minds for or against this policy," one of the meeting's participants said. "It's demonstrating that it's safe to do the right thing and politically unsafe not to."
_______________________________________________________________________
5th Amendment Issues / Searching Computer Hard Drives
West Allis encryption case delves into Fifth Amendment debate
Porn investigation has unusual twist
By Bruce Vielmetti ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel' / Milwaukee, WI
Online child pornography users rarely escape conviction once investigators armed with a search warrant seize their computer equipment.
But when federal agents raided a West Allis apartment, they ran into an increasingly common problem - encrypted data.
Their standoff with a computer scientist has led to a rare court ruling about Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in the digital world.
"This is a very rare bird indeed," said Chet Kaufman, a federal public defender in Florida who litigated the only such case in the country to be decided by an appellate court.
According to court records, agents had traced possible child porn to the home of Jeffrey Feldman, a software developer with a Fortune 500 company. In January, pursuant to a search warrant, they took his computer and more than a dozen external hard drives with nearly 20 terabytes of storage capacity.
The next step is usually to examine the files, identify any contraband images and issue charges if such images are found. Feldman's drives, however, were encrypted so well that they stumped even the FBI's top forensic computer experts for weeks.
Encryption is not just password protection. It takes vast amounts of data and, using algorithms, makes it gibberish that can only be untangled again with use of a key, which could be a password, or a piece of music or a fingerprint. Some encryption programs even hide the fact that files exist, or will destroy them after a certain number of attempts to break the encryption.
The agents' problem led to an extraordinary request.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Karine Moreno-Taxman earlier this month asked a judge to order Feldman to unlock the hard drives. She argued that because the drives were seized pursuant to a valid warrant, getting the data from them was the logical conclusion of executing the warrant as previously ordered by the court.
FBI Special Agent Brett Banner suggested in an affidavit that the increasingly common use of encryption could become a real hardship for law enforcement if courts don't order suspects to decrypt possible evidence.
Moreno-Taxman suggested that Feldman - who hasn't been charged - could be forced to come to court and unlock the hard drives, without disclosing the actual password. If he refused, he could be held in contempt.
But wouldn't that be like forcing Feldman to testify against himself?
The government argued Feldman would not be compelled to create anything - it's already there, and that anything of testimonial value derived from his act of decrypting the hard drives is "a foregone conclusion," because the FBI already knows there are files on the hard drives, based on what they found on his non-encrypted computer.
It would be like having to turn over documents, a handwriting sample or blood, all of which have been upheld as comporting with constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
There were no arguments filed on Feldman's behalf, because while he has a lawyer, Robin Shellow, she's not the lawyer of record yet because no charges have been filed.
But the judge who heard the request, U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Callahan Jr., bought only part of the government's argument. He found that the act of producing documents pursuant to subpoena carries the presumption the documents exist, that the suspect has them and that they're authentic. None of that, however, is considered what the court calls compelled self-incrimination if the three facts are a "foregone conclusion" - things the government already knows by other means.
It's "a close call," Callahan wrote, but Feldman's simple act of decrypting the files would amount to telling the government something it doesn't know for sure yet, and would violate Feldman's rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Callahan said that although the issue has not yet been considered by 7th Circuit, he thought judges there would likely follow the reasoning of the 11th Circuit in the John Doe case.
The same issue came up in a Florida case in 2011, the first and so far only time it has reached a federal appeals court. A grand jury investigating "John Doe" for child porn ordered him to decrypt computer files. When he refused on Fifth Amendment grounds, a federal judge jailed him for contempt.
But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding the government had not shown "with reasonable particularity" the facts to support a "foregone conclusion" of what was in the digital files, and making Doe decrypt them would require him to use his mind, a distinction from, say, turning over a key to a safe-deposit box.
Here, according to the government, Feldman's unencrypted computer shows that 1,009 files - most with titles strongly suggesting child porn - were handled through a peer-to-peer file sharing program called eMule, and likely stored on some of the encrypted hard drives.
But unlike the few cases in which judges did order decryption, Callahan notes, agents can't show with certainty that only Feldman controlled the computer, because unlike the other cases, he did not admit to anything. According to court records, Feldman had only brief interaction with agents who came to his apartment before invoking his right to a lawyer and then made no other statements.
Self-incrimination?
Shellow said Thursday that Callahan reached the correct decision about what's clearly an emerging issue in a more digital society.
"The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination needs to evolve as the wired world evolves," said. She wouldn't comment further about her client or his situation.
Privacy advocates are also cheering Callahan's ruling.
"It's important to ensure constitutional rights remain robust in the digital age," said Marcia Hoffman, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"More people encrypt data; it's not just criminals trying to hide evidence," Hoffman said. "It's a best practice to protect proprietary or sensitive personal information."
She noted that other courts have found that the existence of encrypted data alone is not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Hoffman discounted sky-is-falling claims from police, saying: "Their hands aren't just tied. They can still show foregone conclusion by gathering enough other information."
