Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/3/2004 9:14:25 AM EST
Story Here....



BY HELEN PETERSON
BARBARA ROSS
and GREG B. SMITH
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Elspeth Schell, 60, awaits the release of her daughter 30 hours after she was arrested.
Protestors stage a demonstration along Eighth Avenue while President Bush attended the GOP convention yesterday.
A judge ordered the release yesterday of more than 500 people arrested in convention protests - and fined the city for holding demonstrators too long in legal limbo.

Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice John Cataldo whacked the city $1,000 per arrestee not released by his deadline of 5 p.m. yesterday, with the total fine potentially approaching $500,000.

"These people have already been the victims of a process," Cataldo declared in ordering the immediate release of 560 people held more than 24 hours - as long as 67 hours, in some cases.

Cataldo took the unusual step of holding the city in contempt after the National Lawyers Guild, the Legal Aid Society and civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel filed suit to get the prisoners released. By 11:15 last night, all but six of the 560 had been sprung, the city said. Five of the remaining detainees were awaiting arraignment on felony charges.

Siegel called the ruling "historic." City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo called it "wrong," saying officials were going as fast as they could.

Cardozo said there were more than four times as many arrests as usual Tuesday, when demonstrators showed up unannounced at more than a dozen spots in the city.

Police sources also said that FBI computers needed to do background checks went down for 12 hours beginning late Tuesday night.

But many of those arrested said they were not even protesting when they were swept up by cops, who corralled crowds with plastic nets. Demonstrators and others arrested complained they were held in a filthy holding pen on Pier 57 or in courthouse basement cells for more than 24 hours.

By late yesterday, the city had reported 1,796 convention arrests - including a record 1,000 busts made within four hours on Tuesday night. More than 1,100 of those arrested are from out of state, cops said.

Though plenty of judges were ready to handle cases, police dragged their feet in processing the detainees, protesters and lawyers charged.

"There's no doubt that with the mayor's office and NYPD, this is an intentional ploy to keep \[protesters\] off the streets, even if that means violating the Constitution," said attorney Robert Gottlieb.

Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne vehemently denied the accusation, calling it "part of a deliberate misinformation campaign" that included a bogus NYPD memo circulated by protesters.

Numerous demonstrators complained about getting rashes and chemical burns from the oily floors of the holding pen at Pier 57, a bus depot. But Mayor Bloomberg scoffed at those complaints yesterday, stating, "The conditions are fine."

One by one, arrestees stumbled out of court, filthy and sleep-deprived, and were greeted by a cheering crowd of supporters outside Manhattan Criminal Court on Centre St.

Sebastian Licht of Connecticut said he was celebrating his 22nd birthday when he got caught in a police sweep of Herald Square on Tuesday.

Shahrzad Ghadjar, 15, and Andrea Scharf, 17, said they were arrested on their way to the movie "The Village."

Tom Roderick, 61, a veteran of the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests in Chicago, waited nervously for his daughters, Emma Rose, 19, and Anne Marie, 16. "I miss them very much," he said - 44 hours after the teens were arrested.

With Kerry Burke, Nancy Dillon and Adam Lisberg



Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:23:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:34:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:
Police sources also said that FBI computers needed to do background checks went down for 12 hours beginning late Tuesday night.




This is a commonplace abomination for which I have never seen a sliver of constitutional authority. Turn a guy in and simultaneously post bond, and he will be detained for an indeterminate period for "clearance," which means "for the completion of a background check to see if he is wanted for anything else." Guess what? The police have no right to hold him without suspicion to see if he's wanted somewhere else. The sole basis for the incarceration is the instant offense, and if bond has been posted, the right to detain him has evaporated. I have even seen bailiffs take an acquitted defendant back to the jail for "outprocessing." I have successfully raised hell over that with my clients, pointing out that it is illegal to lock people up in order to allow the completion of paperwork.

I had a prosecutor say, in connection with a request for continued detention of a defendant "to get things sorted out," that it was no big deal as it would take only a day or two. I told the judge that I agreed, provided the prosecutor was also remanded until the matter was resolved. It is, after all, only a couple of days. The judge laughed and denied the request.

