New Haven Independent

posted by: streever on March 3, 2011  3:54pm

Awesome! This is a real coup for citizens—and police officers.

It clearly sets out the rules and expectations.

I’m really gratified to see that IA has come out in favor of transparency and openness.

posted by: robn on March 3, 2011  4:33pm

I dunno…I’ve followed the chain of logic and the abrupt rentry from conclusion back to beginning does NOT have the smooth fairing of a mobius strip.

no personal misbehavior->systemic training failure->improper conduct->...<b> no personal misbehavior? </b?

posted by: Ex-NHPD on March 3, 2011  4:35pm

From the moment this incident hit the news, I said that Limon was there.

If you read the I.A. statements by NHPD members, not only is Limon on Crown Street that night, he is there when the entry is planned, is there INSIDE the club, and even tells/instructs/directs/orders a cop to have someone put their cell phone away. In his own statement, he saw and heard SWAT member(s) inside the club.  He later tried to throw Melendez under the bus for the decision to have SWAT inside the club.  In his I.A. statement, he tried to distance himself by saying he did not observe anything wrong with the police behavior in the club.  His recall of how long he was in the club, and what he saw, was inconsistent with other officer’s statements.

If Limon and/or the Board of Police Commissioners discipline any cops for this incident, then Smuts must do the same to Limon, beyond writing in his memo that Limon showed a lack of responsibility in not addressing issues at the scene.

There is no need to amend the force continuum to “allow” officers to use profanity in verbal commands.
“Please , sir, would you drop the gun, please.”;
“Sir, I really, really, wish you would listen to me.”
That will not cut it in volatile situations.  Quiet, polite instructions that are ignored allow the officer to kick it up a notch to get compliance.

As far as the whole area of people videotaping/recording officers, I know the officers know that the mere taping of the officers is legal.  But, when those above them not only prohibit it, they then instruct/order officers to delete videos, that sure is a mixed message about what they can do.  Let’s hope when the cops get their training on that matter, the Chief and his Assistant Chiefs (if they are still around) take the training as well.  In addition to their training to be certified as cops in Connecticut—how is that training/certification going?

As far as the attorney for the student complainants in I.A. setting the ground rules for the interview, isn’t it ironic that he did not want the statements tape recorded? If after the student’s statement is typed up and presented to them for their review and signature, and they claim they were not properly quoted/cited, where do you go for verification?  Not the audio tape.  And, by the way, the NHPD I.A. was not allowed (per their lawyer) to ask these students about their alcohol consumption and/or level of intoxication that night.  One would think that those areas are germane to establishing their ability to process and recall of what they experienced that night.

posted by: nero on March 3, 2011  4:55pm

Ordinary citizens are expected to have a thorough understanding of federal laws, state laws and municipal rules, and we are held strictly accountable if we break them.

Police ignore the Constitution, break the law or bend the rules and they are “inadequately trained.” It’s wrong. Cops should be held to a higher standard.

posted by: Ex-NHPD on March 3, 2011  5:37pm

There he goes again!  On channel 8 News at 5:00PM, the sound bite of the press conference had Limon blaming the whole Elevate night on Melendez. 

Could someone please ask Limon about Smuts’ findings on Limon’s (in)actions that night?

posted by: citsavior on March 3, 2011  6:20pm

by clearing officers and supervisors Frank Limon gets a pass on this one. Funny how rob smutts has all the answers now , but didn’t at the board of aldermen meeting last night or the meeting at the police station that lead to the march on city hall!! what a bunch of amateurs
LEADERSHIP BOTH SMUTTS AND LIMON Lack it and both would have been fired long ago.

posted by: Threefifths on March 3, 2011  6:21pm

They still can arrest you based on laws requiring all parties to consent to an audio recording,You can be arrested and charged with illegal wiretapping for taping cops in public.So you better make sure there is no audio.

posted by: Judith Lesser on March 3, 2011  7:07pm

Oh come on now chief! When are you going to fess up that not only were you at the Elevate (not outside), but inside and saw everything that was going on. That makes you in charge chief at the time all this was going on. No wonder the police rank and file have very little respect for you. Anyone from Yale have a tape catching the chief in the bar that night? If so, simply submit it to the NHI.

posted by: nero on March 3, 2011  9:28pm

@Threefifths: You’re wrong. Sounds made in public have nothing to do with “wiretapping.” Think about it, what wire is being tapped?

