Judge Tells Ex-Chief of Police Not to Turn Testimony Into a Speech (The New York Times) and Other Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 NYC Police Related News Articles

Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 — Good Afternoon, Stay Safe

 

- - - - -

 

NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk / Ret. Chief of Department Joseph Esposito Testifies at Manhattan Federal District Court Trial

 

Judge Tells Ex-Chief of Police Not to Turn Testimony Into a Speech

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The New York Times'

 

 

As the highest-ranking chief of the New York Police Department, Joseph J. Esposito was long accustomed to delivering blow-by-blow commentary on the department's crime-fighting strategies.

 

But as he began on Tuesday to defend the department's use of stop-and-frisk tactics, Mr. Esposito suddenly found himself in unfamiliar territory — being silenced by a federal judge.

 

Mr. Esposito, 63, who retired two weeks ago after serving 12 years as chief of the department, was testifying in a landmark trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan challenging its stop-and-frisk practices. After warming to the topic, he explained that what was often overlooked was "how many crimes are prevented by stopping a person that is giving us reasonable suspicion."

 

But by then, the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, had heard enough, saying that Mr. Esposito's answer was "turning into a narrative, otherwise known as a speech, and I am not here for that purpose."

 

By all appearances, Tuesday was a day of minor frustrations for Mr. Esposito, who was rebuffed at several points when his discourses on crime-fighting expanded beyond lawyers' narrow questions.

 

A near-mythic figure to the department's 34,000 officers, Mr. Esposito had a reputation for leading from the front. But on Tuesday, he was portrayed as a commander who did little to look behind the soaring number of stop-and-frisk encounters and examine whether they were being conducted constitutionally.

 

"That increase is all on your watch?" a civil rights lawyer, Jonathan C. Moore, asked, referring to the rise in police stops, which spiked to 533,042 in 2012, from 97,837 in 2002.

 

"Yes, it is," Mr. Esposito responded, "as is the 40 percent decrease in crime during my time."

 

For much of the day, Mr. Esposito was asked if the department had any safeguards to ensure that street stops were not a result of racial profiling. At times, Mr. Moore asked about conversations with the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, but the exchanges revealed little.

 

"Have you discussed with Commissioner Kelly the toll that the policies that are being challenged here may be having on a generation of black and Hispanic youth?" Mr. Moore said.

 

Mr. Esposito responded, "I discussed the issue of stop, question, frisk with Commissioner Kelly and those issues may have come up."

 

But details were not forthcoming.

 

The testimony offered a peek at the department's CompStat meetings, at which commanders are called to Police Headquarters to explain how they are responding to crime trends.

 

One frequent topic at the meetings was the level of enforcement activity, which includes tickets written, as well as numbers of arrests and street stops. Mr. Esposito frequently questioned commanders about drops in the number of street stops, according to evidence submitted in the trial.

 

At one such meeting in 2008, he asked commanders in Upper Manhattan why their officers had performed 10,000 fewer stops than the previous year. "Your crime is down, but just keep an eye on those numbers," Mr. Esposito warned.

 

Mr. Moore asked Mr. Esposito if he had been ordering commanders to increase the number of stops. Or, short of that, he added, "Do you think focusing on the raw numbers gives the wrong impression to your subordinates?"

 

Mr. Esposito testified that it was critical for him to better understand fluctuations in those numbers, as they could reflect changing crime conditions.

 

"We're stressing quality, not quantity," he testified on Tuesday, dismissing the idea that he was pressuring his commanders for more stops.

 

More than 85 percent of police stops involve people who are black and Hispanic, and a racial profiling allegation is at the center of the trial. Indeed, Mr. Esposito was repeatedly asked about what safeguards were in place to ensure that racial profiling was not behind many of the stops.

 

One line of defense, Mr. Esposito noted, was the sergeants who were on the streets checking up on their officers. "Our sergeants are the best in the nation, the best in the world, actually," he said.

 

Mr. Esposito also put much stock in the paperwork that officers must fill out after each street stop. That form includes numerous check boxes, each describing behavior that might lead to a stop, like "furtive movements" or "actions indicative of casing."

 

Mr. Esposito insisted that a supervisor could conclude that a stop was legal based on reviewing that form alone.

 

"If it's filled out properly, it gives you reasonable suspicion. And if you have reasonable suspicion established, then you do not have racial profiling," Mr. Esposito said. "It's as simple as that."

 

But Judge Scheindlin appeared skeptical that the paperwork proved anything.

 

"Any officer can check off 'high-crime area' and 'furtive movements,' "  Judge Scheindlin said, referring to two check-box categories on the stop-and-frisk form.  "You really don't know much about the stop, looking at the form, do you?"

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Retired NYPD chief Joseph Esposito says stop-and-frisk increased 700% during his tenure
Esposito retired last month after 44 1/2 years on the force and was chief since 2002. He testified in stop-and-frisk trial that the protocol works and 'there is no racial profiling.'

By Robert Gearty AND Corky Siemaszko — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The New York Daily News'

 

 

The NYPD's former top-ranked uniformed officer admitted Tuesday that the number of stop-and-frisks jumped by an astounding 700% on his watch.

 

But retired Chief of Department Joseph Esposito also said there was a massive drop in crime during the same time period.

 

"Yes it is," said Esposito, when asked if it was true that the number of these controversial stops leaped from 97,000 in 2002 to 685,000 in 2011.

 

Then Esposito, after a long pause, added: "As is the 40% drop in crime during the same time. And the 80% decline in crime in the last 20 years."

 

A calculation of stop-and-frisk figures puts the increase closer to 600%, although that was not the percentage presented in court Tuesday.

 

Esposito testified in an ongoing class-action lawsuit against the NYPD's controversial policing tactic brought by four black New Yorkers who claim they were targeted because of their race.

 

When Esposito was confronted with numbers that showed how the percentage of stops leaped in recent years, he replied, "I'm not that good at math. But I'll take your word for it."

 

Esposito, who retired on March 27 after 44½ years on the force, is the highest-ranking NYPD official to testify thus far at the trial.

 

Esposito defended stop-and-frisk as an effective — and color-blind — crime-fighting tool.

 

"If you establish reasonable suspicion, there is no racial profiling," he said. "That is the key."

 

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2008, seeks to have the NYPD's policy declared unconstitutional and a monitor appointed by the court to keep tabs on how police make stops.

 

City lawyers have argued that the NYPD is targeting crime — not minorities.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Stop-frisks worth crime drop: brass

By BRUCE GOLDING — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The New York Post'

 

 

The NYPD's recently retired chief of department defended its controversial stop-and-frisk program yesterday, testifying that the huge spike in stops during recent years had made the city much safer.

 

Former four-star Chief Joseph Esposito acknowledged a sevenfold increase in stops between 2004 and 2011, when the annual number jumped from about 97,000 to more than 685,000, but insisted it led to a big drop in crime.

 

"That's all on your watch?" plaintiffs' lawyer Jonathan Moore asked.

 

"Yes, it is," Esposito answered. "As is the 40 percent drop in crime during the same period. And the 80 percent decline in the last 20 years."

 

During later questioning by city lawyer Heidi Grossman, Esposito noted that "a lot of guns" had been seized through stop-and-frisk, helping push the number of city shootings to "record lows."

 

Esposito, who retired last month, also said he believed the program had prevented countless crimes from occurring.

 

He cited the hypothetical example of a crook who decides to move on after cops stop him for apparently casing a location.

 

But Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin refused to let Esposito offer other examples, saying she wouldn't permit testimony about "possible" situations.

 

Scheindlin previously ruled that the effectiveness of stop-and-frisk is irrelevant to the case, in which plaintiffs represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights claim that cops systematically target blacks and Hispanics for illegal stops.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Retired NYPD Chief Joseph Esposito defends stop-and-frisks

By JOHN RILEY — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013  'New York Newsday' / Melville, L.I.