Holding people in jail for administrative convenience or social prophylaxis really chaps my ass.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:35:21 AM EST
I'm all for a fair and speedy trial, but I have little sympathy for these idiots. Have you ever noticed how it's always liberal idiots involved in this stuff? I mean, when was the last time that you had crowds of conservative protestors dragged from a DNC convention. Oh, don't get me wrong here... the dems would have a protestor dragged out faster than snot (and they have done that), but it's so rare -- because conservatives don't run around acting like total idiots and assclowns.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:41:26 AM EST
The Great New York City Hippie Round-Up


They should make it an annual event.
Except instead of locking them up near the river, they should just drive the whole herd of 'em INTO the Hudson.
Like the lemmings they are.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:41:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sweep:
Wonder how many of them were giving their name as "John Doe"? FOr those I have no sympathy for.



I read an article about a judge who was keeping them locked up until they gave correct names.

They were trying to muck up the system, and Cataldo is abetting people who were making a mockery of the legal syste.

Shame.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:49:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:50:25 AM EST
Until one of the fucks turns out to be a child molester, rapist, murderer or terrorist.
Fuck them and fuck people who think like you.
Don't want to go to jail?
Don't fucking break the law.



Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

This is a commonplace abomination for which I have never seen a sliver of constitutional authority. Turn a guy in and simultaneously post bond, and he will be detained for an indeterminate period for "clearance," which means "for the completion of a background check to see if he is wanted for anything else." Guess what? The police have no right to hold him without suspicion to see if he's wanted somewhere else. The sole basis for the incarceration is the instant offense, and if bond has been posted, the right to detain him has evaporated. I have even seen bailiffs take an acquitted defendant back to the jail for "outprocessing." I have successfully raised hell over that with my clients, pointing out that it is illegal to lock people up in order to allow the completion of paperwork.

I had a prosecutor say, in connection with a request for continued detention of a defendant "to get things sorted out," that it was no big deal as it would take only a day or two. I told the judge that I agreed, provided the prosecutor was also remanded until the matter was resolved. It is, after all, only a couple of days. The judge laughed and denied the request.

Holding people in jail for administrative convenience or social prophylaxis really chaps my ass.

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:51:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:52:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Until one of the fucks turns out to be a child molester, rapist, murderer or terrorist.
Fuck them and fuck people who think like you. and fuck the Constitution.
Don't want to go to jail?
Don't fucking break the law.



Fixed it for you. You need to learn to say what you mean.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:56:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 9:56:45 AM EST by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By brasspile:

It is messed up.

Imagine the backlash when 6 months from now a guy is arrested for rape, and was found to be held in NYC Jail w/outstanding warrant, but was released because he gave incorrect name and was never questioned....



The backlash should be against whoever was responsible for executing the warrant. Despite the common practice, "executing a warrant" means "hunting for the BG and arresting him," not "entering the warrant in NCIC and hoping the guy gets stopped for something else."
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 9:59:05 AM EST

Let jailed activists go ?


No problem...






which exit are they coming out of ?
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:01:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:02:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By osprey21:

Let jailed activists go ?


No problem...


www.billings.com.cn/image/riflescopes/illuminated/glass_etched_reticle.jpg



which exit are they coming out of ?





I like how you think.

John Edwards FLAL1A....You defend rioting hippies???
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:03:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:10:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:

John Edwards FLAL1A....You defend rioting hippies???



None so far. The point is simply that there are a number of good reasons to keep people in jail, but combing through records isn't one of them. Once you have a valid name and address so the guy can be hunted down if he fails to appear in court, and bond has been posted, you're done. It's fine by me if records are run during booking, if it doesn't extend the time of detention. Keeping an identified person who has posted bond in jail because it is theoretically possible that he's wanted for something else or wanted by another jurisdiction is no different from just cuffing people at random and locking them up so that you can run them through NCIC - you never know, right?