posted by: thesixteenwords on March 3, 2011  9:43pm

@ex-NHPD- I imagine the reason that the lawyers did not want the Yale students talking about their consumption is because it sets up a credibility trap. From my understanding, five people were cited for liquor violations. Likely there were more underage drinkers. But, the NHPD did not find them or cite them. It would not be fair for the NHPD, in their IA report, to demonstrate that everyone at the party was drunk and in violation of the law, since there were very few citations to that effect. The burden of proof is on the NHPD to prove that there were underage drinkers.

posted by: robn on March 3, 2011  10:00pm

NERO,

3/5 is right that wiretapping laws have been abused in about a dozen states which have mutual consent laws for audio recording (it’s been abusively used against people recording video+audio of police in public….not the intent of the wiretapping laws.) Most of those states, with the exception of Massachusetts and i think Maryland, have recently established case law against such abuse.

posted by: Ken on March 3, 2011  10:50pm

So YPD Lieutenant Vitale tells the NHPD about the party, but doesn’t remember if he told them where it was.  So how did the NHPD know or find out where it was?  Typical, stay on your campus if you weren’t in the Command Post playing NHPD this would never of happened.

Chief Limon has lost ALL my respect you don’t throw your men under the bus you are THE CHIEF take responsibility.  The Mayor is also responsible here because he tried to BULLY the bars into paying for all the Cops and when they didn’t go along he attacked them but it backfired because he didn’t expect the Elite to be out downtown drinking. 

What does Rob Smuts know about being a Cop or what we do, and how can he have an unbiased opinion about this, he is a Yale Graduate.  Someone should ask him what verbal commands he was giving when he was getting a beating outside of Christies on Orange St. and an off duty Cop saved him. ...  We should all go apply somewhere else it’s all coming out The Mayor is still in charge at the PD.

As for the Mayor it’s nice to know that he thinks Yale students deserve special treatment, and I bet he didn’t think the Chief would throw him under the bus in his statement to IA.  Is that why he’s so mad at him.

You know the saying theres no honor amongst thieves…

posted by: nero on March 3, 2011  11:15pm

@robn: I’m an old newsguy, not a lawyer . . . so I’m admittedly a bit out of my element. Last time I checked, this is a freedom of the press issue. Mutual consent may be needed if public images or audio are used for monetary gain or private purposes, but if the public material is used for news or as evidence in a court case then it’s “fair use.” No?

Apologies to Threefifths if I was wrong.

posted by: robn on March 3, 2011  11:47pm

NERO,

I think we’re on the same page. Its a freedom of press (1st Amendment) issue as well as a search and seizure (4th Amendment) issue in the case when cameras have been seized.

Basically, if you’re in a public place (other than like a bathroom or locker room), and especially if you’re a public figure you have no expectation of privacy. A wise person once told me that if you don’t want to be photographed all you have to do is stop light from bouncing off of you.

posted by: what? on March 4, 2011  9:44am

ignorance of the law is never a defense

posted by: Threefifths on March 4, 2011  10:07am

posted by: nero on March 3, 2011 11:15pm
@robn: I’m an old newsguy, not a lawyer . . . so I’m admittedly a bit out of my element. Last time I checked, this is a freedom of the press issue. Mutual consent may be needed if public images or audio are used for monetary gain or private purposes, but if the public material is used for news or as evidence in a court case then it’s “fair use.” No?

Apologies to Threefifths if I was wrong.

I have friends of my who work for the press in New York and they have NYP press passes which is given out by the New York police Department so with these press Credentials they have the consent Take pictures and do to an audio recording.In fact they told me about how you can be arrested and charged with illegal wiretapping for taping cops in public.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/press_relations/credentials.shtml#eligibility

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/press_relations/Press_Credentials_Application.pdf

posted by: Jay on March 4, 2011  11:28am

Does anyone know what became of the charges against the Yale students that were arrested?  I’m guessing they are rich so they hired expensive lawyers who got them dropped.  How about some follow through on that end of it.  I can’t stand the New Haven police department’s holier than thou attitude but I’m sure some of these kids are not innocent.

posted by: Anon on March 4, 2011  6:40pm

Smuts said in his memo that it was disturbing that every single officer interviewed denied the use of profanity while so many civilian witnesses heard it.

I will set aside whether the chief administrative officer in New Haven should write as if this truth and credibility gap is news to anybody. I will say, no one believes it is news or is surprised.

I also need to say this:

When is NHPD and city hall going to drive the message home to themselves that they aren’t going to get a hall pass on chronic, systemic, rampant lying, fabricating arrest reports, and beating people up?

