NYPD Denies Access To FOIL Unit Training Manual

NYPD rejects request for its freedom of information handbook

Records access officer claims all FOIL training materials fall under attorney-client privilege

LINK

by Shawn Musgrave on Feb. 14, 2014, 11 a.m.

FOI Requests:

• NYPD FOIL guide

I have written a number of times about ongoing difficulties with the New York Police Department's FOIL Unit. From rejecting routine requests to claiming "inability to locate" documents even when provided with a form number, NYPD seems hellbent on obstructing access to its records.

But this latest rejection beats all, and flies in the face of Commissioner Bratton's numerous public statements since assuming office that "there should be no secrets in the NYPD."

Last week, NYPD's freedom of information squad determined that its own handbook is exempt from disclosure under FOIL, New York's public records statute.

In an interesting interpretation of the attorney-client privilege, NYPD claims that it has no obligation to disclose its methods of processing requests for public documents. As I explain in my appeal letter, printed below, this line of reasoning plumbs concerning depths of absurdity.

I very much hope that a competent lawyer who is familiar with NYPD's obligations under FOIL prepared the department's records request manual and training materials. But just because something was prepared or reviewed by an attorney does not mean that an agency can withhold it. If this were true, the vast majority of policy documents prepared by any agency counsel would be immune from disclosure, as would most talking points memos, reports and communiques that endure lawyerly vetting. This is simply not how attorney-client privilege is meant to work.

Of all the divisions that make up NYPD, the Freedom of Information Law Unit ought to be the most transparent. Its policies and protocols are not "confidential communications." Such secretive agencies as the NSA, FBI and the Department of Defense have released their FOIA handbooks and request processing guides with minimal redactions, and even posted them online proactively.

That this latest rejection undercuts Commissioner Bratton's commitment to "do more to open up the organization, to make it more inclusive, to make our information more readily available to the public." That it would come from the public records office speaks to the department's seeming impression that NYPD is above public accountability entirely.

---

From Shawn Musgrave to New York City Police Department on Feb. 12, 2014:

Jonathan David
Records Access Appeals Officer
New York City Police Department
One Police Plaza - Room 1406
New York, NY 10038-1497


February 12, 2014 


Mr. David:

I am writing to appeal the rejection of 14-PL-0006, in which I requested "Any manual, training reference or other guide by which members of the NYPD FOIL unit are trained on the application of FOIL and processing of FOIL requests."

By the attached rejection letter, Lt. Mantellino of the FOIL unit asserts that NYPD's FOIL manual itself is exempt from release under the attorney-client work privilege, as are the department's FOIL training materials. To put it lightly, Lt. Mantellino's is not the appropriate application or interpretation of the attorney-client work privilege. Just because something was prepared by an NYPD attorney does not mean that it qualifies as an attorney work product and thus exempt from release under FOIL. I would expect that most documents, particularly policy and protocol documents as I have requested, were prepared or at least reviewed by an attorney. Just as having an investigator review a particular document does not make that document exempt as an investigative record, lawyerly involvement does not magically render these documents exempt by virtue of having crossed an attorney's desk.

Rather, it is the content of the requested document that determines whether it is exempt. The attorney-client work privilege is meant to guard frank assessments of law as applicable to sensitive issues, particular incidents and litigation. This exemption does not apply to general documents that outline a department's protocols and policies. Such secretive agencies as the NSA, FBI and the Department of Defense have released their FOIA handbooks and protocol guides with minimal redactions, and even posted them online in full. I would assume (and hope) that teams of attorneys from each agency compiled and scrupulously reviewed these guidebooks, but their records officers would never dream of invoking attorney-client privilege as NYPD has done here.

I would be remiss if I did not highlight the symbolic significance of this particular rejection, especially in the context of so many absurd rejections that have issued from the NYPD FOIL unit over the past year. Out of all NYPD's offices, one might assert that the Freedom of Information team ought to be among the more transparent. This latest rejection belies this assumption even more than previous ones. In past rejections, the FOIL unit has claimed "inability" to locate documents even when I have painstakingly described them down to precise form number. Lt. Mantellino has also invoked exemptions for documents that New York courts ordered releasable in the past two or three years. In this case, NYPD's Records Access Officer has rejected a request for documents about the very process of transparency itself within the department. Rejecting such requests in slapdash fashion does little to inspire confidence in NYPD's competence or good faith in fulfilling its obligations under FOIL.

