NYPD Illegally Using, Sharing Data From Sealed Cases, Class Complaint Says
The New York City Police Department's practice of using information from dismissed and sealed cases for everyday law enforcement operations, as well as sharing the information with fellow law enforcement agencies, violates state law, according to a suit filed on Tuesday.
April 24, 2018 at 04:50 PM
3 minute read
New York police car NYPD logo. Photo: flickr
The New York City Police Department's practice of using information from dismissed and sealed cases for everyday law enforcement operations, as well as sharing the information with fellow law enforcement agencies, violates state law, according to a suit filed on Tuesday.
The Bronx Defenders and attorneys from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton filed the proposed class action in Manhattan Supreme Court, alleging that the NYPD is violating a New York law passed in 1976 that was intended to prevent stigmatization of defendants who were charged with felonies and misdemeanors, but not convicted.
The use of sealed information disproportionately affects black and Hispanic defendants, the suit alleged, and the scope of the issue is potentially expansive: from 2014 to 2016, the suit stated, the department made 820,000 arrests in which it collected sensitive personal information like addresses, Social Security numbers and photographs and that more than 400,000 of those arrests should be sealed.
In the same time frame, the suit stated, there were more than 330,000 arrests of black and Hispanic defendants that should be sealed, compared with about 50,000 arrests of white defendants.
The information the NYPD collects is stored in several different databases, the suit alleged, and is used for criminal investigations and for various everyday police decisions, such as whether or not to arrest someone who would otherwise receive a civil summons and whether an arrestee should be labelled as a recidivist.
Information from sealed cases is also shared with prosecutors and sometimes the media, the suit alleged. Information from sealed cases might be used to shape plea agreements for defendants, the plaintiffs alleged, but that defense attorneys are often left in the dark as to whether or not sealed information about their clients is being relied upon until the eve of trial.
In a news release, Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, deputy director of The Bronx Defenders' impact litigation practice, said the NYPD's database “marks people for life,” even if they haven't been convicted of a crime.
“The NYPD's use of sealed records violates a law that protects privacy and the presumption of innocence. We seek to enforce the law and end an NYPD practice that places people of color at risk of heightened surveillance and harsher punishment based merely on allegations.”
A spokesman for the city's Law Department said in a brief statement that it would review the suit and respond in litigation.
New York's sealing statute, contained within Criminal Procedure Law §160, was later expanded to include defendants convicted of noncriminal offenses.
The statute requires law enforcement agencies to seal records of arrests that did not result in convictions and destroy or return photographs and fingerprints taken in the commission of those arrests.
Law enforcement agencies are required to get a court order to retain the information from arrests that do no ultimately turn out a conviction, the suit alleged, but the NYPD has failed to do so.
Over the last four years, the suit stated, the department has made 1.1 million arrests, of which more than 750,000 were for misdemeanors.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Support Magistrates: Statutorily Significant
- 2Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 3Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
- 4Monday Newspaper
- 5How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250