They keep whining and cajoling the community to lower its standards. We aren’t the judges over in GA Court willing to give credence to blue suits, while knowing they lie. .

This artificial credibility police get from donning a blue suit has gone to their heads. They don’t know how to earn credibility because it is given to them. It’s a license to lie, and the blame for it lies as much with the courts as any single entity besides the police themselves.

The actual moral and ethical integrity of this police force, corrected for the blue suit phenomenon, is rock bottom.

That is established beyond all argument.

No. No one is going to let NHPD off the hook until that changes. And PR spin, talk of the latest, millionth “aberration” isn’t going to change it either.

This city has had it with being policed by liars, by people who can’t hold a candle to the average person on the street for integrity and character. NHPD lies every time it turns around and everyone knows it. They’ve made it a job requirement to lie, sucking decent cops into a lying culture. And NHPD and city hall just can’t understand why the community just won’t accept that.

That anyone would presume that this would be even minimally acceptable is laughable.

It’s about time the people in this city put their feet down and stop entertaining the rhetorical merry go round every time this issue comes up. 10 years,  20 years,30 years of New Haven evidence is overwhelming. Study after study on the weaknesses in police credibility, built into the system, nationwide is overwhelming.

My god, there are law journal articles on how to handle the “recidivist innocent” can you believe that? Recidivist innocent? That’s when they get you on the books then keep rearresting you based pretty much on that, trumping one little or big thing after another. It’s disgusting. It’s rampant. You can major in it in college it’s so rampant.

It’s up to the people in this city to cut through the rhetoric and demand the standards THEY want in policing, come hell or high water. When are New Haveners going to declare that the gig is up, period?

The Supreme Court is not going to trickle down anything that is going to change this and lawsuits aren’t going to either. This is clearly a situation calling for a trickle up demand from people who know what they need and want and know how to demand it.  It is each citizen’s duty to demand for higher standards now, from NHPD, city hall and the courts that can’t get out of granting credibility to officers even when they want to, because it disrupts the even keel of this boat that is way off course.

Anyone who thinks this will change without sustained, strong public pressure from the ground up, grassroots, is just dead wrong.

Policy changes, training changes, please. If we want something now, we have to demand it if we expect to ever get it, today, tomorrow, ever. IT is NOT coming down the pike as a result of this investigation or any other that has been conducted in this city in the last five years, ten years or more. 

Can we all please see that?

posted by: Anon on March 4, 2011  7:06pm

Nero and Threefifths:

There is confusion because it is not that straightforward.

Wiretapping does not require a wire. If you audio tape a conversation to which you are NOT a party, it is the same as wiretapping under the law. Imagine standing outside someone’s bedroom taping a conversation they are having with someone inside,  behind a closed door. Illegal. Bugging someone’s house, illegal. Bugging someone’s office, illegal.

However, if you have a recorder IN PLAIN VIEW, in a public place, it is not illegal to record audio.

If you use a special sensitive microphone from 100 yards away, that records two people whispering privately, not sure if you are protected. Need to take that one to a lawyer. So, there is gray area.

The radio and television news people tend to know this law well. Note, TV cameras on the street are not getting anyone’s permission and they are recording audio. They have no more right to do that than any citizen under the First Amendment.

To ROBN: I am with you on this training thing. It is always the same. There is no way to write a manual with every single detail of life in it. Police have known forever this provides an escape hatch to evade holding themselves to a standard, especially in a city where the residents are as beaten down and accepting as they are here in New Haven.

In New Haven, a cop’s bad behavior can be front page news for years and city hall will say with a straight face, gee, he doesn’t have any complaints. Not all communities are like that, although a lot of them are too. There are many communities where an officer just wouldn’t retain his job with that much community opposition. Here, the population takes whatever is dished out to it, led by the nose by propaganda, easily fooled by official sounding language, and so used to being mistreated, it doesn’t even know that it is being mistreated.

posted by: Anon on March 4, 2011  7:19pm

Nero,  NY press does not need permission from NYPD to tape, nor do you need a press pass to do anything in public more than anyone else. Credentialing by NYPD of the press is bogus except to enter places any citizen would need special permission to enter. The credential says then that this permission was granted.

NYPD can engage in the conceit that it is credentialing for something, but they don’t credential the press. The press is free in the US under the First Amendment.

For instance, jails do security checks on people before they let them visit the jail or interview as a member of the press visiting the jail. You can call that credentialing, but in fact, it is the same security check for anyone coming in, press or not.