I would respectfully request an immediate reversal of this rejection and prompt delivery of the requested documents. Please let me know if I can clarify the request in any way.

Best,

Shawn Musgrave
MuckRock

---

Want to submit a records request to NYPD or any other government agency? Join MuckRock today and stay up-to-date on FOIA news by signing up for our mailing list, or by following us on Twitter and liking us on Facebook.

NY Senator John Sampson is Indicted Again For Lying To The FBI About a Brooklyn Liquor Store

From Betsy Combier:

Question: Former Senate Judicial Committee Chair John Sampson lying again to the FBI? Who would have thought that this elected official, with the NYS judiciary and Attorney General on speed-dial would be so corrupt?

Answer: everyone in New York State

LINK

Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn announced a new indictment of Sen. John Sampson on Monday. It alleges he lied to the FBI concerning questions about directing members of his Senate staff to take actions to benefit a Brooklyn liquor store in which Sampson secretly held an ownership interest.

Jimmy Vielkind, now of Capital NY, first reported on Sampson’s involvement with the retailer for the TU last May.

He already was facing charges of embezzlement and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The former leader of the Democratic Conference allegedly stole money to fund a bid to become Brooklyn’s top state prosecutor, then engaged in an elaborate obstruction scheme to hide his illegal conduct, going so far as to counsel lies and the hiding of evidence, according to the announcement.

Here is the indictment:

Sampson.superseding.indictment.scanned[1]

 

 

Senator John Sampson Indicted Again

LINK

Brooklyn State Senator John Sampson, already facing corruption charges, is facing a new set of allegations from federal prosecutors this afternoon involving lying and a local liquor store.
The U.S. Attorney’s office today announced that Mr. Sampson, who once led the Senate Democrats, is accused of “making false statements to FBI agents about directing members of his Senate staff to take actions to benefit a Brooklyn liquor store in which Sampson secretly held an ownership interest.”
According to prosecutors, Mr. Sampson was recorded hiding his stake in an unnamed liquor store in its license application.
“During a series of telephone calls that were captured on the Sampson Wiretap, the defendant … told the Partners that [his] ownership interest should not be disclosed in the Application” today’s indictment reads.
Mr. Sampson was also recorded instructing an anonymous government staffer to help the store deal with outstanding tax obligations. The senator even appeared to be aware of the potential illegalities involved, telling the staffer to “do it on your own cell phone and do it on your own time.”
He is further accused of lying about these incidents and others when speaking to federal agents.
Mr. Sampson is scheduled to be arraigned on the new charge tomorrow in federal court. His lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment on the latest charges.
Mr. Sampson was kicked out of the Democratic conference after the first set of corruption charges. He currently caucuses with no group in the complicated politics that govern the State Senate.
Update (2:28 p.m.): Mr. Sampson’s attorney issued the following statement in response to the new indictment, insisting the lawmaker “has not betrayed the public’s trust while acting as an elected public official.”

“As we stated when the initial indictment was filed, Senator Sampson has been fully cooperative with the government since we were contacted some months prior to the initial indictment. We will respond fully to the charge brought today in the course of the proceedings to follow,” said lawyer Joshua Colangelo-Bryan.

 

“We can, however, state categorically that Senator Sampson has not betrayed the public’s trust while acting as an elected public official. Indeed, after years of investigation and two indictments, the government has not charged Senator Sampson with a crime relating to the misuse of his public office. The new charge in the superseding indictment simply alleges an unrecorded statement to an agent of the FBI, which the government chooses not to believe, with respect to a matter for which the government fails to charge any substantive crime,” he added. “Also, there is no good reason why the single new charge in the superseding indictment was not included in the initial indictment.”

 

“We will have no further comment,” he said.

