New York Law Blog

There is a lot of talk in the blawgosphere this week regarding an incident that occurred last weekend in Times Square where a New York City police officer tackled a bicycle rider seemingly unprovoked at a rally. When the officer gave his statement to NYPD officials, he claimed that the particular cyclist was causing traffic issues and that he was ignoring several requests from the officer to stop, leaving the officer no choice but to use physical force to apprehend him. Little did the officer know that his lies would be caught on video tape and published for all the world to see on the popular internet video website YouTube. The video, which has had over one million views in just a week, shows quite the different story, one that has the officer actually tackling the cyclist completely unprovoked. With digital technology becoming so cheap and ubiquitous, are we now seeing a new trend in “documenting the truth”?

But this episode was not just a powerful crash between one bicyclist and a police officer. It may turn out to be yet another head-on collision between false stories told by some police officers in criminal court cases and documentary evidence that directly contradicts them. And while in many instances the inaccurate stories have been tolerated by police superiors and prosecutors, Officer Pogan’s account is getting high-level scrutiny.

The availability of cheap digital technology — video cameras, digital cameras, cellphone cameras — has ended a monopoly on the history of public gatherings that was limited to the official narratives, like the sworn documents created by police officers and prosecutors. The digital age has brought in free-range history.

Hundreds of cases against people arrested during the 2004 Republican National Convention collapsed under an avalanche of videotaped evidence that either completely contradicted police accounts, or raised significant questions about their reliability. The videotapes were made by people involved in the protests, bystanders, tourists and police officers.

Will this high profile case be enough to convince officers that they are not above the law and there are eyes everywhere? As digital media becomes even more prevalent in our society, it will become harder and harder to not have your side of the story documented for the world to see.

In a bit of news that could be considered “off the wall”, a resident of New York City going by the moniker of Jimmy Justice has taken it upon himself to catch New York City police officers and other city officials breaking the law while on the clock. His unusual vigilante methods? A video camera and popular video website YouTube. According to Mr. Justice, he’s been recording the illegal acts of city officials for roughly two years now, and likes to focus a lot of his time on catching NYPD in the act of traffic violations like parking near fire hydrants and in no-standing zones.

He said he started filming them because," New York City employs a system of predatory ticketing." "Traffic cops scour the streets looking for petty violations to write summonses. It is apparent that City Hall is not interested in public safety but rather using traffic law to raise revenue. I wanted to turn the tables on those who write the summonses, and I hoped to inspire some discretion in the manner that they ticket civilians."

Justice said he is not intimidated by law enforcement officials when he films them. "I know that I am allowed to take video in a public place, so I cannot be intimidated."

Mr. Justice claims that his tactics are actually working, and that city government officials are looking into some of the incidents that he has filmed. He says, "They have already investigated some of the officers who were caught abusing their authority in my videos. More importantly, the city has started to crack down on scofflaws who use their city issued parking placards improperly by parking illegally while running personal errands."

All of Jimmy Justice’s videos can be viewed on his

YouTube channel

.

Newsday reported last week on NYPD wanting suspects to sign consent forms before searching homes and cars, which would enable the police force to forego a warrant and would give them a little more legal protection. With consent searches frequently challenged at trials, NYPD is looking for a way to shore up the legalities of searches. The FBI currently uses this system, along with several other police departments in New York state, including Suffolk County.

Robert Thetford, a retired FBI agent who works closely with state troopers on constitutional law issues, says a signed consent form is typically the difference between a jury believing an officer or believing a suspect.

“The bottom line is juries believe what they see in writing,” he said.

But is this really an important measure? Or just more red tape being created by the NYPD? Simple Justice, a New York criminal defense blog had this to say about the proposed consent forms:

But before anybody gets too excited, and aside from the extremely cursory information in the Newsday article, this appears to be nothing more than another police procedure, or “best practices” type of rule, that is of absolutely no legal force and effect. In other words, while the police brass may want their cops to do it, that doesn’t mean that failure to obtain consent in writing undermines the claim of consent in the courtroom.

Will bringing consent forms into the equation help or hinder the process? Or is it just a quick fix to a problem that needs to be dealt with on a larger scale? When it comes to legalities, quick fixes are rarely the answer.