Alleged NYPD Interrogation on Political Stances of Protesters Is Challenged by Attorneys
The arrestees were questioned by NYPD officials and FBI agents despite being arrested on minor charges, including curfew violations, according to the letter, which was put to city lawyers by attorneys who won a 1971 case restricting the questioning of protesters.
June 09, 2020 at 05:43 PM
3 minute read
Attorneys involved in an almost 50-year-old case in the Southern District of New York sent a series of questions to the New York City Law Department on Monday, asking whether the New York City Police Department is illegally interrogating people arrested during police brutality protests about their political affiliations.
The arrestees were questioned by NYPD officials and FBI agents despite being arrested on minor charges, including curfew violations, according to the letter, which was put to city lawyers by attorneys who won a 1971 case restricting the questioning of protesters.
Handschu v. Special Services Division, which was filed in 1971 in connection with police surveillance of anti-war protesters, led to the creation of the "Handschu guidelines," which have been revised over the years but continue to govern when and how the NYPD can investigate political and religious activities.
"We have been here before," attorney Martin Stolar wrote in Monday's letter.
Similar issues arose as recently as 2014, when arrestees protesting the killing of Eric Garner were questioned about their "political and associational activities," Stolar wrote.
In 2015, Lawrence Byrne, then-NYPD deputy commissioner for legal matters, informed Handschu class counsel and the court that the questioning of people arrested during protests required "explicit advanced authorization by the [NYPD] Legal Bureau … to ensure that the Handschu guidelines are either not applicable to such questioning or are fully complied with if applicable."
Stolar and his colleagues saw Byrne's letter as a positive step, they wrote, which made recent reports all the more concerning.
Protesters arrested in the past two weeks have reportedly been asked questions including "What do you know about antifa?" "What do you do to organize protests?" and "What social media accounts do you follow?" along with other inquiries related to social media activity, protest leadership and alleged membership in antifa or anarchist groups, according to the letter.
Stolar and his colleagues asked the Law Department to inquire as to whether the NYPD is currently complying with Byrne's 2015 directive. They also asked a series of questions about how many protesters have been interrogated and by whom, along with any legal justification for the questions.
In a statement, New York City Law Department spokesman Nick Paolucci said the department is reviewing the allegations with the NYPD and will respond.
"The NYPD is committed to adhering to the Handschu guidelines," Paolucci said.
Read more:
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 AllNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readSidley Austin Scores Landmark Civil Rights Verdict Against Prolonged Solitary Confinement in State Prisons
Cuomo Spokesman Sues Wigdor, Alleging Their Lawsuit on Behalf of Trooper Was 'Legally Baseless'
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Monsanto Moves to Pause PCB Trial That Starts This Week
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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