The state capitol in Connecticut does credentialing for the press only if it wants a permanent desk in the press room, or long term parking privilege.

Otherwise, like any member of the public, they can cover or sit in on any hearing like anyone else. They don’t have special rights. The press room is just a nice gesture acknowledging the importance of press coverage of government to citizens in a democracy. The press room in the capitol building facilitates that.

The press has no legal privileges beyond the general public, except for press shield laws in some states. Those laws have nothing to do with taping.

Here is a state by state guide on taping. The law varies from state to state, although there is a federal law too.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html

For instance, the federal law allows one party consent, where if you are a party to a conversation you can tape it whether you have the other parties’ consent or not.

In Connecticut, however, you need two party consent.

If you don ‘t get it, and tape without permission a conversation to which you are a party, you have NOT committed a criminal act, but a civil violation for which you can be sued.

It can get complicated.

If you review the laws at the link,keep in mind that none of it applies more or less to the press than to anyone else.

posted by: Mario on March 4, 2011  11:40pm

@Streever
The rules aren’t quite so clear at the edges. We’ll see how it goes. I think there’s a cultural shift with the order, but there will be problems at the edges because “interfering” isn’t very precise. Any distraction of an officer, suspect, witness, or victim could be interfering or hindering. I suspect the contours will have to be something courts decide.

@Ex-NHPD you seem to know a lot about the PD from your posts. Interesting stuff. I’d love to interview you off the record; email me if you’re willing.

posted by: Heavens to Betsy on March 6, 2011  5:46am

Limon made it clear that former Asst. Chief Melendez was the supervising officer during the raid. He was in charge “and lost control,” Limon said.      Hmmmmmmmm, Melendez was the supervising officer I can see that but; who called SWATin?  I am jsorry but I don’t think it was Melendez tht dropped the ball. Limon is still putting the blame on someone else specially since that person is not around. BTW, On that night there were students that got arrested from that “private party” that were very drunk and underage.  That is what they should be focusing on. These Yalies, if they are going to get drunk and are underage, should do it at the Yale campus where they come from.  Yale gets paid the big bucks for this students, NH doesn’t. Cellphone incident; If you live in Wallingford why don’t you stay there and record the officers from Wallingford…..... Oh yes, because it is easier to get the NHPD officers in trouble. ...

Footnote. Wheeler is leaving, because he signed a 4 year contrct now the city will have to honor that contract.  DeStefano is going to pay for that one out of his own pocket he said.

Something good is coming out of all of this but it is not Limon nor DeStefno.  Hahahahahahaha.

posted by: to thesixteenwords on March 6, 2011  5:53am

thesixteenwords….....all the police has to do is take a look at the wagon slips for that night. enough said.

posted by: Edward_H on March 6, 2011  12:16pm

” Cops need better training about when it’s OK to start swearing at people in order to up the response to a situation that might spin out of control, Smuts said. “

Will cops also be given a list of approved swear words or can they use whatever words they feel are appropriate to get the situation under control? Will the N-word, S-word or 6 lettered F-word be allowed? This whole thing is silly, cops have no need to resort to swear words while performing their duties

posted by: Threefifths on March 6, 2011  1:20pm

posted by: Anon on March 4, 2011 7:06pm
Nero and Threefifths:

There is confusion because it is not that straightforward.

Wiretapping does not require a wire. If you audio tape a conversation to which you are NOT a party, it is the same as wiretapping under the law. Imagine standing outside someone’s bedroom taping a conversation they are having with someone inside,  behind a closed door. Illegal. Bugging someone’s house, illegal. Bugging someone’s office, illegal.

However, if you have a recorder IN PLAIN VIEW, in a public place, it is not illegal to record audio

My point is if the police are talking with a person and you are not a party to the conversation and you use audio, Then you are breaking the law.As far as e press passes from NYPD, they are used to cross police lines Now also the police have the right to take you name and number if they need to use your pictures in a later date and rememeber if you refuse and your pictures are need in court you can be charged withholding evidence.So people need to learn the law about this.

posted by: Anon on March 8, 2011  9:26am

Threefifths,

... that is the law.

You can tape record audio in plain view in public without being a party to the conversation, period.

IF police have arrested people for that, those are illegal arrests. The law is clear.

Heck, I even know Private Detectives who try to argue that their microphone hidden in a watch band is “in plain view” because it is visible on their wrists.

We DO need to know the law on this, and what you are saying is the opposite of the law. Please read the guide in the link posted above. It spells it out