It's identical to the traffic stop/dog sniff situation. An officer can get a K9 on the scene and run the dog around the car during the traffic stop, but he can't detain the motorist at the roadside beyond the end of the traffic stop to wait for the dog.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:12:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:16:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
It's identical to the traffic stop/dog sniff situation. An officer can get a K9 on the scene and run the dog around the car during the traffic stop, but he can't detain the motorist at the roadside beyond the end of the traffic stop to wait for the dog.



So at this point do you comply and its fruit of the tree or resist delay???

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:16:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 10:17:22 AM EST by Torf]
It isn't like these folks are terrorists in Afganistan or anything, they are shitty citizens of the country and are thus afforded Constitutional protections. They should get the same due process rights that us gun-nuts should get.

I agree with FLAL1A.

edited: DAMN! Campybob beat me to it!
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:24:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/3/2004 10:24:36 AM EST by KA3B]
"I suspect that since they were arrested for breaking the law they might have other outstanding charges against them for previous breaking the law arrests / charges."

Works for me.



Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
Guess what? The police have no right to hold him without suspicion to see if he's wanted somewhere else. The sole basis for the incarceration is the instant offense, and if bond has been posted, the right to detain him has evaporated.

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:28:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
It's identical to the traffic stop/dog sniff situation. An officer can get a K9 on the scene and run the dog around the car during the traffic stop, but he can't detain the motorist at the roadside beyond the end of the traffic stop to wait for the dog.



So at this point do you comply and its fruit of the tree or resist delay???




You comply. The odd thing is that while a dirtbag with contraband in his car has the remedy of suppression (the dope will never come into evidence), you and I will just lose the half hour, and maybe file a complaint with internal.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 10:40:37 AM EST
oh please. 99 % of these assholes are just going to be conveniently forgotten by the system.

And you don't want to go to jail? Well then don't break the law assmuncher! And no, you can't tell me that 1100 arrests in one day constitutes a "peaceful" protest.

Besides, I thought that the only constitutional protection on protesting only applied to peaceable protest of the government... since when did the GOP become a governmental entity?
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:02:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
oh please. 99 % of these assholes are just going to be conveniently forgotten by the system.

And you don't want to go to jail? Well then don't break the law assmuncher! And no, you can't tell me that 1100 arrests in one day constitutes a "peaceful" protest.

Besides, I thought that the only constitutional protection on protesting only applied to peaceable protest of the government... since when did the GOP become a governmental entity?



Well... that makes great sense. I can only stand outside with a sign against a canidate once he/she has been elected? Little late to voice my opposition isn't it? The right to assemble has only one qualifier I know of... peacefully
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:24:51 AM EST
Got to go with FLAL1A on this one,I don't like these morons any more than most,
but whats right is right for all.

GM



Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By CavVet:

John Edwards FLAL1A....You defend rioting hippies???



None so far. The point is simply that there are a number of good reasons to keep people in jail, but combing through records isn't one of them. Once you have a valid name and address so the guy can be hunted down if he fails to appear in court, and bond has been posted, you're done. It's fine by me if records are run during booking, if it doesn't extend the time of detention. Keeping an identified person who has posted bond in jail because it is theoretically possible that he's wanted for something else or wanted by another jurisdiction is no different from just cuffing people at random and locking them up so that you can run them through NCIC - you never know, right?

It's identical to the traffic stop/dog sniff situation. An officer can get a K9 on the scene and run the dog around the car during the traffic stop, but he can't detain the motorist at the roadside beyond the end of the traffic stop to wait for the dog.

Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:32:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By CavVet:
Police sources also said that FBI computers needed to do background checks went down for 12 hours beginning late Tuesday night.




This is a commonplace abomination for which I have never seen a sliver of constitutional authority. Turn a guy in and simultaneously post bond, and he will be detained for an indeterminate period for "clearance," which means "for the completion of a background check to see if he is wanted for anything else." Guess what? The police have no right to hold him without suspicion to see if he's wanted somewhere else. The sole basis for the incarceration is the instant offense, and if bond has been posted, the right to detain him has evaporated.



BS.

Bail cannot even be reasonably set until a criminal history check is completed. A person who has never been in trouble before will typically have a very low bond. However someone who has an extensive criminal history, will command a much higher bail.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 11:56:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 12:01:40 PM EST
"There's no doubt that with the mayor's office and NYPD, this is an intentional ploy to keep \[protesters\] off the streets, even if that means violating the Constitution," said attorney Robert Gottlieb.