Additional reporting by Jill Colvin.

View the indictment

 

Ernest Collazo Takes Over the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC)

The post from Ethicsgate on December 30, 2013 was re-posted here, and then I received a DCMA complaint notice from Google. Frank Brady/AKA Kevin McKeon/AKA 1000 other names at work?

I have been asked to edit this. What do I edit out, Mr. Complainer? Your post remains up in its' entirety. I simply re-posted it with the link. Please let me know how I am violating any rights, rules, regulations or laws. I will post your reply here on this blog.

Please let me know .

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com

Here is the notice I received. Please note that none of the post below is original content by me, and therefore I am not the original reporter and will not be threatened.

support@blogger.com	Jan 29 (4 days ago)
to me, blogger-dmca-n.

Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to \"draft\" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message.) This means your post - and any images, links or other content - is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the offending content and republish, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again.

A bit of background: the DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement. If you believe you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-claim. In order to file a counter-claim, please see http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_counternotice&product=blogger.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org. We do this in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). You can search for the DMCA notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page athttp://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi, and entering in the URL of the blog post that was removed.

If it is brought to our attention that you have republished the post without removing the content/link in question, then we will delete your post and count it as a violation on your account. Repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in further remedial action taken against your Blogger account including deleting your blog and/or terminating your account. DMCA notices concerning content on your blog may also result in action taken against any associated AdSense accounts. If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

Affected URLs:

http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2013/12/new-chairman-of-manhattan-attorney.html

Ernest J. Collazo

Ethicsgate
December 30, 2013
LINK

64-Year-Old Bronx Native Provides Hope for Corruption Clean-Up
Again, hopes spring eternal, and a new chairman of the corrupt attorney "ethics" committee has been named….. more....
Ernest J. Collazo is a respected Columbia Law School graduate (class of 1974), and a managing partner of Collazo Florentino & Keil LLP. Mr. Collazo formally takes over on January 1, 2014 as the head of the disgraced court group charged with ethics oversight of attorneys with offices in The Bronx and Manhattan- the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the "DDC").

Mr. Collazo has been active with the DDC since 2008, and has been a member of the DDC Policy Committee since 2012. His tenure at the DDC has provided him with first-hand knowledge of how dysfunctional the DDC is, and the urgent need that the first order of business be to remove Jorge Dopico as chief counsel. Mr. Dopico began his tenure with positive action, but quickly succumbed to political pressures and became another soul-less and corrupt hack with predecessors Thomas Cahill and Alan Friedberg.

While some insiders are concerned over Mr. Collazo's ties to the former DDC chairman Roy Reardon, Mr. Collazo has privately expressed his dismay at how ethics investigations by the DDC have been routinely covered-up for connected insiders, and that have tarnished the DDC's credibility for years. Mr. Collazo has confided with associates that he will make the long-overdue changes necessary to restore trueethics back to the ethics oversight committee.

Chairman Collazo had been employed from 1977-1991 at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, the law firm of Roy Reardon, and the group long-rumored to stall legal ethics accountability at the DDC and at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

It is hopeful that the Mr. Collazo will be guided by another Bronx-born-attorney-turned Presiding-Justice, the Hon. Francis T. Murphy, Jr., who sent armed officers to lock down the offices of the DDC when it was corrupt under his authority. (CLICK HERE TO SEE THE MURPHY REPORT)

CLICK HERE TO SEE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND,"Governor Cuomo Asked to Shut Down NY's Corrupt Court "Ethics" Committees"

Attorney Frederic Aaron of Plainview New York Cited By SEC For Partnership In a PONZI Sceme

LINK

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22901 / January 6, 2014

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Eric Aronson, Vincent Buonauro, Jr., Robert Kondratick, Fredric Aaron, PermaPave Industries, LLC, PermaPave USA Corp., PermaPave Distributions, Inc., Verigreen, LLC, and Interlink-US-Network, Ltd., Defendants, and Caroline Aronson, Deborah Buonauro, DASH Development, LLC, Aron Holdings, Inc., PermaPave Construction Corp., Dymoncrete Industries, LLC, Dymon Rock LI, LLC, and Lumi-Coat, Inc., Relief Defendants, Civil Action No. 11 Civ. 7033 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 6, 2011)