 

 

The NYPD's recently retired top uniformed commander denied racial profiling in an appearance Tuesday at a federal trial challenging the department's stop-and-frisk tactics and fiercely defended his role in guiding a rapid escalation in street stops since 2002.

 

"Yes," former Chief of Department Joseph Esposito responded when asked whether a sevenfold increase in stops to 685,000 occurred during his tenure.

 

"As is the 40 percent decrease in crime during my time, he continued. "Eighty percent over 20 years."

 

The plaintiffs in the trial before U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan contend that stop-and-frisks disproportionately target minorities and are conducted without the legally required "reasonable suspicion," producing arrests or summonses only 12 percent of the time.

 

But Esposito -- a blunt, 44-year NYPD veteran who served as the top-ranking uniformed chief from 2000 until he reached the mandatory retirement age of 63 on March 27 -- said that street stops frequently play a role in stopping crime even when the cops find no reason to arrest or issue a citation to the person stopped.

 

Many stops, he said, target the suspicious behavior of a person preparing to commit a crime -- a break-in or a car theft, for example. Even though a street stop doesn't produce enough evidence for an arrest, he said, suspects may decide not to do anything once they realize police have zeroed in.

"Just because there's no enforcement action . . . doesn't mean it's not a legitimate stop," Esposito testified. "What many people fail to understand is, how many crimes are prevented just by stopping a person who has reasonable suspicion."

 

Esposito ran the NYPD's Compstat sessions, at which lower-level commanders are questioned about strategies for addressing crime spikes in their boroughs and precincts, and was questioned about passages in notes of some sessions where he complained about low numbers of street stops.

 

"I don't think we are doing enough," he told a commander in one 2008 session. "In that zone you have four C's [quality of life summonses] and five 250s [street stops] in a 28-day period."

 

The plaintiffs contend that a numbers-first approach effectively imposed a quota system on cops, leading to bad stops.

 

But Esposito said there were no quotas and that his comments at Compstat were a management tool to make commanders develop and defend their anti-crime strategies and motivate their patrol officers.

 

"We've got to see the officers give an honest day's work for an honest day's pay," he testified. "In our business, that means crime goes down."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYPD boss says officers do 2 street stops a month

By COLLEEN LONG (The Associated Press)  —  Tuesday, April 9th, 2013; 5:33 p.m. EDT

 

 

NEW YORK — Police deal with quality, not quantity, when looking at arrest numbers, street stops and other indicators of crime, and officers make about two stops per month on average, according to testimony Tuesday by the former NYPD chief of department during hearings challenging the legality of some stops.

 

The number per officer is not unusually high, but it adds up: There have been about 5 million stops in the past decade, mostly of black and Hispanic men. Lawyers for men who have sued the police department are arguing before a federal judge that the policy unfairly targets minorities. On Tuesday, the attorneys sought to show the tactic leaves too much room for error and is often reduced to simple racial profiling.

 

Attorney Jonathan Moore asked whether it was true that the number of stops rose from about 97,000 in 2002 to more than 685,000 in 2011 under chief Joseph Esposito's watch.

 

"Yes it is," Esposito said. "As is the 40 percent decrease in crime, and 80 percent over 20 years."

 

Esposito, who retired two weeks ago from the post as highest-ranking uniformed officer after hitting the mandatory retirement age of 63 and spent 40 years on the job, said race isn't an issue if officers legally stop someone under the standard of reasonable suspicion, lower than the standard of probable cause needed to justify an arrest.

 

"If you established reasonable suspicion, then there is no racial profiling," he said.

 

Esposito was questioned on training, operations orders, forms an officer fills out after a stop, question and frisk encounter and transcripts of department meetings at which officers are grilled on their commands. It's a rarity for such a high-ranking member of the NYPD to speak publicly about the inside practices of the nation's largest department.

 

"The fact that's tremendously understated is we prevent crime with stops that are at the right place, the right time for the right crime," he said, echoing a statement made in audiotapes earlier by a police lieutenant.

 

Moore, the attorney, tried to show there was little internal review on whether stops were performed lawfully and the sergeants were so overloaded with paperwork that they didn't bother to check the reports, and he noted there was no system in place that specifically deals with stop reports and the possibility of racial profiling.

 

Esposito said he thought the department's overall system of checks and balances, based on supervisors checking up on officers, and up the chain of command, includes dealing with those issues.

 

"I think they system we have here is the supervisory system we have in place from the lowest ranks to the highest ranks," he said. "We examine arrests. We look at all the work our officers do. Our sergeants are the best in the nation — the best in the world."

 

He said that he and police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had discussed the stop, question and frisk policy and that a greater emphasis had been placed on the policy in the past five years within the department, but he didn't say whether the two specifically discussed the toll the policy may be having on black and Hispanic men, who are stopped more than white men are.

 

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin has the power to order changes that can substantially affect the department and has expressed some concern on the policy. The trial is expected to continue for another month.

 

Also on Tuesday, NAACP president Benjamin Jealous pressed for new stop and frisk laws, calling it the "largest local racial profiling program in the country."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NAACP leader: Stop and frisk a 'national priority'

By Jennifer Peltz  (The Associated Press)  —  Tuesday, April 9th, 2013; 7:54 p.m. EDT

 

 

Ending the New York Police Department's extensive use of stop and frisk is a top goal for the nation's oldest civil rights organization, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said Tuesday in pressing for new laws to rein in a practice he said amounted to racial injustice on a massive scale.

 

"Stop and frisk is the largest local racial profiling program in the country," Jealous said at a rally outside New York's City Hall. "Shutting it down is a national priority for the NAACP."

 

The NYPD has made 5 million of the stops in the past decade, fueling a debate that has reached what could prove a pivotal moment this year. While the City Council weighs proposals to create new rules for the stops and new oversight for the NYPD, a civil rights trial over the tactic is unfolding in federal court.

 

Tuesday's demonstration was designed to keep up momentum toward passing new stop and frisk laws after City Council Speaker Christine Quinn agreed last month to support a related proposal: a plan to create an inspector general for the police. That plan, which has yet to crystallize into legislation, grew out of concerns about both stop and frisk and the department's widespread surveillance of Muslims, as disclosed in a series of stories by The Associated Press.

 

Civil rights leaders, city lawmakers, Muslim advocates and others at the rally stressed that they wanted to make sure reform didn't stop with an inspector general.

 

"We've come a long way with the inspector general bill" but it's also crucial to pass the others, City Councilman Jumaane Williams said.

 

Proponents are focusing on a measure that would give people more latitude to sue if they believe they were stopped because of their race, an idea critics say would open floodgates to litigation. Other provisions would require to officers making stops to explain why and give their names.

 

Quinn said Tuesday she was continuing to negotiate with the advocates over the measures.

 

The Supreme Court has said it's legal for police to stop, question and sometimes pat down people they believe are acting suspiciously, but who may not meet the probable-cause standard for an arrest. The federal trial seeks broad changes in how the NYPD can use the tactic.

 

Critics say it harasses innocent people and reflects racial profiling. More than 80 percent of those stopped are black or Hispanic.

 

The NYPD and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have said stop and frisk helps drive down crime and violence and the stops are based on valid suspicions, not racial profiling.

 

"Nobody likes to get stopped," Bloomberg said last week, but "if it's a question of stopping and annoying you or saving your life, I know which one we're going to do."

 

After years of being something of a side issue in city politics, stop and frisk has gained profile in the last year from the court case, some prominent protests and the political dynamics surrounding this year's mayoral race.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Stop and Frisk controversy continues along  generational lines in South Bronx neighborhoods
Residents divided about stop and frisk in 40th Precinct, which has most stops in Bronx, where crime has plunged

By Denis Slattery — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The New York Daily News'

 

 

In the 40th Precinct, which became a focal point in the ongoing federal trial in a lawsuit against stop-and-frisk, residents remain divided along generational lines over the effectiveness of the controversial tactic.

