
Notes from Bushwick
Our little organization, which will be known as the Civil Liberties Reclamation Project until such time as someone provides me with a more inspiring name, is off to a fine start. Founded in an effort to address the unfortunate prevalence of illegal police searches in our community, the CLRP will concern itself with educating Bushwick residents about their Fourth Amendment rights as well as their potential avenues of recourse on such occasions as those rights are violated. So far we’ve recruited several capable lawyers including my old friend Mirna Hariz, who’s moving to New York in a couple of weeks and who’ll otherwise be engaged in representing those firefighters who have suffered health problems in the aftermath of the WTC cleanup. We’re still looking for a couple of other people with relevant backgrounds in activism, law, and making a pest of one’s self. I’d also like to replace myself as operational head of the organization as soon as possible in order that I might serve instead as director of communications; if you’d like to run your very own civil liberties advocacy group, let me know.
Incidentally, we may have our first case even at this early point, which goes to show how common this problem is; two Puerto Ricans were arrested at the Nightline Deli on Broadway last week in front of several witnesses and in a manner that appears to be have been unconstitutional. Both were charged with possession of a controlled substance, in this case a single hit of ecstasy each. Something tells me that any lab test undertaken will show the pills to be of something lower on the totem poll than MDMA; with all due respect to the natives, I’m from Dallas, which is where the ecstasy scene first developed, and I was unfortunate enough to be heavily exposed to the rave scene in Austin back around the turn of the century, and these little pills that folks up here are always selling each other aren’t ecstasy. A 17-year-old Houston girl would laugh right in your face if you tried to sell her one of these stupid little things. But I digress.
Notes from the Outside World
You probably think that you’re aware of the extent to which the conservative commentariat has degenerated over the past twenty years. You’re not. Consider this fellow. He’s a former editor of The Washington Times and the co-author of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party which he wrote with Lynn Vincent, who herself just ghosted Palin’s Going Rogue. He’s an allegedly respectable conservative blogger with connections to a genuinely respectable number of allegedly respectable politicians and pundits. But he may very well be the worst behaved of any American pundit of whom I’m aware.
A week back, the Charleston Gazette characterized Robert Stacy McCain as a "white supremacist." In response, he threatened on at least three different occasions to actually drive over to the Gazette’s office and do some unspecified awesome thing that may or may not involve a duel or some such nonsense. A few hours later, he learned that I’d also accused him of racism in an article that appeared in The Huffington Post last month, at which point he proclaimed: "Barrett Brown – he’ll get his in turn." Upon discovering that I serve as director of communications for Enlighten the Vote, he posted some sort of wacked-out toy fascist proclamation to the effect that Samson killed a great number of Philistines. And watch him give a speech. I feel like a douchebag just for talking about him.
To My Downstairs Neighbors
I’m sensing some real hostility here, and I want to assure you that we have every intention of cooperating with you to resolve this problem that has been tearing our two small enclaves apart at a time in which solidarity is required. As I’ve explained previously, we don’t know why your bathroom has water leaking into it, and we can all assure you that we are doing nothing other than taking showers and washing dishes in accordance with the way in which such things are usually done. As I showed you earlier this afternoon, our bathroom floor is bone dry. We’re not letting our bathtub overflow or anything like that. Insomuch as that the landlord has already sent someone over to examine our bathroom only to determine that there is no problem there, we are of the opinion that the matter may be most reasonably attributed to an irregularity with the plumbing somewhere between the top two floors and your bathroom. Incidentally, I called the landlord again today and informed him of the problem. We’re not sure why you ran off this afternoon while I was showing you our bathroom. That’s kind of strange.





BrooklynJTrain October 14th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Without copying and pasting your entire paragraph… i ask the following:
“manner that appears to be unconstitutional” – what happened that appeared to be unconstitutional? Was there an exchange of money for the pill? you are leaving quite a bit up to the imagination here. Quite typical
“any lab test undertaken will show the pills to be of something lower on the totem poll than MDMA” – So this is your basis for the stop being unconstitutional? you assume that the pills will come back negative for drugs? FYI: even if they did come back negative the stop is still justified if there was a hand to hand exchange.
“I was unfortunate enough to be heavily exposed to the rave scene” – So because of your previous drug use you are now an expert and can determine what is ecstacy merely by looking at a pill?
“I’d also like to replace myself as operational head of the organization as soon as possible” – Best idea you had yet. Obviously you have not a clue as what you are talking about when it comes to legalities of civil right violations.
Maybe one of your “capable lawyers” would like to chime in on the legalities here. Im curious what they have to say.
Barrett Brown October 14th, 2009 at 1:19 am
“what happened that appeared to be unconstitutional?”