District Court Finds Eric Aronson Liable for Operating a Ponzi Scheme, Issues Permanent Injunctions Against Remaining Individual Defendants and Grants Other Relief

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff has ruled that Defendant Eric Aronson violated the antifraud and other provisions of the federal securities laws. In addition, the Court entered orders of permanent injunctions against Defendants Vincent Buonauro and Fredric Aaron and further imposed officer and director and penny stock bars against Aaron. Furthermore, the Court ordered Aronson's wife, Relief Defendant Caroline Aronson, to disgorge the ill-gotten gains she received from her husband.

The Commission's Complaint, filed in October 2011, alleged that, from 2006 to 2010, PermaPave Industries and its affiliates raised more than $26 million from the sale of promissory notes and "use of funds" agreements to over 140 investors. Eric Aronson, Vincent Buonauro and others told investors that there was a tremendous demand for the product - permeable paving stones - and that investors would be repaid from the profits generated by guaranteed product sales. In reality, there was little demand for the product, and defendants used investors' money to make "interest" and "profit" payments to earlier investors and to fund management's lavish lifestyles. In addition, shortly after an affiliate of PermaPave Industries acquired a majority stake in Interlink-US-Network, Ltd., Eric Aronson, Fredric Aaron - who was the attorney for Eric Aronson and the entity defendants - and others issued a press release stating that a company that had never heard of Interlink intended to invest $6 million in Interlink.

On August 6, 2013, the Court granted in part the Commission's motion for summary judgment. Finding that the Commission proved an "almost endless fraud" with evidence that Eric Aronson and others raised millions from investors, misappropriated the funds raised, and then converted the investments several times over to delay and ultimately avoid repayment, the Court ruled that Eric Aronson, age 45 and resident of Syosset, New York, violated Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Subsequently, on December 11, 2013, the Court granted the Commission's motion for reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment order and ruled that Eric Aronson also violated Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act by aiding and abetting Interlink's violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 13(a) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20 and 13a-11. Relief for these violations will be determined at a later date.

The Court also granted summary judgment on the Commission's claim for disgorgement against Caroline Aronson, age 43 and resident of Syosset, New York. On December 23, 2013, the Court issued a final judgment ordering Caroline Aronson to pay the full disgorgement amount sought, $296,262.

Also on December 23, 2013, the Court issued judgments as to Vincent Buonauro, age 42 and resident of West Islip, New York, and Fredric Aaron, age 49 and resident of Plainview, New York. Vincent Buonauro agreed to consent to the judgment as to him, which enjoins him from violating Securities Act Sections 5 and 17(a) and Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 15(a) and Rule 10b-5. Fredric Aaron also agreed to consent to the judgment as to him, which enjoins him from violating Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and from aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-11. The judgment as to Fredric Aaron also imposes five year officer and director and penny stock bars. The Commission's claims for monetary relief against Vincent Buonauro and Fredric Aaron will be determined at a later date.

The Commission's civil action also continues against Relief Defendant Deborah Buonauro. The Court previously issued final judgments against all entity defendants and entity relief defendants on January 19, 2012 and against Defendant Robert Kondratick on October 17, 2012.

For further information, see Litigation Release Nos. 22117 (Oct. 6, 2011) and22231 (Jan. 23, 2012).

 

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2014/lr22901.htm

The Center For Public Integrity: Judges Hide Financial Information

State supreme court judges reveal scant financial information

Investigation reveals conflicts despite limited disclosure

By Reity O'BrienemailKytja WeiremailChris Youngemail

 

12:01 am, December 4, 2013 Updated: 1:38 pm, January 15, 2014

LINK

Last December, the California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal filed by a couple who had accused financial giant Wells Fargo & Co. of predatory lending.

One justice, who owned stock in the bank, recused himself from the case. But Justice Kathryn Werdegar, who owned as much as $1 million of Wells Fargo stock, participated — and shouldn’t have.