 

Deputy Inspector Christopher McCormack, who took command of the precinct in September, 2011, recently became embroiled in the trial being heard by Manhattan Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin. A recording of McCormack was introduced as evidence, in which he instructs an officer to stop "male blacks 14 to 21."

 

"It's not racism if they're stopping people who fit the description of those doing the crimes," said Luis Orta, 60, who has lived on E. 146th St. for almost two decades.

 

Orta said he supports the police and their efforts to fight crime in his Mott Haven neighborhood, no matter how heated the debate over stop and frisk becomes.

 

"I don't blame them at all. It's helping," Orta said.

 

"There's always a lot of shootings in the area, and who's doing the shootings? Black kids and Hispanic kids."

"If the cops see a group of kids on the corner how else are they going to find out what those kids are up to?" Orta asked.

 

Mott Haven and neighboring Melrose, in the jurisdiction of the 40th Precinct, have long been considered the front lines of the stop and frisk fight.

 

In 2011, the 40th Precinct led the Bronx in the number of stops conducted, nearly 18,000.

 

Of the area's 90,000 residents 97% are either black or Latino, according to the latest U.S. Census Report.

 

"I've been stopped just walking up the street," Christopher Dalmau said when asked of his encounters with police near his home in the Mitchel Houses.

 

"If I leave my building to go to the store more than once a day the cops will be all over me, asking me why I'm coming and going. Meanwhile I just needed some milk for my son," said Dalmau, 25, a building maintenance worker, who carried his 2-year-old son Silas.

 

During McCormack's tenure, the 40th has experienced significant drops in the numbers of murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, and burglaries.

 

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly issued a statement after the tape caused a furor, praising McCormack as a good commander.

 

So far this year, shooting incidents in the precinct have dropped by more than 50 percent, according to the NYPD.

 

But some in the area still feel the practice is hurtful to the community.

 

"It's tearing us apart, especially our youth," said 45-year-old Michael Rice.

 

"It has not alleviated crime. It's nothing more than racial profiling."

 

"People my age feel as if they are being targeted," said Dalmau. "Which we are, but even the ones who are trying to do good wind up having ill feelings for the police because they've been stopped for no reason other than the color of their skin.

 

"Criminals are going to do what they're going to do. Stopping every young man walking down the street isn't going to deter the ones that want to do wrong."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

NYPD developing app for officers with crime scene data and criminal records
Deputy Chief Ruben Beltran gave a sneak peak Tuesday night to the app, which will only be available on department-issued smartphones. Officers will have access to data on bad guys living in building they're dispatched to, and will be able to look up criminal and vehicle records.

By Denis Slattery AND Bill Hutchinson — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The New York Daily News'

 

 

The NYPD is developing a high-tech smartphone app that will give cops the lowdown on crime scenes before they even roll up to trouble.

 

The crime-fighting gadget has been under wraps, but the NYPD's tech czars unveiled a sneak peak Tuesday night.

 

Deputy Chief Ruben Beltran said the app will give New York's Finest a tech-savvy tool that could save their lives in any hairy situation.

 

In a speech Tuesday at Manhattan College in the Bronx, Beltran revealed the app is being tested by 400 officers.

 

"So far our tests have been positive," Beltran said.

 

With just a few taps on their department-issued smartphones, officers will be able to call up data on bad guys living in any building they're dispatched to.

 

Ideally, the app will give officers information on outstanding warrants, gun charges, high-risk sex offenders and previous domestic violence incidents at any given address.

 

"They allow officers to do person lookups, vehicle lookups and criminal history," said James Onalfo, NYPD deputy commissioner of information technology.

 

"Very simply, we have a portal to a website that can be accessed by laptops, tablets and hand-helds," Onalfo said.

 

With the app, cops will no longer have to enter buildings blindly.

 

"Today, (police officers) go into buildings and they have no idea what they are walking into," said Onalfo.

 

The department has been collaborating with several engineering companies to develop an app that's compatible with the city's broadband network. Commercial phones are currently not compatible with the network, Onalfo said.

 

It's not clear when the apps will be officially deployed.

 

Bugs still need to be worked out and funding approved.

 

"We're looking at different price models. We have worked with different telecommunications companies," Beltran said.

 

The NYPD's tech team is planning to soon present its proposal to Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

 

Elsewhere, apps have been used by cops to battle crime.

 

Mexico City police recently began using an app that allows citizens to contact local beat cops at the press of a button and allows police to track people via their smartphones.

 

If successful, the app will enable Mexico City cops to react faster to emergencies, while building connections between citizens and police. It may help prevent drug violence from making inroads there, officials hope.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

O.W.S.

 

New York ordered to pay up over NYPD's destruction of Occupy property

By Unnamed Author(s) — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'RT News' / Moscow, Russia

 

 

The City of New York will pay over $365,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by people whose property was damaged and destroyed when the NYPD raided Zuccotti Park, dispersing Occupy Wall Street protesters, on November 15, 2011.

 

The City of New York will pay over $365,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by people whose property was damaged and destroyed when the NYPD raided Zuccotti Park, dispersing Occupy Wall Street protesters, on November 15, 2011.

 

The crux of the lawsuit was the destruction of the People's Library, in which NYPD officers damaged and disposed of 5,500 publicly donated books gathered over a two-month period. In the days following the midnight raid, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg initially claimed the library was still intact but was eventually forced to admit that he presided over its destruction.

 

Occupy activists have since rallied around the dismantling of the library, citing it as evidence of the government's commitment to suppressing criticism and a free exchange of ideas while comparing Bloomberg to book-burning Nazi-era Germany and other totalitarian states.

 

The plaintiffs sought $47,000 in damages and promised not to settle unless they received that amount, which they eventually did. The city will also pay $186,350 in fees and costs to Occupy Wall Street's lawyers.

 

"Our clients are pleased," Norman Siegel, the attorney for Occupy Wall Street, told the Village Voice. "We had asked for damages of $47,000 for the books and the computers, and we got $47,000. More important – we would have not settled without this – is the language in the settlement. This was not just about money, it was about Constitutional rights and the destruction of books."

 

The city will also pay $75,000 for destroying property owned by Global Revolutions TV, a media station that live streamed the activity in the park, another $49,850 in court and lawyer fees, and an $8,500 check will go to Times Up New York.

 

Not long after the lawsuit was filed attorneys for the city tried to enlist Brookfield Properties, the owner of Zuccotti Park, as a co-defendant. Despite sending in NYPD officers and workers from the department of Sanitation to clean up the park, the city alleged that Brookfield was liable for the destructive results of the raid. Brookfield properties, which hired a carting company for the mass eviction, will pay the city $15,666.67, as per the court settlement.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Suit Settled With Occupy Wall St. Over Seizure of Library at a Park

By COLIN MOYNIHAN — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The New York Times'

 

 

As myriad court battles pitting the Occupy Wall Street movement against New York City agencies proceed, protesters claimed a victory on Tuesday, based not on how they were treated, but on how their books were mistreated.

 

The City of New York and Brookfield Properties agreed to pay more than $230,000 to settle a lawsuit filed last year in Federal District Court asserting that books and other property had been damaged or destroyed when the police and sanitation workers cleared an encampment from Zuccotti Park in 2011.

 

The books, and other items, had been set up in the northeast corner of the park soon after the Occupy protests began in September 2011. Called the People's Library, the collection included novels and history books.

 

About 3,600 volumes were removed when the city cleared the park. A suit filed by protesters in February 2012 said only about 1,000 could be recovered.

 

The settlement called for the city to pay $47,000 to the movement's Library Working Group for the loss of the books and $186,000 in legal fees. About $16,000 will come from Brookfield Properties, the owner of the park.

 

Last year, lawyers for the city said Brookfield had hired a private carting company to help remove items from the park and take them to a landfill.

