In a heavily Democratic town such as ours, you would think that the laws of New York would reflect a population that prefers liberty over tyranny, freedom over oppression and the right to public assembly (as stated in the Bill of Rights). Even if a majority of New Yorkers feel this way, it is apparent that the lawyers for the city of New York do not.
Recently a federal judge issued a ruling for the police department to stop videotaping public gatherings and protests so that people who went out on the streets would not feel intimidated by those that are charged to protect and serve, not protect and spy.
On February 15th, Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. resolved a 35 year class-action lawsuit by threatening to hold the city in contempt if the random videotapings occurred again. Nearly a month later the city's attorneys have started an appeal that claims the judge over-stepped his authority in limiting the police's activities. Their assertion is that in 2003 the city agreed to less restrictive rules because “the N.Y.P.D. never had any intention of agreeing to the incorporation of detailed operational guidelines into the consent decree subjecting itself to contempt for a plethora of potential violations.” Basically they find his ruling "an impermissable" order.
As the NY Times points out, the plantiffs disagree:
But the class-action lawyers said yesterday that the city was misstating the facts when it characterized the implementation of the weakened rules in 2003 as a negotiation the city had won. They cited a passage of Judge Haight’s ruling last month.
He wrote that he made those new rules part of a court order in 2003 because he was concerned that improper investigative techniques were being used against people involved in political activity.
He made the new rules part of his 2003 order, he wrote last month, “after senior N.Y.P.D. officers misbehaved themselves by ordering that arrested protesters held in precinct station houses be interrogated in inappropriate ways before being released.”
The city argues that these restrictions limit the police from effectively dealing with threats of terrorism. According to them, asking for permission is too much for cops to be 'vigiliant' on the streets to look for terrorists. This logic is shaky at best. When the police videotape peaceful protests without any good reason to do so, they are blatantly violating the First Amendment. Recording citizens engaged in political activism for the sake of intimidation is simply wrong.
Fighting terrorism is a laudable act and it can be done within the limits that Judge Haight set in his ruling. The city needs to learn that this is still America and their actions need to be curtailed. Too many abuses of power have taken place in the last few years (including the Critical Mass bike ride) and it is unfortunate that a federal judge had to be involved in order to make the police force respect the constitution. Nevertheless it had to be done and the lawyers for the city should just sit there and take it. Hopefully the appellate court sees it the same way.
|