Another Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney, Hanni Fakhoury, said several states let police search the cellphones in possession of anyone who is arrested, and that encryption can protect the phone's contents.
"Accessing the data on an electronic device isn't an entitlement and it shouldn't come at the expense of a person's constitutional rights," he said.
James Silver, the U.S. Justice Department attorney who argued the John Doe case, later wrote about it in a professional journal. He noted that more and more evidence in criminal investigation is encrypted, and that even free encryption software "can thwart high-powered, court-authorized efforts to defeat it." He recommended that prosecutors try to build cases for "foregone conclusion" arguments. He also said courts would have no Fifth Amendment problems with ordering a suspect to use thumbprints or retina scans that act as the keys to such encryption.
Neither Moreno-Taxman nor the FBI returned calls and email seeking comment.
_______________________________________________________________________
Homeland Security
Russia's Warning on Bombings Suspect Sets Off a Debate
By SCOTT SHANE, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ERIC SCHMITT ― Friday, April 26th, 2013 'The New York Times'
WASHINGTON ― In March 2011, the Russian security service sent a stark warning to the F.B.I., reporting that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was "a follower of radical Islam" who had "changed drastically since 2010" and was preparing to travel to Russia's turbulent Caucasus to connect with underground militant groups. Six months later, Russia sent the same warning to the C.I.A.
On April 15, law enforcement officials say, Mr. Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and maiming many others.
The Russian warnings to the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. also raised questions about Mr. Tsarnaev's mother, Zubeidat, according to two senior American officials. The Russians were most concerned about Mr. Tsarnaev because they had information that he planned to travel to Russia, according to one of the officials. "The Russians were concerned that mother and son were very religious and strong believers, and they could be militants if they returned to Russia," the other official said.
The mother, the officials said, did not fit the profile of a potential extremist, leading American counterterrorism officials to not express much concern about her. They did not set up a travel alert on her, for instance, one of the officials said. But they nonetheless added her name to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE database, when Tamerlan's name was added to it in October 2011, the official said.
Should the Russian warnings ― seemingly confirmed in part last year when the counterterrorism task force in Boston learned that Mr. Tsarnaev was traveling to Russia ― have permitted American officials to foil the marathon plot? That question emerged on Thursday as the crux of a debate among members of Congress, counterterrorism officials and outside experts about whether, and how, the security system failed.
F.B.I. officials have defended their response to the Russian tip, which prompted agents to interview Mr. Tsarnaev and his parents and check government databases and Internet activity. The bureau found nothing.
On Thursday, some members of Congress and former government officials said Tamerlan Tsarnaev's six-month visit to Dagestan last year was a missed opportunity to refocus attention on him and potentially prevent the attack. Others suggested that the criticism was 20-20 hindsight, and that the F.B.I.'s performance was reasonable under the circumstances.
The critical moment came in January 2012, when a Customs database sent an alert about Mr. Tsarnaev's plan to travel to Russia to a Customs agent assigned to the F.B.I.-led Joint Terrorism Task Force in Boston, according to a Congressional official. It is unclear who else saw the information, but it does not appear to have prompted any new scrutiny of Mr. Tsarnaev at the time or when he returned to the United States that July.
"If there was a failure at any time, maybe it was at that point, to get a follow-up interview," said Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a former F.B.I. agent. "But even so, it's hard to say they did something wrong. Travel in and of itself is not derogatory information, and that area is far down on our priority list."
Across Capitol Hill, senators from both parties emerged from a classified briefing on the bombings sounding generally supportive of the F.B.I. "I wish there would have been more," said Senator Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican on the Intelligence Committee, "but I'm not in a position to say that I would have done it differently." Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who leads the Armed Services Committee, said, "Unless there's additional information that pops up, I'm not critical of their actions."
But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in earlier remarks to reporters that the Boston bombing case "is becoming, to me, a case study in system failure."
"You have Russian intelligence services contacting two agencies within our federal government responsible for our national security, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A.," he said. "They tell us, 'We believe you have a radical Islamist in your midst.' " Despite the warning and the F.B.I.'s initial follow-up, Mr. Graham said, Mr. Tsarnaev was able to visit Dagestan and return unnoticed, and discuss "killing Americans" openly on the Internet undetected.
Jimmy Gurulé, a former counterterrorism official who teaches at Notre Dame Law School, said the alert about Mr. Tsarnaev's travel plans should have prompted new attention, since it appeared to give weight to the Russian warning. He said that the authorities should have sought a court warrant to monitor his cellphone and e-mail while he was in Russia. "When he came back to the United States, they should have pulled him out of the Customs line, inspected his belongings, looked at his laptop and cellphone and questioned him about what he had done in Dagestan," said Mr. Gurulé.
But law enforcement officials said it was unrealistic to expect the F.B.I., which had already taken a hard look at Mr. Tsarnaev, to reopen the case merely because of his travel. The TIDE database has roughly 700,000 names in it, a senior law enforcement official said, and Customs officials get 20 or 30 alerts every day about travel by people in various databases.
