Read on Twitter
Breaking news: Federal judge shuts down NYC police unions' attempt to block public release of misconduct records.
Judge Polk says unions failed to show that publishing records of discipline would cause irreparable harm to officers' reputation or safety.
Judge was swayed by a simple argument: How much harm could there be if 16 other states already make this kind of info public?
(This is a common theme in 2020, as New York finally joins other states w/ DA sharing of exculpatory evidence & bail reform.)
(This is a common theme in 2020, as New York finally joins other states w/ DA sharing of exculpatory evidence & bail reform.)
Judge Polk says the unions relied on speculation -- not proof -- and "could not provide a single example" of "an increased risk of harm to themselves or families that can be tied to disclosure of these materials."
Continuing with my previous point: Law enforcement in NY keep spreading fear that certain policies will let bad guys commit crimes, endanger witnesses, or hurt cops. But... dozens of states have enacted these laws without these consequences. Judge addressed this.
The Police Benevolent Association has argued its union deal somehow trumped new state transparency law.
On this, the judge said:
"I completely disagree" that the police union agreement with New York City can extend far beyond their personnel record & block public records.
On this, the judge said:
"I completely disagree" that the police union agreement with New York City can extend far beyond their personnel record & block public records.
Judge Polk is really beating down any argument that this is a collective bargaining agreement issue:
"There is simply no way" ... "this is not a grievance to be arbitrated at all."
"There is simply no way" ... "this is not a grievance to be arbitrated at all."
Judge Polk is also tearing apart the unions' argument that releasing allegation records will unfairly hurt someone's reputation:
"Even if the charge is unsubstantiated, any stigma is addressed... by the record itself." If it says "unsubstantiated" it means "unsubstantiated."
"Even if the charge is unsubstantiated, any stigma is addressed... by the record itself." If it says "unsubstantiated" it means "unsubstantiated."
Judge sounds like she's nearing the end of her decision, saying that officers can't claim releasing misconduct records violates due process because... these are already records *of due process.*
"In the creation of the records themselves, they are entitled to... hearings."
"In the creation of the records themselves, they are entitled to... hearings."
As to the police union's argument that teachers & sanitation workers aren't having their disciplinary records released this way, the judge makes a pretty stark point. Police have guns & the power to kill people. These kinds of city employees are... different.
Side note: Maybe it's a 2020 pandemic virtual meeting thing, but it's pretty unsettling that attorneys at this federal court hearing keep interrupting this judge with
โข commentary
โข music (!?)
โข and some dude who just said "This is going on for a long time."
โข commentary
โข music (!?)
โข and some dude who just said "This is going on for a long time."
Judge says "50a was not repealed haphazardly. It was designed to promote transparency & accountability, to improve relations between law enforcement & their communities... aid law makers at arriving to policy decisions... & to better protect the officers themselves."
Okay, the hearing is over. Judge is "staying" her decision until Monday, so it doesn't go into effect for a few days & gives the police union time to appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
Ridiculous post-script: I might be wrong about attorneys interrupting the judge. Someone yelled like an idiot at the end of the call, so it could have been an unruly crowd.