Justice Katherine Werdegar

 

The Center for Public Integrity learned of Werdegar’s financial stake thanks to California’s relatively strong financial reporting requirements for justices. But California’s law is an exception.

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia received a failing grade in a Center evaluation of disclosure requirements for high court judges. And not a single state earned an A or a B.

Yet despite the dearth of information, the Center still found 35 examples of questionable gifts, investments overlapping with caseloads as well as other entanglements.

After reviewing three years of personal financial disclosures, the Center found judges who authored opinions favoring companies in which they owned stock. The Center found judges who ruled on cases even when family members were receiving income from one of the parties. And it found judges who accepted lavish gifts — like a $50,000 trip from a lawyer.

The Center also found that enforcement of disclosure rules is spotty. Twelve states, for example, rely on self-policing disciplinary bodies — made up of high-court justices themselves — to enforce the courts’ ethics rules.

Much has been made of the potential corrupting influence of campaign contributions on judicial elections. But little attention has been paid to the personal finances of the 335 judges in the state courts of last resort and how those holdings may influence decisions handed down from the bench.

Key findings:

• Forty-two states and the District of Columbia received a failing grade in a Center evaluation of disclosure requirements for supreme court judges.
• Judges in three states — Montana, Utah and Idaho — aren’t required to file any disclosure reports at all.
• Despite the poor disclosure rules, the Center’s investigation found 35 examples of questionable gifts, investments overlapping with caseloads as well as other entanglements.
• The Center identified 14 instances in the past three years in which justices participated in cases where they or their spouses owned stock in companies involved in the litigation.
• Of the 273 supreme court justices required to disclose stock holdings, 107 reported owning stock.
• Twelve states rely on self-policing disciplinary bodies — made up of high-court justices themselves — to enforce the courts’ ethical rules.

How The NYPD's Use Of Civil Forfeiture Robs Innocent New Yorkers

Gothamist

LINK

By Max Rivlin-Nadler in News on Jan 14, 2014 1:25 PM

 
Gerald Bryan points out where police damaged his apartment during a warrantless raid. In the course of the search, $4,800 was confiscated from him through civil forfeiture. (Max Rivlin-Nadler / Gothamist)

In the middle of the night in March of 2012, NYPD officers burst into the Bronx home of Gerald Bryan, ransacking his belongings, tearing out light fixtures, punching through walls, and confiscating $4,800 in cash. Bryan, 42, was taken into custody on suspected felony drug distribution, as the police continued their warrantless search. Over a year later, Bryan's case was dropped. When he went to retrieve his $4,800, he was told it was too late: the money had been deposited into the NYPD's pension fund. Bryan found himself trapped in the NYPD's labyrinthine civil forfeiture procedure, a policy based on a 133-year-old law which robs poor New Yorkers of millions of dollars every year; a law that has been ruled unconstitutional twice.

"They do this all the time, to so many people I know," Bryan, a bartender of 21 years, told us in the office of the Bronx Defenders. Before the raid, he had planned on using the cash to take his girlfriend on a cruise. "A lot of people, when they get arrested, they know that their money is just gone, and they know that the police are taking it to enrich themselves."

Civil forfeiture, the act by which a municipality can seize money during an arrest, has always been a controversial weapon of law enforcement. The practice became more prevalent in the 1980s, when jurisdictions around the country began pursuing cases involving money in both civil and criminal court in an effort to fight organized crime and deprive criminals of their income, even if they couldn't imprison them.

This summer The New Yorker published a sprawling investigation on how cities use the practice to bolster their cash-strapped coffers by seizing the assets of the poor, often on trumped up charges.

The same is true in New York City, where the civil forfeiture process has long been used by the NYPD to seize money from those least likely to be able to get it back.

"It's very difficult for the victims of civil forfeiture, most of whom are from a lower socio-economic class, to do anything in the court system, much less win a civil forfeiture case," said attorney David B. Smith, the nation's leading expert on forfeiture law.

