Mayor de Blasio defended the NYPD action of “tipping off ICE” regarding illegals facing criminal charges, stating “ICE has the ability to do its own independent action” and the city is “not in the position to stop” them.
“We think our law is just imbalanced,” de Blasio responded when asked about the collusion between the NYPD and ICE over an immigrant’s upcoming court appearance. “From what I heard, this doesn't tell us anything new or indicate any consistency. But in these two incidents, the individuals in question qualified under our law. And if we had clarify that these warrants were appropriate to turn them over, that is what our law says to do. If they weren't appropriate warrants, we didn't turn them over.”
de Blasio went on to say
…show more content…
We are not in the position to stop that. The central point here is we set the ground rules for the role we have to play in this equation and we do it in a consistent way so that people can have the confidence in dealing with the NYPD if they happened to be an immigrant.”
According to a report from the New York Daily News, the NYPD was defying Mayor de Blasio pledge to remain a sanctuary city by notifying federal immigration officials regarding illegal immigrant’s upcoming criminal court appearance.
In the report, the NYPD communicated with federal agency of the arrest of two illegal felons with outstanding warrants. The first individual, David Gonzalez, was a deported felon who re-entered the country illegal. On March 2, the NYPD “notified ICE” of Gonzalez arrest and was taken into ICE custody once the judge released him. The second individual, Milton Chimborazo, a prior felon, also had a warrant out for his deportation. The NYPD on March 15 also notified ICE and was “awaiting a call from local ICE office,” but ICE chose not to arrest Chimborazo “for reason that are unclear.”
Larry Byrne, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matter justified how ICE agents were notified of the two individuals from their arrest, not based off the NYPD contacting
The factor of racial profiling comes into play as federal grant programs award police for rounding up as many people as possible. This very tactic was demonstrated by the CompStat system in New York City and further expounded by Victor M. Rios’s analysis of the themes over-policing and under-policing. These themes focus on how officers, police certain kinds of deviance and crime such as, loitering, or disturbing the peace, while neglecting other instances when their help is needed . Rios also stresses how the accumulation of minor citations like the ones previously mentioned, play a crucial role in pipelining Black and Latino young males deeper into the criminal justice system. Rios implies that in order to decrease the chances with police interaction one must not physically appear in a way that catches the attention of a police or do anything behavior wise that would lead to someone labeling you as deviant . Unfortunately, over-policing has made it difficult even for those who actually do abide by social norms because even then, they have been victims of criminalization . However, since structural incentives like those that mimic CompStat are in place, police simply ignore constitutional rules and are able to get away with racial profiling, and thus interrogate, and search whomever they please. Since these targeted minorities acknowledge the fact that the police are not always present to enforce the law, they in turn learn strategies in order to protect themselves from violence that surrounds them. Young African American Americans and Latino youth thus become socialized in the “code of the street”, as the criminal justice system possesses no value in their
City of New York: The difficulty of proving fourteenth amendment violation” by David Clark, he writes about how the stop and frisk violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment by providing statistics. In this reading he mentions, “Although, these Fourth Amendment holdings are important, the most controversial holdings relate to the discriminatory intent behind the policy and the Fourteenth Amendment violation by the New York Police Department (N.Y.P.D.) in the way they carried out their stop and frisk program.” (Clark 342) which is true, because according to the fourth amendment no person should be searched or seized without warrant, unless it’s an reasonable suspicions and under the fourteenth amendment which protects individuals life, property and liberty which should not be violated by any governmental officials. However during stop and frisk police officers not just violating a person fourth amendment, but they also discriminating and abusing the humans rights. No person should receive a physical and verbal abuse, first and foremost it’s not just a discrimination, but also emotional and mental breakdown of the individual who is stopped and frisk even if the person is innocent. Clark also mentions “police departments can and should be better incentivized to follow protections offered by the Constitution with a Fourteenth Amendment exclusionary rule for unlawful, racially selective stops.” (Clark 343) meaning that
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
The legislative branch is the branch that makes the law, for the good of the people through congress. They declared that any arrested or suspect in custody was to be read and completely understand their rights from the Supreme Court which they agreed too and redirected back to the judicial branch. Yet they make it clear to the officers that they do have to read them and make sure that they understand all of their rights. To know that they understand the officer would ask them do you understand and most would expect a yes or no answer. Many officers would recite the speech in a second language, most commonly Spanish.
Police justify carding as a general investigation to locate suspects and help people fight crime. Toronto Police Service says that “It does not purposefully target individuals because of their race” (SAMIRA MOHYEDDIN, Nov 24 2016). However that being said, racialized communities testify that they are being targeted for their race and ethnicity. The new rule doesn’t fully end the controversial practice and carding remains a major concern for the minority community. Sandy Hudson, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto says “the new rule doesn’t make any great change” (Muriel Draaisma, Jan 02, 2017). “Where these rules apply- and where they don’t- doesn’t change anything about carding”, she also said “A police officer can always say they are
...gainst New York cops since 1993, only 180 officers have been disciplined, most of them with just a lecture or the loss of a vacation day" (26). Officers need to be treated like citizens when it comes to that type of crime. They should be sent to jail and just saying sorry should not let them off the hook. They may be law officers, but they are not gods and they should have to face the consequences of their actions as all good citizens must.