 

Lawyers for Brookfield replied that the police had directed the company to hire workers to clear "refuse" from the park and that Brookfield employees had helped city workers load material.

 

"There are many reasons to settle a case," said Sheryl Neufeld of the New York City Law Department. "And sometimes that includes avoiding the potential for drawn out litigation that bolsters plaintiff attorney fees." Brookfield declined to comment.

 

"In our opinion people's constitutional rights were violated," said Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the protesters. "And our settlement holds the city accountable."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

NYC settles suit over seizure of Occupy books

By Unnamed Author(s) (The Associated Press)  —  Tuesday, April 9th, 2013; 10:30 p.m. EDT

 

 

NEW YORK — A settlement was announced Tuesday in a lawsuit filed over the 2011 seizure of the "People's Library" at the Occupy Wall Street site in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park.

 

New York City and Brookfield Properties agreed to pay more than $230,000 to settle the lawsuit filed last year in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, according to attorney Norman Siegel.

 

The settlement calls for the city to pay $47,000 for the loss of books and $186,000 in legal fees, said Siegel. About $16,000 will come from Brookfield, owners of Zuccotti Park.

 

"This case was not just about money but the violation of Constitutional rights and the importance of books," said Siegel. "No government should destroy books."

 

The books were taken in the early morning hours of Nov. 15, 2011 when police raided a Manhattan park where the group had gathered for several months to protest income inequality in the United States. Among the books seized were classics by William Shakespeare and Fyodor Dostoevsky, as well as various autobiographies, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg's own, "Bloomberg on Bloomberg," the suit said.

 

Siegel, who filed the lawsuit against the city, its mayor and other city officials, said at least some of the seized books were crushed by a city sanitation truck.

 

Nearly a third of the 3,600 books that were seized from Zuccotti Park were eventually returned, the suit said.

 

A spokeswoman for the city's Law Department, Sheryl Neufeld, released a statement saying that there are many reasons to settle a case and "sometimes cases are settled to avoid drawn-out litigation that bolsters plaintiff attorney fees."

 

Brookfield did not immediately respond to a telephone request for comment.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

City settles 'Occupy' lawsuit for $350 K

By DAVID SEIFMAN — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The New York Post'

 

 

The city has agreed to pay more than $350,000 to settle three lawsuits brought by protestors at Occupy Wall Street who claimed thousands of books, electronic equipment and bikes seized by the city were either damaged or never returned.

 

The biggest winner in the deal was civil rights lawyer Normal Siegel, who collected $186,349 in legal fees, sources said.

 

Twenty-six truckloads of materials were carted off when cops raided Zuccotti Park on Nov. 15, 2011 and ended a two-month sit-in that drew worldwide attention.

 

Among them, according to a federal lawsuit, were 3,600 books that were part of the stock of the "People's Library."

 

The volumes included classics by Shakespeare and Dostoevsky, an autobiography of Andrew Carnegie and even Mayor Bloomberg's autobiography, "Bloomberg by Bloomberg," said Siegel.

 

About 1,000 books were recovered from the Sanitation Department. But 200 were so severely damaged that had to be tossed, the lawsuit said.

 

The protestors sued for $47,000 and that's what they got.

 

One third of that sum is being paid by Brookfield Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park.

 

In a second lawsuit, the city paid $75,000 to Global Revolution Television for broken electronic equipment and $49,850 in lawyer's fees to Wylie Stecklow.

 

In a third suit, the Time's Up bike group collected $8,500 for bicycles that were damaged. The group's lawyer, Samuel B. Cohen, received no fee.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Outside Inspector General for the NYPD

 

Council pushes ban on racial bias in NYPD

By DAN RIVOLI — Tuesday, April 9th, 2013 'AM New York'/ New York, NY

 

 

The Rev. Al Sharpton Tuesday said racial bias in New York policing allows "criminals to escape" at a rally in support of a City Council NYPD-reform bill.

 

Sharpton urged passage of a legislative package called the Community Safety Act that would ban racial and religious profiling.

 

The bill has become the main public-safety issue in the 2013 mayoral election for its provision creating an independent NYPD monitor in response to the proliferation of stop-and-frisk tactics predominantly used on black and Hispanic New Yorkers.

 

"As long as you are profiling, then criminals who don't fit the profile can operate without any fear," Sharpton said.

 

"Any candidate that wants to be taken seriously for mayor should come out in support of this strongly and unequivocally," he added.

 

On the steps of City Hall, Sharpton joined the bill's main sponsors, councilmen Jumaane Williams and Brad Lander, who stressed that the ban on profiling is a critical component of the package Community Safety Act.

 

"This would be the first enforceable bill on racial profiling," said Williams, who represents Flatbush.

 

The Community Safety Act is still being negotiated between its Council supporters and Speaker Christine Quinn, who wants to create an inspector general for the NYPD.

 

"The profiling bill is extremely important" to the legislative package, Williams said.

 

Lander said minorities in Park Slope, which he represents, make up a majority of those stopped by police in the neighborhood, yet make up less than a quarter of the population.

 

"We cannot keep our neighborhoods safe by violating the fundamental civil rights of our neighbors," Lander said.

 

Provisions in the Community Safety Act are still being negotiated between its Council supporters-eight of whom joined the City Hall rally-and Speaker Christine Quinn, who backed an independent monitor for the NYPD.

 

The NYPD did not immediately respond to request for comment on the profiling ban, but police spokesman Paul Browne dismissed the concept of an inspector general last month, saying that "no police department in America has more oversight than the NYPD."

 

NAACP president Ben Jealous at the rally denounced the relationship between racial profiling and targets of stop-and-frisk.

 

"Stop-and-frisk is the largest local racial-profiling program in the country," he said. "Shutting it down is a national priority for the NAACP."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Staten Island Councilwoman Debi Rose among those rallying for NYPD oversight

By Jillian Jorgensen — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The Staten Island Advance' / Staten Island

 

 

A large coalition of elected officials and activists rallied at City Hall Tuesday in support of a package of bills aimed at providing oversight for the NYPD and banning racial profiling.

 

The group included civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton, NCAA President Benjamin Jealous, and New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Donna Lieberman, as well as Councilwoman Debi Rose (D-North Shore).

 

The Community Safe Act is a package of legislation. It includes Intro 800, which would create an enforceable ban on bias-based profiling by prohibiting practices that have the effect of discrimination -- or anything that has a disparate effect on a specific group. Opponents of the practice say the NYPD's "stop and frisk" program unfairly targets minority groups.

 

Ms. Rose, chairwoman of the Council's Civil Rights Committee, attended but did not speak at the rally in support of the Community Safe Act, though she was quoted in a press release about it.

 

"Everyone is diminished by unfair policing policies," Ms. Rose said in the statement. "Stop, question and frisk practices are transcending race, gender, sexual orientation and other demographics. Especially with the ongoing trial, stories are emerging each day with testimony from new people coming forward to tell of how these practices have affected them."

 

The policy is being challenged in a federal court case known as Floyd, et. Al, vs. City of New York.

 

The Act also includes Intro 881, which would establish an Inspector General to oversee the NYPD. Intro 799 would require police officers to explain to a person their right to refuse to consent to a search when there is no warrant or probable cause, and Intro 801 would require officers provide their name and rank to anyone subject to law enforcement activity.

 

Council Speaker Christine Quinn has already announced support for Intro 881, the Inspector General bill. In a press conference Tuesday she said she's still part of negotiations on other bills in the package.

 

"The other three are ones we are continuing to negotiate with a coalition on," Ms. Quinn said.

 

The Citizens Crime Commission of New York City announced its support for the Inspector General bill earlier this week.

