Dear Senator Casey/Senator Toomey:
As your constituent and given your past full support of Law Enforcement that
place their lives at risk to protect our neighborhoods and deserve our respect,
admiration, and support.
It is a difficult and demoralizing time for Law Enforcement. Increased
surveillance resulting from advances in technology like digital recording and
wireless broadband has come to mean that Law enforcement mistakes are
wrongly widely broadcast — typically without context or rights of rebuttal —
exposing them to unprecedented, unfounded public scrutiny. This allows the
public who have not trained as police officers to make what often amounts to
biased and ill-informed judgments of the police.
I am writing to inquire if would you be interested in sponsoring the Federal
Law Enforcement Bill of Rights that includes the following:
1. 1st Rule of Policing: Police have the right and the duty to go home at
the end of each watch. It does not matter how many non-law
enforcement personnel are injured or killed or have their “rights”
violated to achieve this goal as Police are entitled to impunity for their
violence and protection from harm above all others.
2. Sealing of all law enforcement records from the public unless the
release has the approval of all police officers involved. Unauthorized
release of law enforcement records would impact the integrity of
ongoing investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review
processes that will be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
3. Police are entitled to absolute privacy when performing their duties.
Police should only be required to identify themselves only in the arrest
warrant or report if used in court.
4. Police officers can seize and delete any video and/or audio of
wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public as it violates their
privacy and distracts from their duties and jeopardizes Officer safely.
This right to privacy is absolute when Police are engaged in Routine
Non-Enforcement Activity. The act of recording police starts from the
belief that every officer is doing something wrong and that's insulting
to all police officers. A Automatic search warrant and SWAT raid is
authorized for anyone in possession of video and/or audio of
wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public.
5. Police officer statements override any video or audio evidence as the
officer's' reasonable perceptions are more accurate. Video or audio
footage does not capture the physical struggle from the officer's
perspective, nor does it capture the officer's' reasonable, split-second
decision-making and thought processes in tense circumstances. This is
the case especially when the video or audio is gathered by illegally
wiretapping/eavesdropping Police Officers in public.
6. Citizens must provide ID and must allow themselves to being searched
by Law Enforcement when so ordered by Police.
7. Repeal Anti Police excessive force, false arrest and civil rights
violations laws that jeopardize Officer safely.
8. Reporting and Statistics about Police misconduct, shootings, and use
of SWAT should illegal to be collected or published as they may
inflame anti police sentiment jeopardizing Officer safely. violating the
Officers’ privacy, renders police vulnerable to unfounded scrutiny and
impacts the integrity of ongoing investigations and the eventual
prosecutorial review processes that will be pending at the conclusion
of the investigations.
9. Any videos from Police equipment should only be used in court and/or
be released to the public with the approval of all police officers being
filmed to protect their privacy. Police Dash Cam, Police and Jail
surveillance video videos should only be used to protect Police, not as
an internal affairs “gotcha-head hunter” tool. Unauthorized release of
the video and audio would impact the integrity of ongoing
investigations and the eventual prosecutorial review processes that will
be pending at the conclusion of the investigations.
10. Police officers should be exempt from all making false statements laws
11. People who have no idea about the job of Law Enforcement should not
be deciding the outcome in civil and criminal cases which involve the
reasonable officer standard. Police officers should only be tried by a
special court composed only of Law Enforcement officers.
12. Repeal of the ofen abused 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for
deprivation of rights. Qualified immunity should only be defined in Law
as protecting Government Officials from all civil suits.
13. “Brady cops” do not exist. Perjury in previous cases should not be a
factor in judging a officer’s truthfulness and violates their privacy
14. It is illegal and a felony to make a false accusation against a Police
officer.
15. Police officers accused of misconduct should notified of all
incriminating evidence or witness statements, be able to review it
without a investigator looking into their actions during that process and
remain silent for a 72 hours cooling off period afterwards. Additionally
the officer has 30 days to get an attorney before they can be
questioned by superiors, An officer may not be investigated on a
misconduct accusation unless it was made within 90 days of the
incident.
16. A complaint against a law enforcement officer that alleges brutality in
the execution of the law enforcement officer's duties may not be
investigated unless the complaint is sworn to, before an official
authorized to administer oaths, by the aggrieved individual, a member
of the aggrieved individual's immediate family. an individual with
firsthand knowledge obtained because the individual was present at
and observed the alleged incident or the parent or guardian of the
minor child, if the alleged incident involves a minor child.
17. Unless a complaint is filed within 90 days after the alleged brutality, an
investigation that may lead to disciplinary action under this subtitle for
brutality may not be initiated and an action may not be taken.
18. Before an interrogation, the law enforcement officer under
investigation shall be informed in writing of the nature of the
investigation.
19. The interrogation shall take place at the office of the command of the
investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct or police unit in
which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the
investigating officer or at another reasonable and appropriate place.