The problem is that nothing seems to have happened that would have made the search constitutional; they were not observed buying or selling any drugs, the two of them having obtained these pills some hours before.
“So [the alleged lack of MDMA] is your basis for the stop being unconstitutional?”
Of course not.
“So because of your previous drug use you are now an expert and can determine what is ecstacy merely by looking at a pill?”
Not exactly. Let’s say you live in a community where kids are constantly being sold oregano passed off as weed. It would not be amiss to suspect that a random kid who thinks he has weed actually has oregano.
“Obviously you have not a clue as what you are talking about when it comes to legalities of civil right violations.”
From your past comments, it’s obvious that you have no concern for the Fourth Amendment in the first place and consider most anything a cop does in the line of duty to be justified. You’re not exactly our target demographic.
“Maybe one of your ‘capable lawyers’ would like to chime in on the legalities here.”
At some point we’ll be posting a FAQ regarding the Fourth Amendment and how it’s currently applied to searches such as these. We’ll most likely have more to say about the particulars of this case in the near future.
Dresden October 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am
How many Police Officers are there in the NYPD?
The NYPD’s current authorized uniformed strength is 37,038, which is scheduled to increase to 37,838 in January 2007.
What is a Stop, Question and Frisk encounter?
When a police officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, the officer is authorized by NYS Criminal Procedure law 140.50 to stop, question and possibly frisk that individual. This frequently asked question is also available in the following languages: Spanish, Russian, Korean, Italian, French Creole and Chinese. Click a language below.
Dresden October 14th, 2009 at 10:21 am
S 140.50 Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for weapons.
1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
arrest without a warrant, a police officer may stop a person in a public
place located within the geographical area of such officer`s employment
when he reasonably suspects that such person is committing, has
committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
explanation of his conduct.
2. Any person who is a peace officer and who provides security
services for any court of the unified court system may stop a person in
or about the courthouse to which he is assigned when he reasonably
suspects that such person is committing, has committed or is about to
commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal
law, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his
conduct.
3. When upon stopping a person under circumstances prescribed in
subdivisions one and two a police officer or court officer, as the case
may be, reasonably suspects that he is in danger of physical injury, he
may search such person for a deadly weapon or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing serious physical injury and of a
sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons. If
he finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession
of which he reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a
crime, he may take it and keep it until the completion of the
questioning, at which time he shall either return it, if lawfully
possessed, or arrest such person.
Dresden October 14th, 2009 at 10:25 am
It seems to me, Barrett Brown, the police are within their rights, despite the Fourth Ammendment. Regarding the facts of criminal activity within certain areas, police searching citizens conducting suspicious or violent behaviour seems to be the law of the land. You’re going to get nowhere.
Barrett Brown October 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am
All of this hinges on the term “when he reasonably suspects” – thus, it’s a matter of what can be said to constitute reasonable suspicion. That’s where the case law often ends up playing out.
Dresden October 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
And that’s where the cops are going to win, and where you are going to lose.
Barrett Brown October 14th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
That’s not the opinion of those I’ve spoken to with years of experience in these matters; they wouldn’t be volunteering their time and effort for this project if they weren’t already aware that cases such as these are often won.
angry guy at the archive October 14th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
i probably agree with your political intuitions with respect to the ultimate issue here–whether it’s ultimately just for these people to be arrested–but i hope your audience realizes you’re somewhat hiding the ball here. legally speaking, under the prevailing principles of current constitutional law, the search may very well have been legal.
whether the search was unconstitutional depends on whether there was probable cause. just because the police didn’t observe a purchase (and we’ll just assume that they didn’t, setting aside the issue of whether this assumption is justified) doesn’t preclude PC. namely, under SCOTUS precedent (my JDs out there: i’m thinking of Gates), the police could be relying on anonymous informants, and often do. i disagree with the wide authority the Court has granted the police in using informants, but this is an injustice imposed by the judicial branch, not the police. (the search could also have been justified–on even less ultimately-constitutionally-rational-in-my-view-but-nonetheless-justified-under-current-law on reasonable suspicion (a sort of mini-PC standard) under Terry, another stupid precedent that nonetheless it’s not the police’s job to second-guess.)
i agree that these searches are wrong. but they are wrong because the Court got the law wrong and because the laws the police are enforcing are really, really stupid, not because the police was behaving in contravention of established law. the law is broad enough that the police don’t really need to misbehave to get what they want.
in my view, it’s irresponsible of you–especially given your seeming unfamiliarity with the relevant legal concepts–to make this particular move; it furthers this whole pro/anti-police discourse that has discredited our side’s view in this war. in my view, you’re just not being helpful in perpetuating the reflexive, us-vs-police pro wrestling match that has frozen this deplorable status quo in place for decades.