 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has opposed the measure and has said he would veto it.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

'The New York Times' 'Room for Debate'    Outside Inspector General for NYPD

 

Unnecessary and Undeserved

By Heather Mac Donald — Tuesday, April 9th, 2013 'The New York Times' 

(Op-Ed / Commentary)

 

 

The department's $70 million, 700-officer-strong Internal Affairs Bureau, in league with New York's five district attorneys and two federal prosecutors, continues to ferret out corrupt officers (alas), but there is no evidence that corruption is anywhere near systemic, as it was in decades past.

 

Civilian complaints filed with the Civilian Complaint Review Board in the first half of 2012 were lower than in any comparable six month period since 2003, and down almost 50 percent since 2009.

 

The N.Y.P.D.'s crime-fighting success is of historic dimensions; no department in the country comes close to the N.Y.P.D.'s 80 percent crime drop since the early 1990s. The department's public safety triumph is due in considerable measure to the accountability that it demands from its commanders, who are expected to articulate their crime-fighting strategies and show results.

 

In short, the N.Y.P.D. is without peer in its professionalism, accountability and accomplishment, and is recognized around the world as such. Why, then, does it need an inspector general, whose proposed responsibilities would duplicate those of the police commissioner and the city's existing oversight bodies?

 

This new bureaucracy is being pushed for one reason only: To radically curtail, if not end, the department's use of stop, question and frisk as a crime-fighting tool. But the mayor's race is being fought in part over just that issue. If the next mayor believes that he has a political mandate to end proactive policing, he or she can do so and will be answerable for the results, good or bad.

 

Seeking political cover from a patently superfluous new office will simply muddy the chain of command and drag the department down with unnecessary red tape. The stop, question and frisk issue will be decided with the next election; the inspector general's office, however, will last indefinitely, stripping millions of dollars annually from other uses.

 

The Los Angeles Police Department's inspector general provides a glimpse of what that money will buy: Preposterously nit-picking efforts to find phantom evidence of racial profiling. The huge sums that the new bureaucracy will require, if they are so readily available, could be better spent hiring more officers, providing additional training or supporting more youth outreach, like the admirable Explorer's program.

 

Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of "Are Cops Racist?"

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

What Do Police Fear? The Truth?

By Paul Butler — Tuesday, April 9th, 2013 'The New York Times' 

(Op-Ed / Commentary)

 

 

To show how much power the police have, my cop friend plays this game called "pick a car." I'm in the backseat of his squad car on a "ride-along " and I select a car, any car, and he finds a reason to stop it.

 

The N.Y.P.D. uses this kind of extraordinary discretion to harass African-American and Latino men, Muslims and minority gay teenagers hanging out in the West Village – basically groups other than middle class white people. These practices are authorized by a police chief who values displays of force over common courtesy, and a mayor who presumes to know what is better for blacks than they know for themselves.

 

Of course the police need oversight. Most urgently, young men of color need somebody to protect them from the police.

 

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of federal district court recently found that a police training video about stop and frisk "misstated the law" and that police officers in the Bronx treated innocent citizens "with hostility" when they simply wanted to know why they were being detained.

 

A free society has the most to fear from armed agents who feel unaccountable to citizens. The fact that the police say they do not require oversight is even more evidence that they do. What is police leadership afraid that close inspection will reveal? And how can a mayor who thinks the city has the responsibility to stop people from drinking too much soda think that the city does not have the responsibility to ensure that the police obey the law when they enforce the law?

 

I was a public corruption prosecutor with the Department of Justice. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has inspectors with whom I worked closely. I believe that this level of oversight helps the bureau maintain its status as the world's best law enforcement agency.

 

One of the strategies that N.Y.P.D. credits with reducing crime is deploying officers to the neighborhoods that have the most crime. The idea is that when people know they are being watched, and there are consequences for poor practices, people will be more likely to do the right thing. An inspector general would have the same deterrent effect on police misconduct and poor practices. What is good enough for the citizens of New York is good enough for the N.Y.P.D.

 

Paul Butler is a law professor at Georgetown University and a former federal prosecutor. He is the author of "Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice.''

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

New York Finest Foundation Dinner

Police Formality: Annual Gala Honors NYC's Boys (and Girls) in Blue

By Sarah Douglas — Tuesday, April 9th, 2013; 7:16 p.m. 'The New York Observer' / New York, NY

 

 

In the kind of grand-scale symbolism achievable only in this great city of ours, ordinary folks throughout Manhattan might have surmised from the Empire State Building being gussied up in blue, with red and white on the tippy-top (cop car, siren), that the swells who support the New York City Police Foundation were putting on their annual shindig last Thursday.

 

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and others posed for glam shots on the red carpet at the Waldorf-Astoria, and on the minds of all those who'd gathered for pre-dinner cocktails—New York's Finest in their finest, drinking gin and tonics, chardonnay and (yes!) Coors Light—was one pressing question: how would host Jon Stewart top his bravura performance of two months prior, when he had Commissioner Kelly on his show and opened the interview by taking a big gulp from a far-larger-than-16-ounce container, earning a mock stern warning from the commissioner? The soda-ban storm having passed, Mr. Stewart would have to come up with a new shtick—and after the tough-to-follow act of the NYPD's Emerald Society Pipes & Drums, with its formidable bagpipes, the comedian more than delivered.

 

Taking the lectern for his introduction of this year's Hemmerdinger Award winners—Detective Patrick Blanc, central robbery division; Criminalist IV Katen Desai, police lab; Nurse II Mary Gallo, medical division; Computer Systems Manager III Joshua Kaminstein, MISD; and Sergeant Louis Rapoli, commanding officer, school safety division—Mr. Stewart repeatedly asserted that he wasn't hosting the event for any personal gain, all the while rifling through his vest pocket for his "notes" which, it soon became apparent from their telltale orange, were actually New York City parking tickets. The room exploded in guffaws.

 

Mr. Stewart went on to jokingly characterize a Hemmerdinger as a physical affliction, clutching his lower back and groaning, "I have a Hemmerdinger. It must've been the ice." (The Transom happened to be seated at the table of businessman and former MTA chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger, an impeccably gracious man who revealed to us that some 29 years ago, when he was formalizing his award, he received a visit from a young police captain—Ray Kelly himself.) Mr. Stewart also acknowledged the services of the NYPD in preparing his show for a visit from Pervez Musharaf. If there were to be a shooting incident, the police told Mr. Stewart, Mr. Musharaf would be forced to the floor. Asking them what he should do himself, Mr. Stewart joked that he was told, "Duck."

 

For his hosting efforts, Commissioner Kelly graced Mr. Stewart with an NYPD bomber jacket, a good look.

 

After dinner, Charlie Rose and Commissioner Kelly gave the 2013 Honoree Award to real estate developer and longtime police supporter Arnold Fisher.

 

But the evening's most dramatic moment came with the presentation of the Cop of the Year Award to Detective Ivan Marcano. The former beat cop's story was told: last October, while off duty and riding in a car with his girlfriend in the Bronx, Mr. Marcano spied two men robbing a third and interceded, flashing his badge, only to be shot in the chest by one of the assailants. Back in his car, his girlfriend steering him to the nearest hospital, he happened to spot the bad guys in another car, at which point he hopped out of his and they out of theirs, and he was once again in hot pursuit.

 

Cut to video from a surveillance camera, and all assembled watched as then-Officer Marcano, cradling his injury in one hand as though it were no more than a valise and clutching his gun in the other, having felled one of the assailants, hopped into an ambulance that—no joke—just happened to be parked there. The coda, his promotion to detective, seemed, to the Transom at least, hardly sufficient. Knight the man, for goodness' sake!

 

It was truly the stuff of instant legend, the kind of New York cop story that puts the most arresting police procedural to shame.

 

But the audience hardly had time to digest this tale of derring-do, never mind their tournedos of beef with wild mushroom semolina, because then from stage left emerged an exceptionally well-preserved Chaka Kahn. ("She's 60," Mr. Rose, who introduced her, boasted to the crowd.) Bedecked in a glittery, skintight, low-bodiced black body suit, high boots, a sequined red fire-breathing-dragon-emblazoned cape and a voluminous hairdo (how long do you think that took, murmured one of the Transom's tablemates sotto voce), Ms. Kahn then proceeded to gamely belt out her own and others' songs, pausing only to compliment the Waldorf's chef on, in particular, the broccoli.