The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably
when the law enforcement officer is on duty and h) Conduct of
interrogation.-
20. All questions directed to the law enforcement officer under
interrogation shall be asked by and through one interrogating officer
during any one session of interrogation. Each session of interrogation
shall be for a reasonable period; and allow for personal necessities and
rest periods as reasonably necessary. Threat of transfer, dismissal, or
disciplinary action prohibited.- The law enforcement officer under
interrogation may not be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or
disciplinary action.
21. A complete record shall be kept of the entire interrogation, including all
recess periods, of the law enforcement officer. The record may be
written, taped, or transcribed. On completion of the investigation, and
on request of the law enforcement officer under investigation or the
law enforcement officer's counsel or representative, a copy of the
record of the interrogation shall be made available at least 10 days
before a hearing.
22. It is illegal to engage in Contempt of Cop behavior, taunting,
provoking, disrespecting the law enforcement officer or questioning
their knowledge of the Law.
23. Amendment to the US Constitution that the provisions in the Law
Enforcement Bill of Rights are Constitutional and takes precedence
over other "Civil Rights" in the Bill of Rights.
I am sure that the Federal Law Enforcement Bill of Rights, that will protect the
special rights that Law Enforcement need and deserve, would have the full
support and backing of all Law Enforcement and Police groups and unions.
I await your response.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Releasing BodyCam footage of Police should be illegal.
Release of body cam footage is wrong as explained by Stephen
Hartney, the Salt Lake City police union’s president.
“The premature release of body cam footage, and information related to the disciplinary investigation, and repeated statements by city officials to the media has unfairly and improperly made pariahs of the involved officers,”...[releasing the body camera video while the investigation is still ongoing] “has created a public furor which makes reasoned determinations difficult, if not impossible. A furor which did not have to occur,” ...[while later adding that release of the video also] “creates an explosive atmosphere for no reason whatsoever.”...“The premature release of body cam footage is particularly demoralizing as it allows the public who have not trained as police officers to make what often amounts to biased and ill-informed judgments of the police,”STATEMENT BY PBA PRESIDENT PATRICK J. LYNCH ON RELEASE OF BODY CAM FOOTAGE FROM BRONX SHOOTING
PBA president Patrick J. Lynch said:
“The release of this footage sets a dangerous precedent that jeopardizes police officers' due process rights and confidentiality protections under state law. The district attorney's investigation into the case is still ongoing — it should be allowed to proceed free of pressure and interference, looking at all of the relevant facts alongside the video footage. Moreover, this footage constitutes a confidential personnel record that is protected under New York State Civil Rights Law Section 50-a, and releasing it in violation of the law will expose the police officers involved to a very real and substantial risk of harassment, reprisals and threats to their safety and the safety of their families. If fairness and justice are the goal, they won't be achieved by suspending police officers' rights whenever it is convenient to do so.”
The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York protects cops from misleading video.
Accused Cop Sues City, Blake for Demonizing
JAMES FRASCATORE: The best defense a strong offense?
JAMES BLAKE: Has tables turned on him.
JAMES P. O’NEILL: Hasn’t decided on punishment.
NYPD Officer James Frascatore sued the city and retired
tennis star James Blake last week, maintaining that city officials had
discriminated against him because he was white while casting him as a
racist for his takedown of retired biracial tennis star James Blake.
The suit also named HarperCollins, the publisher of Mr.
Blake’s recent book, “Ways of Grace,” which includes a discussion of the
incident with Mr. Frascatore. The athlete and the publisher “labeled
[Mr. Frascatore] as a racist, who engaged in racial profiling,
unconstitutionally targeted specific demographics, used excessive force
and lacked accountability,” the suit said. “All of these claims are
false.”
Also Suing CCRB
Also named is the Civilian Complaint Review Board, for
allowing an employee to leak information about the officer’s record of
complaints, which violated Section 50-a of the state Civil Rights Law.
That section requires that disciplinary information about cops be kept
secret.
Mr. Frascatore, 40, just completed a departmental trial in
which the CCRB prosecutor said he had used excessive force when he
charged at Mr. Blake, 37, and brought him to the ground in front of the
Grand Hyatt Hotel on East 42nd St. two years ago. Police mistook the
athlete for a member of a credit-card-fraud ring.
Officers realized their mistake within 10 to 15 minutes and
freed Mr. Blake, who had been waiting for a lift to the U.S. Open. But
surveillance video of the incident (which is online at goo.gl/dsTN8o)
inflamed the feelings of many New Yorkers at a time of sensitivity to
instances of abuse of men of color by white police officers.
The CCRB prosecutor recommended at the end of the
administrative trial Sept. 26 that Mr. Frascatore be adjudged guilty and
lose 10 vacation days.
Blake Wants Him Gone
Mr. Blake, on the other hand, has called for him to be fired.
The athlete said that if the video did not exist and that if he was not
wealthy and prominent, the department would have dismissed his
complaint.
Police Commissioner James P. O’Neill will have the final word
on Mr. Frascatore’s guilt or innocence and on what penalty, if any, is
imposed. There is no deadline for him to decide.