Barrett Brown October 14th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
As you say, it is possible that the police were operating within procedure based on prior information or some such thing. I happen to think this is unlikely based on the circumstances that have been reported to me, as well as my own experience in being searched by NYPD officers on two different occasions in the very same area and without anything that could qualify as reasonable suspicion. Let’s call it a reasonable suspicion on my part, then.
sophia October 14th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
what about an organization to deal with the incredibly savage level of crime in south bushwick…did anyone just watch that news story of yet another man being beaten, almost to death by some anti immigrant creeps??? he is now at beth israel hospital fighting for his life. they even took his groceries! this is low. if the north and the south of bushwick could be more united and deal with it as a neighborhoodwide problem as a whole maybe this horrific level of crime and violence can be addressed in a less fragmented way.
sophia October 14th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7064755
angry guy at the archive October 14th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
a description of the incidents that specifically happened to you and/or the extra details you apparently have about the search described in this column would be much more effective from an advocacy pov than the vague gesturing you’ve done so far.
what specifically are the cops doing, where, and for what if any stated reason? are these coercive consent searches or stop and frisks? i’m actually not in snark mode here (i actually think the specific idea of organizing to educate local residents about Fourth Amendment rights–specifically on their ability to refuse consent to searches–is a great and laudable idea), i am just irked by your glibly arguing in conclusions about what you say is going on rather than clearly stating facts that would alert people to a real problem. i actually care about this issue but your incompetence at describing it is leaving me neither properly informed about an important issue in my community nor particularly eager to help.
Barrett Brown October 14th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
1. I’ve been advised not to release some of this information at this point while we investigate this incident further.
2. The person who advised me of this is a lawyer whom I know and respect.
3. You are an anonymous fellow.
4. The only thing I know about you is that it has been your stated goal to get this column axed.
5. You actually took credit for this column getting axed when in fact I had merely skipped a week or two while finishing up a book project, which is pretty funny.
6. If I wanted the advice of an anonymous troll with too much free time on his hands, I would have written, “Hey, if you’re some random guy who doesn’t think very highly of me and has in fact made several transparent and inane attempts to harm my career, please give me your advice.”
7. Please don’t waste any more of my time. We’re trying to get something done here, and you have no real interest in helping.
Wisdm October 14th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
lets be honest here, you really have been letting your bath tub overflow, havent you?
BrooklynJTrain October 15th, 2009 at 10:51 am
It seems some very valid points have been made here that you are unwilling to address Mr. Brown. Nobody is attempting to discredit you. You have discredited yourself. Now all of the sudden you have been advised not to release some of the information, however your able to release the “victims” race, date and EXACT location of the incident being Nightline Deli. You refuse to state why the stop “appears” to be unconstitutional. There are too many intangibles.
FYI… Broadway and Park is what is known as a drug prone location. Numerous people have been arrested in and around this immediate area for sale and possession of narcotics. There have been numerous arrests for guns, as well as robberies. The Deli is located in the confines of the 79 Pct. A few years back a search warrant was actually conducted inside the deli. Drugs and an illegal firearm were found. The workers in the deli were arrested and charged, however they beat the case. Their defense was that local neighborhood thugs from the projects caused them to fear for their lives. Hence they allowed the thugs to operate in and around the deli allowing them to use the deli as a stash place for drugs and weapons. This information pertaining to arrests is readily available from the crime prevention officer at the pct. if you care to investigate.
mopar October 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Contact Make the Road and Legal Aid. They already handle these kinds of cases.
But if you’re looking for a cause, how about people being beaten unconscious for no reason in Bushwick? There have been at least three notorious cases in the last year or two. (See New York Magazine for the one that happened at the Morgan stop.)
BrooklynJTrain October 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“But if you’re looking for a cause, how about people being beaten unconscious for no reason in Bushwick? There have been at least three notorious cases in the last year or two. (See New York Magazine for the one that happened at the Morgan stop.)”
Exactly…
Perhaps a pro-active instead of re-active police force could have prevented these assaults, more recently the Mexican assaulted on Broadway.
Pro-Active Example… a pro-active police officer may have stopped the attack before it happened by staying within the legal parameters. An example of staying within legal parameters is knowing that the officer has a right to stop and question a person who may fit the description of a previous mugger, may be lingering in or around a robbery or drug prone location, may have a suspicious bulge that possibly could be a weapon, etc. etc. All being within legal parameters of the Constitution.
Re-Active Example… Let the crime happen, the victim can call 911 and police can take a report.
Both of the above examples are 100% legal and within the parameters of the US Constitution. Which would you prefer???