Police personnel records to be made public

[Clipper]

961theeagle.com/utica-to-post-police-personnel-records-online/?fbclid=IwAR3TjiHvkhTv4rtKiNx3jONLxaN4NlPWBaS2UpgRWJmb-jB6plL2R81dmRo

It is stated that the process has been vetted with the police benevolent association as well as the police chief, city hall, and corporation counsel. I wonder how many cops are unhappy with their union reps agreeing to such a process.

It will be interesting to see how much information is revealed to the public and as a result how many cops will seek LE jobs with other departments. I think body cams, dash cams, and stricter disciplinary actions against cops that use excessive force with dismissal a real possibility in serious cases that result in injury to a person being arrested or detained is more than sufficient.

I would have to see how the program is going to work, but my first thought is that if I were a cop I would tell them to stick their already thankless job in their butt and would move on to a job where I was treated with respect and not exposed to the riff raff that would glean personal info from the records.

[Swimmy]

After the Jacob Floyd death, New York State amended its freedom of information law (FOIL) to remove police personnel exemptions. What was originally intended to prevent those pesky defense attorneys zealously representing their clients has been used to categorically deny records requests in all instances. The governor and the legislature insist that was never the original intent (why we spent 70 years with this interpretation, then is beyond logic). Anyway, as long as sealed information does not leak to the public, like dismissed complaints that never ventured passed the initial investigation stages, I think this is progress. Like with body cameras that help protect police (in practice more so than the public as was the original intent), I think this will go toward helping both the public and police. It will encourage police to cut ties with the bad apples who should have never been accepted onto the force to begin with but hide behind union regs to stay employed. Removing the bad apples helps restore public faith that police do care.

Sorry, I've been absent for so long. Between work restrictions, and life in general, it does not lend well to me coming here to comment. Hope everyone is well and weathering this bizarre year as best as they possibly can under the circumstances. And remember, you ain't black if you don't vote for biden!

[Clipper]

Good to hear from you Swimmy. We have missed ya my friend. Stop by more often and comment on non controversial things that fit your ability to remain within your occupational limitations. Thanks for clarifying a lot of points I had wondered about with the implementation of that new policy.

I hope you have been doing well, both professionally as well as in your personal life. Be well and be safe.

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2020 17:46:24 GMT -5 Swimmy said:

After the Jacob Floyd death, New York State amended its freedom of information law (FOIL) to remove police personnel exemptions. What was originally intended to prevent those pesky defense attorneys zealously representing their clients has been used to categorically deny records requests in all instances. The governor and the legislature insist that was never the original intent (why we spent 70 years with this interpretation, then is beyond logic). Anyway, as long as sealed information does not leak to the public, like dismissed complaints that never ventured passed the initial investigation stages, I think this is progress. Like with body cameras that help protect police (in practice more so than the public as was the original intent), I think this will go toward helping both the public and police. It will encourage police to cut ties with the bad apples who should have never been accepted onto the force to begin with but hide behind union regs to stay employed. Removing the bad apples helps restore public faith that police do care.

Sorry, I've been absent for so long. Between work restrictions, and life in general, it does not lend well to me coming here to comment. Hope everyone is well and weathering this bizarre year as best as they possibly can under the circumstances. And remember, you ain't black if you don't vote for biden!

In every instance the person initiating some type of crime is what the police have been responding to and in each of those instances these people have all attempted to resist arrest. I do not blame police for using force. Granted to some extent to much force was used but that is human error. In the heat of the matter I am sure each police officer felt he also had to defend his/her life during the arrest procedure. Back the Police they are our first line of defense.

[Swimmy]

Oct 11, 2020 10:26:23 GMT -5 @turd said:

In every instance the person initiating some type of crime is what the police have been responding to and in each of those instances these people have all attempted to resist arrest. I do not blame police for using force. Granted to some extent to much force was used but that is human error. In the heat of the matter I am sure each police officer felt he also had to defend his/her life during the arrest procedure. Back the Police they are our first line of defense.

There was a case I had back in my private practice days where the client called 911 because her husband was having a seizure. The police arrived on scene and decided it was more appropriate to arrest him seizure, flopping around, claiming he was resisting arrest. My client, upset by this decision, started to yell that he needed an ambulance. Instead of listening to her, the third officer put her under arrest for disorderly conduct and told her, "See black person, this is what happens when you try to tell us how to do our jobs, and my partners putting your black person husband under arrest will make sure the resisting charge sticks." My FOIL request for the officer's disciplinary record was denied. But a fellow defense attorney familiar with my client gave me a copy of a federal court decision that involved a section 1982 lawsuit against two of the three responding police officers from a couple years prior. The third officer gave cross examination testimony where his racism was exposed. Needless to say, in that rare case, my client was telling the truth. The ada refused to dismiss the case, so I filed a motion and attached the court decision and trial transcripts. The judge was very critical of the ada's refusal to dismiss the case and poor attempt to oppose my motion. The Judge found it illogical that the ada could reason the officers' open prejudices were not influenced by their prejudices without providing any supporting documentation, like copies of the body camera footage she denied giving me saying it was not relevant. The Judge also said the body camera footage was relevant and had it been beneficial to the ada's case, she did not have any doubt the footage would have been disclosed, lending further support that my client was a victim of race-based policing.

Forgive me if I disbelieve your blanket assertion that all police responses are to criminal behaviors with those people resisting arrest. Any time there is a use of force that results in serious bodily injury or death of the arrestee should always be investigated and criminal charges brought if warranted. But not every such instance is because of race.

[Swimmy]

Oct 10, 2020 18:01:21 GMT -5 Clipper said:

Good to hear from you Swimmy. We have missed ya my friend. Stop by more often and comment on non controversial things that fit your ability to remain within your occupational limitations. Thanks for clarifying a lot of points I had wondered about with the implementation of that new policy.

I hope you have been doing well, both professionally as well as in your personal life. Be well and be safe.

I will try to do that.

[chris]

Wow a blast from the past. How you doing Swimmy. 🤩