 

The Transom had noted earlier that when Detective Marcano received his award, there appeared near the base of the stage a raven-haired young woman with enviable poise and a digital camera. When she ascended the stage for a photo with the awardee, it became evident that this was none other than Hilda Miolan, girlfriend and, on that fateful night, driver to Detective Marcano. Raising our voice over Chaka Kahn, the Transom asked her: what was that night like for you?

 

"Very scary," she said. "My adrenaline was going like crazy. But the outcome was great. He got everything he wanted."

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

U.S.A.

 

Law enforcement says gun restrictions are ineffective: Survey

By Andrea Noble — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The Washington Times' / Washington, DC

 

 

A national survey of law enforcement shows officers believe many proposed gun control measures — including bans on assault weapons — will be ineffective at reducing violent crime and that legal gun ownership by private citizens would prove a better safeguard.

 

Among the findings of a survey by the industry website PoliceOne, which tallied responses from 15,000 verified active and retired law enforcement professionals, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership or accessibility, editor Doug Wyllie said.

 

The survey found that 91.5 percent of respondents believe a federal ban on the manufacture or sale of semi-automatic weapons would have no effect or a negative effect on the reduction of violent crime. Though a national assault weapons ban is dead in the water, numerous states — including Maryland, Connecticut and New York — have adopted or enhanced their own bans.

 

The vast majority of officers also believe legally armed citizens are important in the reduction of crime rates.

 

"It's my analysis that by and large law enforcement officers favor enforcement of current laws and enforcement against illegal guns," Mr. Wyllie said. "They also favor responsible, armed citizens in the midst of other civilians out there to help protect innocents from harm."

 

Release of the survey, conducted March 4-13, comes at a time politicians in Congress and around the country are pushing for stricter gun restrictions in the name of public safety. The Senate is scheduled Thursday to take up gun legislation that would expand the types of gun sales subject to background checks, and impose new penalties on gun traffickers and straw purchasers — those who buy guns to transfer them to people who can't legally own them.

 

Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. addressed an audience of law enforcement officers from around the country at the White House in support of the administration's gun control measures. But the survey results, issued Monday, indicate a strong undercurrent in the public safety community that is critical of additional gun restrictions.

 

When asked what would help most in preventing a large-scale public shooting, the majority of respondents, 28.8 percent, favor more permissive concealed-carry policies for civilians. The second most popular answer, with 19.6 percent, was that more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons would prevent a large-scale shooting, followed by 15.8 percent who believed more armed security would prevent such a tragedy.

 

Less than 1 percent of respondents believed that further restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition magazines would prevent a large-scale shooting.

 

When asked what impact a legally armed citizen could have had in a mass shooting such as the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. or movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., a whopping 80 percent believed casualties would have been reduced while another 6.2 percent thought casualties would have been avoided altogether.

 

As long as civilians were deemed psychologically and medically capable and did not have any felony convictions, 91.3 percent favored allowing civilians to carry concealed firearms.

 

The survey was publicized to more than 400,000 registered PoliceOne members and vetted to ensure responders worked in law enforcement, Mr. Wyllie said. While not scientifically conducted, the poll was an opportunity to give rank-and-file officers who Mr. Wyllie said might be dissuaded from speaking publicly on the gun control debate a way to "be seen on the issue."

 

"There hasn't been a venue from which everyday patrol officers and sergeants can chime in," Mr. Wyllie said. More than half of respondents identified themselves as officers or sergeants, while two-thirds came from departments with 500 or fewer personnel and three-quarters said they were currently on the job.

 

The survey also revealed divergent thoughts on gun buyback programs, which gained renewed attention in the wake of the Newtown shooting. While police departments around the county have hosted gun buybacks, touted as a way to get dangerous weapons off the streets, 81.5 percent of respondents did not believe gun buybacks were effective in reducing gun violence.

 

The opinions expressed in the survey clearly don't represent all of law enforcement.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Police officers: Obama's gun-control proposals would make things worse

By Kyle Wingfield — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The Atlanta Journal Constitution' / Atlanta, GA

(Op-Ed / Commentary)

 

 

"Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility."

 

That's the conclusion of Doug Wylie, editor of PoliceOne.com, in his write-up of a national survey of more than 15,000 law-enforcement officers about possible new restrictions on gun owners. Those would be the kind of new restrictions President Obama and Vice President Biden continue to campaign for. On Tuesday, Biden invoked "black helicopters" to belittle those who oppose the administration's proposals.

 

 

A day earlier, however, the PoliceOne.com survey showed that law enforcement officers overwhelmingly believe the legislative package Obama and Biden have been pushing would be ineffective at best and detrimental at worst:

 

•Asked whether a federal ban on ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime, 96 percent said no.

•Asked whether a federal ban on "assault weapons" would reduce violent crime, 61 percent said it would have no effect. Respondents were almost three times as likely to say the ban would make violent crime worse (21 percent) as to say it would help reduce it at all (8 percent).

•Asked about the impact of the president's proposed legislation on police officers' safety, respondents were twice as likely to say the bill would make them less safe (25 percent) as to say it would make them more safe (12 percent).

•Asked what would be the best way to prevent future mass public killings, a plurality (29 percent) said "more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians."

 

There's more at the link, including support for having armed citizens -- whether teachers, administrators or someone else -- at schools to prevent shootings.

 

But I'm sure these thousands of police officers wear tinfoil hats with their uniforms. Right, Mr. Vice President?

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Senators: Bipartisan deal reached on expanding gun background checks

By Ed O'Keefe and Tom Hamburger — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013; 11:26 a.m. 'The Washington Post' / Washington, DC

 

 

A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

 

The amendment to the guns legislation already proposed in the Senate would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved.

 

The agreement forged by Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) would be more stringent than current law, which requires checks only when purchases are made through a licensed dealer, but less strict than the requirements originally sought by President Obama and congressional Democrats, who were seeking to expand background checks to nearly every kind of sale.

 

In announcing their plan Wednesday morning, Manchin and Toomey invoked the in December's mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., which left 20 schoolchildren and six educators dead.

 

"This amendment . . . will not ease the pain of the families who lost their children on that horrible day," Manchin said at a packed news conference. "But nobody – not one of us in this great Capitol of ours, with a good conscience could sit by and not try to prevent another day like that from happening again."

 

The National Rifle Association, the powerful lobbying group that is the leading force against tightening gun laws, said expanding background checks "will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe."

 

The NRA's statement called for a "serious and meaningful solution" to gun violence and asked the White House to move forward to combat gang and criminal activity that are "tormenting honest people."

 

Under the terms of the Manchin-Toomey deal all background checks would be conducted by federally licensed gun firearm dealers, who would need to verify the validity of a purchaser's gun license and record that a check was performed. Background checks would need to be completed within three days, except at gun shows, where they would have to be completed within two days for the next four years, and then within 24 hours. In order to avoid processing delays, the FBI would be required to complete background checks requested at gun shows before those requested elsewhere.

 

In a key concession to Manchin, the agreement establishes a bipartisan commission to study incidents of mass violence and present Congress with potential legislation to address such incidents. The panel would bring together experts from the fields of mental health and school safety and representatives of the firearms and entertainment industries. Any proposals presented by the commission would be submitted for an up-or-down vote in Congress – a process similar to that used by the 2011 fiscal supercommittee that failed to reach an accord on budgetary matters.

 

"We have a culture of violence and we have a whole generation that has basically been desensitized," Manchin said. "We've got to find out how we can change and reverse that.