In addition, the official said, it would have violated Justice Department guidelines to keep pursuing Mr. Tsarnaev after the initial assessment found no evidence of a crime. "You pursue the original information, come to conclusions," he said.
The official said that the F.B.I. would certainly have looked at Mr. Tsarnaev again if the Russians had told the bureau that they had developed more information on him during his trip. "That is all that would have taken," the official said.
One factor in the failure to follow up may have been Mr. Tsarnaev's ethnicity as a Chechen and his destination, Dagestan, according to both government officials and independent specialists. While those might have set off suspicions in Russia, militants from the Caucasus have generally not targeted the United States.
The authorities would most likely have given Mr. Tsarnaev a closer examination when he returned to the United States if he had traveled to Yemen or Pakistan, where multiple plots against American cities have been hatched.
_______________________________________________________________________
Legal issues surround Boston suspect's questioning
By MARK SHERMAN (The Associated Press) ― Thursday, April 25th, 2013; 8:51 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The hospital-room questioning of the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings is generating concern about whether he should have been interrogated without first being told of his constitutional rights to silence and a lawyer - and, conversely, whether federal agents actually should have had more time with him before he was read his rights.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faced 16 hours of questioning before he was advised of his Miranda rights, and investigators say he told them of his role in the two bombings near the Boston Marathon finish line on April 15. He explained that he and his brother, Tamerlan, were angry about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the killing of Muslims there, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the case with reporters.
He also described a spur-of-the-moment plan that the brothers hatched to drive to New York and set off their remaining explosives there, New York City officials said Thursday.
In Boston, federal agents invoked an exception to the Miranda warnings that allows for questioning when public safety may be threatened. But they knew their time with Tsarnaev in the absence of a lawyer would be limited.
On Sunday, prosecutors filed a criminal complaint charging Tsarnaev with a role in the bombings. That action led directly to the improvised court hearing in the hospital the following morning at which U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler told Tsarnaev he did not have to answer questions and could have a lawyer.
And he apparently did stop, though other cases in recent years suggest that silence won't necessarily last.
Could that first hearing on Monday have been delayed?
The hearing is supposed to take place "without unnecessary delay," according to the federal rules, sometimes within a matter of hours.
The rules governing such hearings, known as an initial appearance, require the judge to tell a defendant of his rights, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. "The prosecutors and FBI agents in Boston were advised of the scheduled initial appearance in advance of its occurrence."
Civil liberties advocates have said a suspect should rarely be questioned without a lawyer and without being told he doesn't have to respond.
"Miranda rights are an incredibly important civil liberties safeguard," said Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The public safety exception must be read narrowly, as it has been by the courts."
But California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, said he has questions about how the court proceeding came about.
"I would have thought the public safety exception would have allowed more time for the questioning of the suspect prior to the arraignment and/or advising of rights," Schiff said.
A fellow Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, agreed that some questions remain about when the judge arrived and whether she interrupted questioning. But, Levin said, " we do know there was 16 hours of questioning and that they got very detailed information."
Withholding a criminal suspect's Miranda rights becomes a legal issue only if authorities try to use what they learned during the questioning.
In fact, prosecutors probably will want to introduce Tsarnaev's confession as evidence against him.
"Prosecutors always prefer to have a confession," said Tamar Birckhead, a former federal defender in Boston who now teaches law at the University of North Carolina. She predicted there would be a protracted legal battle over Tsarnaev's statements, if his case comes to trial and prosecutors say they intend to use them.
But other legal experts said any controversy over those early statements should not obscure the rest of the government's case.
"When you read the affidavit, it lays out the evidence the FBI gathered wholly apart from any statements he made to law enforcement. Based on my experience, that's a pretty strong case, even without statements made by the defendant to law enforcement directly," said former federal prosecutor Juliet Sorensen, a Northwestern University law professor.
Tsarnaev apparently stopped talking to investigators once Bowler appointed the Federal Public Defender's office in Boston to represent him, said a U.S. law enforcement official and three congressional officials representing both political parties. The law enforcement official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official wasn't authorized to talk about the case with reporters. The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity because their information came from a confidential FBI briefing.
But that may not be final. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria, convicted of trying to blow up a packed jetliner using a bomb sewn into his underwear on Christmas Day 2009, also initially answered investigators' questions and then clammed up once he was read his rights, only to start cooperating again.
"This notion that they `lawyer up' and that's the end of getting any information is just not true," said Miami defense lawyer Neal Sonnett.
David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, said lawyers sometimes encourage their clients to cooperate. "The government generally has a lot of evidence against the individual. The criminal sentences are harsh and the likelihood of conviction is high. Defense counsel, seeing that, will often understand that cooperating is in his client's best interests," Cole said.
_______________________________________________________________________
Mike Bosak
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment