Attorneys Sue NYPD for Body Cam Footage From Fatal Shooting of Mentally Disturbed Man
As part of a broad effort to change how police confront civilians with mental illness, a group of attorneys has sued the New York City Police Department to obtain raw body camera footage from the fatal shooting last year of a man suffering from an apparent mental health crisis.
July 19, 2018 at 05:52 PM
4 minute read
As part of a broad effort to change how police confront civilians with mental illness, a group of attorneys has sued the New York City Police Department to obtain raw body camera footage from the fatal shooting last year of a man suffering from an apparent mental health crisis. New York Lawyers for the Public Interest has teamed up with attorneys from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy to file an Article 78 challenge to the NYPD's refusal to release unredacted body cam footage from the fatal shooting in September of Miguel Richards in his apartment in the Bronx. The effort to push the NYPD to release additional footage from the shooting is one front in a larger campaign to get the department to change its approach to dealing with subjects with mental health issues, said Ruth Lowenkron of the NYLPI, which should include better training for officers and rethinking procedures when police arrive to a scene. Richards' death is one of 10 in the last two years in which officers shot and killed someone who appeared to be mentally disturbed, Lowenkron said. It was also the first fatal shooting by police captured on body-worn cameras after the April 2017 launch of a court-ordered program to equip officers with cameras. “My office is working hard to deal with the huge number of people with mental health crises who are shot and killed by police,” Lowenkron said. According to the suit, filed on Thursday in Manhattan Supreme Court, officers were dispatched to Richards' apartment after his landlord contacted police out of concern that he hadn't seen or heard from Richards, a college exchange student from Jamaica, for several days, and that his knocks on Richards' door were going unanswered. The landlord let officers into Richards' apartment, the complaint said, and Richards was found apparently in the throes of a mental health episode: he was wearing sunglasses, standing motionless against his bedroom wall and, officers said, holding a knife in one hand and what appeared to be a firearm—but what later turned out to be a toy gun—in the other. A 15-minute standoff ensued, the complaint said, with Richards continuing to stand motionless and officers, with weapons drawn, repeatedly telling Richards to drop the knife. The officers were also shouting statements that, Lowenkron said, didn't appear to do much to de-escalate the situation—“This isn't going to end well,” officers could be heard saying on a tape of the incident, as well as asking Richards, “Do you want to die?” The incident ended with officers shooting Richards 16 times. A week after the shooting, the NYPD released a compilation of body cam footage from four of the eight officers at the scene. But NYLPI alleges that the videos released to the public didn't include footage taken from some of the officers there released no footage of the aftermath of the shooting. NYLPI filed a request under the Freedom of Information Law to obtain unredacted footage of the shooting, but the NYPD provided “heavily redacted” footage in response to the request, with portions muted and blurred, citing FOIL exemptions for unwanted invasions of privacy and endangering lives and safety, as well as a public records exemption under the controversial Civil Rights Law 50-a. Under the 50-a exemption, which allows police to keep disciplinary records secret, the NYLPI said the NYPD had argued in a separate suit filed by a police union that 50-a doesn't apply to body-cam footage. The department reversed its position on the 50-a exemption and released two additional videos, the suit alleges, but has stuck with the remaining FOIL exemptions. NYLPI attorney Stuart Parker and Milbank attorneys Jed Schwartz, Benjamin Reed and Marion Burke also appear on the complaint. A Law Department spokesman said the department would review the complaint and “respond accordingly.”
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 2Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 3US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 4Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 5McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
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