of the NYCPD is to enhance the quality of life in the city by working in partnership with
I asked Inmate Dennis if he was being resistant, did he pull or push away from the officers as they were walking him down the hallway and he said “No. Not at all. I just kept telling them to let me walk and to quit fucking me off.” I asked if he said anything threatening to the officers as they were walking down the hallway and he said, “No. Not at all. I didn’t spit or nothing. They thought I was going to spit.” I asked him why the officers would think he was going to spit if he wasn’t being aggressive or resistant and he stated, “I was yelling and moving my head around. So they probably thought I was going to spit on
A key component in Hoback’s narration is the use of personal testimonies to establish the overly controlling government. Hoback interviews a seventh-grade boy, Vito, who was interrogated by the secret service due to a social media post he had made, and his mother. Feeling worried about President Obama, Vito had tweeted that the President needed to be extra cautious for “suicide bombers” (Terms and Conditions May Apply). The government did not consider his age, or that his comment about Obama needing to watch out was one of concern. The machine simply determined that based on a series of words, Vito was a potential threat. Hoback further establishes his argument through Joe Lipari’s testimony. After a long, unfulfilling day at the Apple store, Lipari decided to unwind with the movie Fight Club and social media. Quoting the movie, Lipari changed his Facebook status to read: “Might snap and then stalk to the Apple store with an Armalite AR-10” (Terms and Conditions May Apply). Almost immediately after changing his status, NYPD S.W.A.T knocked on his door and pillaged his house. When Lipari asked them how they knew about his status update, the police claimed on of his “Facebook friends called 911” (cite); however, there was no record of such a 911 call. After this was established they said someone came into the police station; once again, Lipari debunked this theory because his location was not a subject many knew about: he had not even updated his mailing address yet. No crimes were committed in these cases, yet both citizens will have to face court for over year. The answer is not to take away the capacity of looking at the public actions of citizens and keeping a record of them. The solution is to make sure that elect better
The book, Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), takes place in China, during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty took place from 618-907 CE and included both Confucian and Legalist influences. Located in the Province of Shantung, is the town district called Chang-Ping, where Dee Goong An served as the town 's magistrate. A magistrate is a judge, detective, and peacekeeper who captures criminals and is responsible for their punishments. The people of China looked at magistrates as the "mother and father" of their town. Magistrates received a large amount of respect from the people due to the amount of authority and power they had. With so many people relying on him to make their home
This essay will bring to light the problem of racial profiling in the police force and propose the eradication of any discrimination. The Fourth Amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Despite this right, multiple minorities across the country suffer at the hands of police officers through racial profiling; the singling out of a person or persons as the main suspect of a crime based on their race. Many people have also suffered the loss of a loved one because police believed the suspect to be a threat based on their races therefore the officers use their authority to take out the “threat”. Although racial profiling may make sense to police officers in the line of duty, through the eyes of the public and those affected by police actions, it is a form a racism that is not being confronted and is allowing unjust convictions and deaths.
“When officers use the color of a person’s skin without using other identifying factors, they are guilty of Racial Profiling.” (Para 11). Therefore, if a cop uses the color of a person’s skin, the way they dress, or their religious preference as a basis for that person’s arrest without good reason, the officer is at fault for any wrong doing to the person they are targeting. Since this is the case, steps are being made to enforce the end of Racial Profiling. Democratic Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland is already working on pushing a policy called the End Racial Profiling Act. “First, the bill prohibits the use of racial profiling—using a standard definition—that includes race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. All law enforcement agencies would be prohibited from using racial profiling in criminal or routine law enforcement investigations, immigration enforcement, and national security cases” (Cardin Para 9). This bill would enforce law enforcement agencies to get rid of any practices that would encourage racial profiling and help bring in new policies to avoid it in the future. People are making a difference in how much power police have over innocent
...iod, accepts that the system is so unjust and segregated that he can only accept how it is. This quote also explains that our justice system isn’t completely clear or fair. If the majority of people will something to happen legally, almost no matter how prejudiced, those people will make it happen.
Even before the stop are made (add comma after made?) cops watch possible suspects of any suspicious activity even without any legal right. “Plainclothes officers known as “rakers” were dispatched into ethnic communities, where they eavesdropped on conversations and wrote daily reports on what they heard, often without any allegation of criminal wrong doing.” (NYPD Racial Profiling 1) This quote explains how even before a citizen is officially stopped by a cop, there are times when that they have already had their personal conversations assessed without their knowledge or without them having done any wrong acts. It was done, based solely on their ethnicity and social status alone. (you can add an example of what the people, who were being watched, were doing) Then (comma?) when police are out watching the streets, they proceed to stop people again simply based on racial profiling. In an article called Watching Certain People by Bob Herbert, stated that “not only are most of the people innocent but a vast majority are either black or Hispanic” (Herbert 1). Racism is happening before the suspect even gets a chance to explain themselves or be accused of any crime, and the rules of being able to do such a thing are becoming even more lenient so that police are able to perform such actions. “The rule requiring police to
Another way we can make sure the law enforcement officers are doing their jobs right is by making sure they are protecting our people. For instance Karim Baker was ruthlessly assaulted by a gang of police for unwittingly gave the wrong person directions, during the NYPD’s investigation, officers noticed the encounter between Baker and Brinsley on surveillance footage and began to blame Baker for what happened later that day. They then began to stalk and harass Baker, pulling him over for no reason more than 20 times in just a few months, and never giving him a ticket for any infraction. When Baker finally objected to the harassment, he was beaten mercilessly to the point of