 

The Senate has scheduled a vote for Thursday on a "motion to proceed," which would officially start the debate over the most wide-ranging and ambitious gun control legislation in 20 years. Democrats seem to have assembled the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

 

The deal between Manchin and Toomey follows weeks of negotiations as Senate Democrats, along with Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, made an effort to win the support of enough Republicans to blunt a filibuster threat. It is expected to secure enough bipartisan support to allow the Senate to launch debate on an overarching guns bill that would expand background checks, make gun trafficking a federal crime for the first time and bolster federal funding for school security plans.

 

Toomey, who like Manchin has been highly rated by the NRA in the past, is a new player to the months-long negotiations over gun legislation. He said he decided to engage with his colleagues on the topic when he realized that a gun bill was headed to the Senate floor.

 

"I don't consider criminal background checks to be gun control, I think it's just common sense," he told reporters. "It's the people who fail criminal and mental health background checks that we don't want having guns."

 

After reviewing the details of their agreement, Toomey said: "I will tell you categorically that nothing in our amendment prevents the ownership of guns by any lawful person -- and I wouldn't support it if I did."

 

The agreement was already being celebrated Wednesday morning, even before a news conference at which it was supposed to be announced.

 

Arkadi Guerney, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which has been advocating for tighter background checks, called the agreement on background checks "a huge step forward" that "will make it harder for criminals to get guns without any questions being asked."

 

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a long time advocate of gun control, negotiated throughout much of March with Sen. Tom Coburn (R- Okla.), who has a top rating from the NRA., in hopes of moving the guns legislation forward. But the pair could not find agreement on how to keep records of background checks on potential gun buyers.

 

Coburn and top officials at the NRA worried that such records would lead to a kind of national registry of gun owners. Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the NRA, has said that such information could be used by the Obama administration to confiscate guns — a claim that supporters of the record-keeping vehemently deny.

 

Under the Manchin-Toomey deal, records of the newly covered transactions would be kept by federally licensed arms dealers, according to a person familiar with the agreement. Currently, licensed arms dealers keep records of gun sales that take place in gun stores.

 

The deal also permits licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on prospective employees and would grant licensed dealers with legal immunity from lawsuits if the weapon is subsequently used in a crime, said the aides. Dealers would be permitted to travel across state lines to sell weapons at gun shows, as long as the dealer abides by applicable state gun laws.

 

Members of the military would be permitted to purchase firearms in their home states and anywhere they are based, said the aides, who were not authorized to speak publicly about details of the agreement.

 

Schumer called key players in the gun debate Wednesday morning, including New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), to inform them of the details.

 

The Obama administration has lobbied hard for increased background checks on potential gun buyers and for new limits on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines, all of which are heavily opposed by the NRA and its Capitol Hill allies in both parties.

 

The Democratic-led Senate is expected to reject Obama's proposals to ban military-style assault rifles and to limit the size of high-capacity magazines. And the NRA is working on alternatives to the background check proposals. In an ominous sign for the president, at least two Democratic senators — Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Max Baucus (Mont.) — have said they are unsure whether they can support his legislative goals.

 

Senators from both parties are likely to introduce numerous amendments to the guns bill. One might establish an online portal for background checks and provide more federal funding for mental health programs assisting veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There also probably will be amendments backed by the NRA, designed to make the bill less onerous for gun owners and buyers.

 

Any bill would need only a majority of votes to pass. After that, it would go to the GOP-led House, where another long deliberative process could begin.

 

David Fahrenthold, Aaron Blake and Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Senators Reach Bipartisan Deal on Checks of Gun Buyers

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The New York Times'

 

 

A bipartisan collection of senators on Wednesday announced a compromise measure to expand background checks for gun buyers, increasing the chances that a viable package of new gun safety laws will soon hit the Senate floor.

 

Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, have joined forces on the deal.

 

Under the terms of the agreement, background checks for gun buyers would expand to gun shows and online sales — a huge portion of gun sales that are made without the background checks used by gun stores — and will maintain record-keeping provisions that law enforcement officials find essential in tracking criminal gun use, but that gun rights groups find anathema.

 

The bill would modify the current measure, which will receive a procedural vote on Thursday, in other key ways. For example, the background checks provision would extend to fewer gun buyers than many gun control groups, and some Democrats in the Senate, would like. Inter-family sales, for instance, would be exempt.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Key senators reach deal on background checks for gun buyers

By Richard Cowan (Reuters)  —  Wednesday, April 10th, 2013; 8:53am EDT

 

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prospects for a gun control bill's passage in the Senate in coming weeks got a boost on Wednesday with a bipartisan agreement on background checks for gun buyers.

 

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania brokered the deal and were scheduled to announce it during a news conference at 11 a.m. EDT (1500 GMT) Wednesday.

 

According to a Senate Democratic aide, the measure would expand criminal background checks for prospective gun buyers to include sales made at gun shows and online.

 

Sales among friends or family members would be exempt from the requirement, which is designed to close many loopholes. Analysts have said as many as 40 percent of gun buyers have been able to avoid background checks under the current system.

 

The proposal for expanded background checks - which includes a requirement for sellers to keep records of sales - appears to be Obama's best hope for meaningful gun control legislation in the wake of the December massacre of 20 children and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut.

 

Several family members of victims from the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown are in Washington this week to help Obama's team pressure lawmakers for action.

 

More controversial parts of the president's plan - such as a ban on rapid-firing "assault" weapons like the one used in Connecticut and limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines - appear to have a slim chance of clearing the U.S. Senate, which is led by Obama's Democrats. Such measures face an even tougher road in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

 

Manchin's participation in the deal on background checks is widely seen as boosting the prospects for the legislation's passage. The freshman senator represents a state where gun ownership has long been passionately protected and where attempts to regulate guns have been strongly opposed.

 

On Thursday, the Senate is scheduled to hold its first test vote on a gun control bill.

 

More than a dozen conservative Republican senators have threatened a filibuster aimed at delaying consideration of any gun restrictions. But other Republicans - many acknowledging public opinion polls that have shown that more than 80 percent of Americans favor expanded background checks - have said Obama's proposals should get a floor vote in the Senate. Senate Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who schedules votes in the chamber, has echoed that position.

 

The measure likely to pass the Senate, expected to include expanded background checks, more funding for school security and tighter restrictions on gun trafficking, falls far short of what Obama had pressed for. But it is more extensive than what the influential National Rifle Association, the nation's largest gun rights group, has warned that it would accept.

 

Whatever gun control measures clear the Senate, they are likely to face a more challenging path in the House, where many Republicans have vowed to oppose any gun restrictions.

 

(Editing by David Lindsey and Lisa Von Ahn)

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Chicago, Illinois     (Garry Francis McCarthy on the Cutting Edge of Progressive Policing)

 

Private showers for transgender police recruits a win for inclusion

BY MARK BROWN — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The Chicago Sun-Times' / New York, NY

 

 

The Chicago Police Department is installing two new private "changing rooms" with showers at its training academy to better accommodate transgender police recruits.

 

A CPD spokesman said the facilities are for "anyone who may feel uncomfortable in the men's or women's showers," and are not intended solely for transgender individuals.

 

But the extreme sensitivity with which the department has handled my inquiries about the matter tells me this is not your everyday bathroom remodeling project.

 

Citing officer privacy, police spokesman Adam Collins said he could not comment on whether the department is expecting a transgender recruit any time soon.

 

Then he put me in contact with the department's LGBT liaison, Officer Jose Rios, who doesn't know either but lauded the shower installation as another step forward in the relationship between Chicago police and the LGBT community.

 

Chicago already has some transgender police officers who, like most transgender individuals, are not necessarily eager to be identified as such. Their priority is to be accepted in their new gender identity, and they would prefer to be treated like anybody else.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Man Claims Chicago Cop Demanded Gay Sex

By JACK BOUBOUSHIAN — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The Courthouse News Service' / Pasadena, CA

 

 

CHICAGO (CN) - A Chicago cop demanded, and got, sexual services in jail from a gay man arrested on prostitution charges, the man claims in court.