Any arrest in New York City can trigger a civil forfeiture case if money or property is found on or near a defendant, regardless of the reasons surrounding the arrest or its final disposition. In the past ten years, the NYPD has escalated the amount of civil forfeiture actions it pursues as public defense offices have been stretched thin by the huge amount of criminal cases across the city. 

"One of the main problems with civil forfeiture is that you're not assigned a lawyer, it being a civil and not a criminal case," Smith explains. "Most people can't afford lawyers, and that gives the government a tremendous advantage."

NYPD surveillance in Crown Heights (via Flickr user Ken Stein)

When asked about Gerald Bryan's case, a spokesman for the Comptroller's Office said that the NYPD's practice of depositing money confiscated through civil forfeiture into the police pension fund was "illegal." This mischaracterization demonstrates the depth of misunderstanding about the city's civil forfeiture laws.

New York State has regulations that govern forfeiture proceedings for the city’s District Attorneys, and they provide a good amount of protection for citizens against abuse. However, the city's administrative code, which governs the NYPD's seizure of property from arrestees, remains as it was when it was drafted in 1881.

In 1993 and 2000, judges ruled the code unconstitutional, and ordered the city to rewrite the statute to make it comport with the rule of law. Yet there's been almost no legislative attempt to bring the city's administrative code into the modern age, as lawmakers are wary of touching the forfeiture issue, fearful that it will make them look soft on crime.

"1881, think about it! Think how much the world has changed since 1881," said Steven L. Kessler, the former head of the Bronx District Attorney's forfeiture unit. "The NYPD uses confusion about the code to take money from people who didn't do anything. There is a cash incentive for the NYPD to take the money—it goes to their pension, it can even be used to buy equipment, to throw parties. You see a nice car parked outside of a precinct? That's the result of civil forfeiture. Now it's theirs."

Seizing money obtained illicitly is a significant crime-fighting (and funding) mechanism for the NYPD. But according to Kessler's research, in 85% of forfeiture cases pursued by the NYPD, the property owner is never charged with a crime. Despite their innocence, many of these people face an uphill battle against the NYPD to get their money back.

In another case being worked on by the Bronx Defenders, an individual we'll call Morris (his identity is being protected because his civil case is ongoing) was arrested for felony possession of a controlled substance in October of 2012, and had $3,000 seized from him. But the District Attorney's office only ended up charging Morris with disorderly conduct, a violation. The DA declined to pursue Morris' money, but the NYPD had no such reservations.

"What's crazy about this case is that the DA's office made clear through their actions that they didn't think this was a legitimate drug sale and that a waiver of currency was not necessary," Morris' lawyer, Scott Simpson, told us. "To them, the money was legit. But still, the NYPD has his cash."

 

The NYPD does not keep public records of how much money or property it seizes through civil forfeiture, nor does it publicly account for how that money and property is spent or allocated. Based on the sheer volume of cases that the department pursues, experts estimate that the amount the NYPD has taken from New Yorkers over the past decade is well into the millions. 

The NYPD has also refused to show public defenders the exact legal mechanism that allows them to seize their property.

"It is unclear how exactly Mr. Bryan's money ended up being placed in the NYPD Pension Fund," Vichal Kumar, Bryan's public defender, wrote in an email. "One possibility is that there are other internal agreements or memorandums that are not public knowledge that supplement the provisions of the statute and allow for such distributions. Though I would suspect that without further litigation, it may never be known exactly how this occurred."

In June 2013 Bryan finally got a check for $4,800 from the city. However, the money returned to him was not deducted from the police pension fund. It was taken from the city's general fund. Mr. Bryan was paid back in taxpayer money.

"What do they say in Casablanca? I'm shocked, shocked, that the corporation counsel didn't communicate fully with the Comptroller's office. They probably just told them to write a check," Kessler said.

The City's Law Office declined to comment specifically on Bryan's case, but did not deny that the money that had been paid to him came not from the NYPD, but from the general fund.

The NYPD did not respond to questions concerning its use of civil forfeiture. 

"Despite the Federal courts knocking down the city's forfeiture law down time after time, lawmakers just let the NYPD deal with it, and that's been a disaster," Kessler said.

