Link
A judge recently ruled that parts of a program of increased police presence was a violation of the 4th amendment. The worrisome part of this is that unlike many issues of a similar nature it is not individual bad apples in this case, but an actual policy and training issue offered to all of the officers involved.
The really troubling part is:
Quote:
The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, criticized the ruling, contending that the program, also known as Clean Halls, gave residents of the Bronx buildings “a modicum of safety for less prosperous tenants. Their landlords explicitly requested this extra level of protection.”
“Today’s decision unnecessarily interferes with the department’s efforts to use all of the crime-fighting tools necessary to keep Clean Halls buildings safe and secure,” he added.
|
The people in charge actually think that regularly violating people's rights for an admittedly small amount of additional safety is OK. It's unfortunate that in cases such as these that there are not serious repercussions for the higher ups that implemented the program as such. NYPD has frequently pushed the boundaries of their authority (such as operating not only outside of NYC, but outside of
New York state or the questionable bag searches on the subway for example). Yet programs are constantly implemented that go above and beyond, or should I say, below and around the very laws they're to enforce, without repercussion.
ETA: As one of our largest cities, it's scary to think that other police departments might look to them for ideas and inspiration on how to operate and what is and is not ok.