Charles Norwood sued Chicago and police Officer Nelson Stewart in Federal Court.

 

Norwood, a gay African American, was arrested five times in 2010 and 2011 on charges of prostitution and soliciting rides on the public way, according to the complaint.

 

At the police station, "he was placed in a cell in an isolated area of the lockup area. This cell was not located near the other cells in the lock up area that generally contained other men who were incarcerated," the complaint states.

 

"Upon information and belief, plaintiff was placed in this isolated cell because he was gay and/or gender non-conforming and the Chicago Police Department had no written policies, procedures or training materials that instructed officers on how to properly identify and detain gay, transgender and/or gender non-conforming individuals who had been arrested.

 

"While being held at the 11th District, plaintiff first encountered defendant Stewart.

 

"Defendant Stewart told plaintiff that if he engaged in sexual acts with him and/or performed various sexual acts for defendant Steward to observe, defendant Steward would get plaintiff bonded out and released earlier than expected.

 

"Plaintiff did not want to engage in any sexual acts with or for defendant Stewart, but he felt powerless, vulnerable and coerced into doing so in order to avoid any retributive acts by defendant Stewart and with the hope of getting released. Plaintiff was sexually abused by defendant Stewart," the complaint states.

 

Norwood claims that "during the course of these non-consensual and coercive sexual encounters, plaintiff was forced to expose and touch his genitalia and other body parts for defendant Stewart's arousal. Defendant Stewart also forced plaintiff to touch Stewart's exposed penis.

 

"Plaintiff was not the only gay and/or gender non-conforming individual who was targeted and sexually abused by defendant Stewart. There were other individuals locked up at the 11th District who were subjected to the same and similar forms of gross and egregious misconduct," he says.

 

Norwood seeks punitive damages for excessive force, illegal search, and violation of equal protection.

 

He is represented by Perry Grimaldi.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Immigration Enforcement  /  Illegal Aliens

Senate Plan Sets High Bar On Border Security

By SARA MURRAY — Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 'The Wall Street Journal' / New York, NY

 

 

Immigrants in the U.S. illegally would not gain green cards under a bipartisan Senate bill until law-enforcement officials are monitoring the entire southern border and stopping 90% of people crossing illegally in certain areas, according to people familiar with the plan.

 

The border-security proposal, part of a broader immigration bill being written by eight senators, sets several goals that would have to be met before any of the estimated 11 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally could apply for permanent legal residency, also known as a green card, according to the people familiar with the Senate talks. Meeting all the goals is expected to take 10 years.

 

In a major change for businesses, all employers would be required after a five-year phase-in period to use the government's E-Verify system, which screens for illegal workers. E-Verify now is largely voluntary, though some states require it. Some 409,000 employers had enrolled in the program as of last year, the federal government says, a tiny fraction of the estimated six million private U.S. employers, many of which have only a handful of employees.

 

Along the U.S.-Mexican border, 100% of the border would have to be under surveillance, and law enforcement would have to catch 90% of those who cross the border illegally at "high risk" sections—a term that people following the Senate talks did not define. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security reported that only 44% of the border was under operational control, meaning officials had the ability to detect and block illegal activity there.

 

In addition, the government would have to create an electronic system to monitor everyone who exits from the U.S. through airports or seaports, in an attempt to identify people overstaying their visas. People who overstay visas account for a large share of illegal immigrants, as much as 40% by some estimates.

 

Once all of those measures are met, immigrants could begin qualifying for green cards. In the meantime, the legislation would grant probationary status to illegal immigrants who passed a criminal-background check, paid a fine and met other conditions. The legislation, which would also set special rules for agricultural workers, is not fully drafted and has not yet been released publicly.

 

Setting tougher border-security measures as a prerequisite to offering legal status to illegal immigrants could ease the way for many lawmakers, particularly Republicans, to support the immigration-law overhaul. Many Republicans have said the border must be secure before they would consider any change in the status of illegal immigrants.

 

Meanwhile, advocates for immigrants and some Democrats worry that stringent border-security requirements would create an indefinite delay for illegal immigrants seeking legal status. Frank Sharry, executive director of the group America's Voice, said the Senate plan seemed poised to include the "toughest border-security requirements ever."

 

"It raises the question of whether it's actually achievable, and whether it will end up thwarting the path to citizenship for 11 million people," he said. "I think there will be a lot of heartburn when the bill is released."

 

The measures laid out in the Senate plan are similar to a border-security bill unveiled Tuesday by Sen. John Cornyn and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, both Texas Republicans.

 

How to determine whether the border is secure is a contentious issue in the debate over overhauling the nation's immigration laws. President Barack Obama and other Democrats have argued that border security has already improved, but the Senate plan would push the Department of Homeland Security to go further.

 

Republicans say they want to prevent another wave of immigrants from entering the U.S. illegally. Many in the GOP cite a 1986 immigration law legalizing millions without, they say, adequately improving border security.

 

Mr. Cornyn, who has been skeptical of immigration-overhaul efforts, said he would be pleased if the eight senators writing the new legislation adopted security measures similar to ones he put forward. "I would be favorably impressed if they embraced this," Mr. Cornyn said. But his bill could also offer an alternative to GOP lawmakers who want to sign on to a measure boosting border security without offering legal status to illegal immigrants.

 

How tough the security measures prove to be will depend on the details of the legislation. Lawmakers will have to define, for instance, "high-risk" areas subject to the 90% apprehension requirement. The border-security targets will also depend on how lawmakers define requirements for surveillance, also known as border "awareness."

 

The standards could change over time or prove to be subjective. The Department of Homeland Security would be charged with collecting the data.

 

The 90% apprehension rate, technically referred to as the effectiveness rate, includes people who turned back after entering the U.S., as well as people detained. The Border Patrol estimates the total number of illegal crossings based on agent sightings, camera monitoring and referrals from other credible sources.

 

It is hard to know if apprehension rates are tallied accurately, said Thad Bingel, partner at Command Consulting Group and a former Customs and Border Protection official. "You can detect something and not know for certain if it turned back or if it got past you. That's what makes it a really tough challenge." He said that even if the U.S. has full surveillance and control of the border one day, that may not hold true a month later.

 

"The bad guys are sophisticated, too," he said. "You may one day have 100% awareness, and then they'll figure out where your holes might be."

 

In recent years, illegal border crossings have fallen as a result of the tepid U.S. economy, stronger border enforcement and other factors, several studies have found. The federal Government Accountability Office said apprehensions fell in fiscal 2011, mirroring a decrease in estimated illegal entries.

 

The Senate plan lays out three steps aimed at meeting the security goals, people familiar with the proposal said. Homeland Security officials would be required to report to Congress within six months about what resources and technology are necessary to meet the 90% apprehension rate and where additional border fencing should be installed. After that report, the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. would become eligible for provisional legal status.

 

If border-security targets weren't met after five years, a commission of border-state officials—potentially governors or attorneys general—would make recommendations to meet the 90% apprehension goal. The legislation designates money to implement the commission's recommendations.

 

Illegal immigrants would be able to apply for green cards after 10 years only if the border-security targets had been met and the visa exit and full E-Verify systems have been implemented, according to the two people familiar with the plan.

 

"Twenty years could pass by, and if there's no E-Verify, not one person is going to get their green card," said one of the people familiar with the plan.

 

The price tag for the additional security measures is unclear, but it is likely to be costly. The U.S. government spent $18 billion in fiscal 2012 on federal immigration enforcement, more than all the other main federal law-enforcement agencies combined, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

 

Senators are hoping to offset some security costs with additional revenue from fines and fees.

 

"We do not intend to have the proposals that we are enacting be additional costs to the taxpayers of America," said Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), a member of the Senate group working on immigration.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 

                                                          Mike Bosak