Fuck'm. THEY want to take away my Constitutional Rights, why in the hell do I care if they lose theirs for a day or two?
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 2:13:17 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 2:16:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Until one of the fucks turns out to be a child molester, rapist, murderer or terrorist.
Fuck them and fuck people who think like you. and fuck the Constitution.
Don't want to go to jail?
Don't fucking break the law.



Fixed it for you. You need to learn to say what you mean.



+1
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 2:19:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By CavVet:
Police sources also said that FBI computers needed to do background checks went down for 12 hours beginning late Tuesday night.




This is a commonplace abomination for which I have never seen a sliver of constitutional authority. Turn a guy in and simultaneously post bond, and he will be detained for an indeterminate period for "clearance," which means "for the completion of a background check to see if he is wanted for anything else." Guess what? The police have no right to hold him without suspicion to see if he's wanted somewhere else. The sole basis for the incarceration is the instant offense, and if bond has been posted, the right to detain him has evaporated.



BS.

Bail cannot even be reasonably set until a criminal history check is completed. A person who has never been in trouble before will typically have a very low bond. However someone who has an extensive criminal history, will command a much higher bail.



In Florida, a warrant must show the bond amount on its face. In many jurisdictions, there is a set bond schedule for on-view arrests organized according to the degree or severity of the offense, in order to allow people to bond out without waiting in jail overnight. Sure, a background check will disclose information relevant to the bond amount, but if your reading comprehension lessons take, you'll see that the situation under discussion in that post is one in which the bond amount is known, and the bond is posted, but the subject continues to be detained so that the authorities can do other things - none of which other things constitutes a lawful basis for detention.

So BS yourself, sport.
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 2:20:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB:
i'll take constitutional law for $1000, alex!

what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

gunowners and hippies have the same rights.



You are 100% correct. I find it strange that some on ARFCOM are disturbed by dissent in the US. I wonder how they think this (the USA) all started ?
Link Posted: 9/3/2004 2:20:50 PM EST
On topic, I dont see any problem with them being properly booked, background checked, etc.

On a routine traffic stop the police know if I have an outstanding warrant, etc. Durin an arrest, I would expect they have processing procedures to insure proper identification and as soon as identity is confirmed, it only takes a minute to find out if presumed innocent arrested protester is indeed wanted.

I bet they let all kinds of wanted fugitives from justice go thanks to slimeball lawyers shoving a gallon thru a straw.


Link Posted: 9/3/2004 2:26:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Until one of the fucks turns out to be a child molester, rapist, murderer or terrorist.
Fuck them and fuck people who think like you. and fuck the Constitution.
Don't want to go to jail?
Don't fucking break the law.



Fixed it for you. You need to learn to say what you mean.



+1
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 4:30:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 4:31:20 AM EST by tcsd1236]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
. I have even seen bailiffs take an acquitted defendant back to the jail for "outprocessing." I have successfully raised hell over that with my clients, pointing out that it is illegal to lock people up in order to allow the completion of paperwork.

Holding people in jail for administrative convenience or social prophylaxis really chaps my ass.



We tried that around here for a very short while; we were told that we had to immediately release a defendant at court and couldn't take them back to the jail for out precessing. Guess what you have then: a bunch of guys running around the city in orange jumpsuits marked "County Jail" on the back, because thats what they wore to court. It didn't sit well with the local populace or the city PD, which had to deal with the "escaped convict" calls. The reality is that there is a certain amount of basic amount of out-processing that does need to take place: returning personal property to the inmate ( including money from their commisary account), verifying the county gets all of ITS property back and accounted for....bottom line is that we now bring them back, it takes all of about 10 minutes to do the oput-processing, and they are on their way.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 4:42:02 AM EST
Bail is posted on the warrant, as for processing, everyone is processed for detainers. If you are released by the courts you are not uncuffed in court. The court sends the paperwork over, then you are checked and verified, then released....that my friend is Jail! You don't like it don't come here!
Top Top