"The answers lie in the [NYPD's] books," Bryan says. "You open that up, and it's going to be a Pandora's Box on just how much the NYPD has illegally taken from New Yorkers."

Contact the editor of this story

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

NYPD Legal Bureau | Civil Enforcement Unit

LINK

The Civil Enforcement Unit (CEU) uses civil litigation in both judicial and administrative venues to expand the NYPD’s ability to respond to crimes and quality of life issues.  CEU attorneys work with enforcement personnel to address crime trends and conditions (e.g., firearms, driving while intoxicated, narcotics, prostitution, weapons, trademark counterfeiting, auto crime, and gambling).  CEU attorneys regularly participate in field enforcement operations, including the execution of closing orders under the nuisance abatement law and participation in multi-agency enforcement operations to target crimes and safety conditions associated with businesses engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages (whether licensed or unlicensed). The CEU incorporates attorneys into the Department’s crime fighting effort.  By working closely with police commanders, CEU attorneys expand the Department’s range of responses to crimes and quality of life offenses.  By litigating civil actions such as nuisance abatement and forfeiture cases against criminals, the Unit is able to address crime and quality of life offenses by removing the economic incentive to engage in these offenses. One of the CEU’s main forfeiture initiatives focus on vehicles used during crimes involving illegal firearms.  The CEU utilizes the forfeiture case to enhance the Department’s goal of reducing the number of illegal firearms on the streets by adding an additional economic incentive for people to not transport illegal firearms in their vehicles as well as by working with detective squads to develop information that will lead to further seizures of illegal firearms.  In its other main forfeiture initiative, the CEU also takes a very effective role in deterring people from driving while intoxicated.  While CEU attorneys aggressively pursue forfeiture of the vehicles used by repeat offenders or in egregious circumstances, CEU allows many offenders to retrieve their vehicles pursuant to a forfeiture settlement agreement which involves evaluation of the offender for alcohol abuse by an independent state-certified counselor and the completion of any recommended treatment prior to the release of the vehicle.  This dual approach has proven to be a very effective tool for increasing public safety on the streets as well as encouraging people who need assistance to seek and obtain it.  Another CEU initiative, “Operation Losing Proposition,” focuses on the seizure and forfeiture of the cars of “johns”, the prostitutes’ customers, thereby deterring street prostitution.  Other examples of the Unit’s forfeiture work include forfeiting the expensive tools of chop shop operators, vehicles involved in dangerous drag racing on public streets and vehicles of individuals who are found to be in possession of controlled substances or marijuana in their vehicles after a lawful stop.  The list of examples is without end as the CEU is legally authorized to pursue forfeiture of any property which was used to facilitate a crime or constitutes the proceeds of a crime and the list grows as crime conditions change. CEU has also played a role in addressing noise conditions throughout the City by working to ensure that “boombox” cars and loud motorcycles are seized and held until noise violations have been adjudicated. Using the Nuisance Abatement Law, the CEU effectively addresses the problem of drug sales in commercial buildings.  Many of these buildings are infested with narcotics activity and other crimes which are a destabilizing influence on a neighborhood. Working with precinct and narcotics commanders, the CEU obtains closing orders for commercial properties which are operated by drug dealers.  In order to reopen, the landlord must select new tenants who are approved by the Department.  CEU also obtains closing orders under the Nuisance Abatement Law to address other crimes, including but not limited to, the sale and/or possession of stolen property; the sale and/or possession of drug paraphernalia; illegal gambling activity; the illegal sale of alcoholic beverages (e.g. unlicensed, to minors or “afterhours”); unlicensed security at bars and clubs; prostitution; illegal sale of weapons; unlicensed vehicle dismantling; and sale and/or possession of counterfeit merchandise. Contact information for the Civil Enforcement Unit of the NYPD Legal Bureau: 2 Lafayette Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10007 Attn: Civil Enforcement Unit, NYPD Telephone: (917) 454-1100 Inquiries with regard to seized vehicles should be directed to (917) 454-1111.  Please call in advance to check the status of your case and for hours of operation.