“In portraying plaintiff as a racist [during the discipline
process, the CCRB and the NYPD] have intentionally discriminated against
[Mr. Frascatore] on the basis of race,” the suit charged.
It said that just before the takedown occurred, Mr.
Frascatore was presented with a photo of the leader of the fraud ring
that bore “a striking resemblance to the way Defendant Blake appeared
that day.” He was also warned that members of the ring might be armed
with knives and was ordered to arrest the leader immediately.
After the arrest, Mr. Blake addressed Mr. Frascatore as
“Officer,” the suit said. When Detectives determined he was the wrong
man, they and Mr. Frascatore “personally apologized to Blake and
explained the mistaken identification,” the suit said. “At the
conclusion of the encounter, Blake and [Mr. Frascatore] shook hands and
patted each other on the back. All seemed forgiven.”
Blake’s Counter
Mr. Blake’s testimony at the administrative trial
contradicted this account. He said he was confused when Mr. Frascatore
tackled him. He maintained that none of the four or five officers
identified themselves and that only one apologized, and it wasn’t Mr.
Frascatore.
“He never said ‘NYPD,’’’ Mr. Blake said. ‘He never said ‘officer.’ He never said ‘freeze,’ like you see in the movies.”
Mr. Frascatore told the New York Post last week that he’d do
it again the same way. “People need to realize that, with the
information I had at the time and the circumstances that presented
themselves, it was the right call,” he said. “I have a family to go home
to. I’m on a crowded sidewalk, with a possibly armed suspect in the
middle of 42nd St. You have to take control of the situation. I can’t
just be pulling out my gun.”
The suit said that recriminations started immediately. “Top
NYPD supervisors, including the Police Commissioner…rushed to blame [Mr.
Frascatore] for the failures of his superiors and what amounted to an
unfortunate mistake,” it said.
Failed to Tell Supervisors?
The Commissioner at the time, William J. Bratton, and his
aides criticized Mr. Frascatore “not for his tactics, but for his
perceived lack of manners and his alleged failure to advise superiors of
a celebrity-involved incident,” the suit said. The suit maintained that
supervisors were notified about the voided arrest of Mr. Blake.
Mr. Frascatore was placed on modified duty without his badge or service weapon.
The suit outlined the effect of the case on Mr. Frascatore
and his family. He “has been cast as a racist and a goon,” it said.
“....this public perception has not only led to his family fleeing their
home in fear as a result of public threats to their safety, it has
ruined a good man’s career, name and reputation. Even if he only stands
to lose vacation time as a result of the disciplinary process, he faces a
significant diminution in his long-term prospects for better
assignments, promotion and recognition…”
‘Kids Were Terrified’
“Plaintiff’s young children had to be escorted onto their
school bus and were terrified to leave the house,” the suit said. His
marriage also suffered, it said.
The suit complained about “a years-long pattern of false and
defamatory statements made by [Mr. Blake] and the NYPD following Blake’s
mistaken and brief detention…during a serious police investigation.”
Despite the purported apologies, “Blake continues to this day
to paint [Mr. Frascatore] as an out-of-control and corrupt officer who
has no business being a member of the NYPD,” the suit said. “...Indeed,
Blake has recently embarked on a worldwide press junket to promote his
new book, the foreword of which perpetuates his false statements.”
The suit characterized the CCRB leak about Mr. Frascatore’s
complaint history as “an unauthorized release of his private personnel
information, a violation of New York State civil-rights law for which no
one has been held accountable.” The employee who leaked the information
was forced to resign.
‘Portrayed as Thug, Racist’
The suit referred to a segment of the surveillance video
published by The Post, which it said showed Mr. Blake and Mr. Frascatore
shaking hands and patting each other on the back. The video (which can
be viewed at goo.gl/GXNv3v) is fuzzy and the faces are not recognizable.
While Mr. Frascatore “was finally revealed not to be the thug
and racist portrayed by defendants, defendants still failed to adjust
their false narrative,” the suit said.
The suit asks for compensatory damages from all defendants,
as well as punitive damages to be paid by HarperCollins and Mr. Blake
for “far in excess of $75,000.” It also wants a retraction and apology
from the publisher and Mr. Blake. The suit said a previous agreement
between Mr. Blake and the city holds city employees harmless from
punitive damages.
STATEMENT BY PBA PRESIDENT PATRICK J. LYNCH ON RELEASE OF BODY CAM FOOTAGE FROM BRONX SHOOTING
PBA president Patrick J. Lynch said:
“The release of this footage sets a dangerous precedent that jeopardizes police officers' due process rights and confidentiality protections under state law. The district attorney's investigation into the case is still ongoing — it should be allowed to proceed free of pressure and interference, looking at all of the relevant facts alongside the video footage. Moreover, this footage constitutes a confidential personnel record that is protected under New York State Civil Rights Law Section 50-a, and releasing it in violation of the law will expose the police officers involved to a very real and substantial risk of harassment, reprisals and threats to their safety and the safety of their families. If fairness and justice are the goal, they won't be achieved by suspending police officers' rights whenever it is convenient to do so.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)