Trove of Documents Expected to Reveal NYPD's Asset Seizure Practices
The department handed over 160,000 documents related to a year's worth of seizures in the Bronx as part of a settlement agreement with The Bronx Defenders and Davis Wright Tremaine.
May 14, 2018 at 09:33 AM
4 minute read
The New York City Police Department will hand over 160,000 documents that chronicle the department's practice of seizing cash, cars and phones from Bronx residents between June 2016 and July 2017, public defenders in the Bronx announced Monday.
The hand-over is part of a settlement of litigation brought by The Bronx Defenders and Davis Wright Tremaine that challenged the department's refusal to provide substantial details about the department's property seizure and civil forfeiture policies through freedom of information requests.
The information, according to Bronx public defenders, will allow the first meaningful glimpse into the department's practices and their impact.
“Until today, the impact of the NYPD's seizure of property and cash has only been seen and felt by the low-income people of color it routinely affects, like our clients in the Bronx,” Adam Shoop, legal director at The Bronx Defenders, said in a statement. “This settlement will change that.”
The public defender organization filed a Freedom of Information Law request in 2014 in an attempt, the group says, to gather basic information around the millions of dollars of property that the NYPD seizes during arrests. The FOIL asked for details on how much is being seized, how much is kept as revenue, and how much is being returned to people arrested by the department.
After receiving what they describe as only a handful of documents, The Bronx Defenders sued in August 2016 to compel the department to respond to the information request.
What was public about the NYPD's seizure policies shows the department taking in, and keeping on hand, millions of dollars taken from arrestees. The Defenders noted that, historically, a single line in the department's budget, “Unclaimed Cash & Property Sale,” accounted for the department's handling of seized material.
In 2016, its most recent budget, the department identified $7.1 million it had taken in, but provided no additional details. While 2017 was not accounted for, 2018 was estimated to see the figure grow to $8.25 million.
Material provided in response to the Defenders' FOIL request last year showed the department's seizure policy has resulted in an even larger overall balance. According to the records provided, over the course of 2016 the balance of just seized currency by the NYPD ranged between $68 million and $72 million. By April 2017, the department reported that number had increased to more than $74 million.
According to the Defenders, throughout the litigation, the department has acknowledged it performs no accounting on its property seizure or forfeiture practices. A $25 million system the public defenders say is responsible for tracking property seizures lacks the ability to create reports.
The Bronx public defender organization said the 160,000 documents it's now received from the department will hopefully provide a detailed accounting of the department's practices, which the organization has promised to make public once its analysis is finished.
In a statement, a spokesman for the city's Law Department said the current system the NYPD has in place is used for the “efficient management” of seized material, “not for reporting out on various informational requests, especially since the system contains personal information of members of the public.”
“There has been no allegation that any of the assets were mishandled,” the spokesman's statement continued. “In an effort to be more transparent, the NYPD was able to provide information to satisfy the Bronx Defender's FOIL request and end the litigation while at the same time protecting the personal information in the database.”
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 AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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