NYPD will no longer detain anyone while they run background checks

NYPD officers will no longer be able to detain people while they run background checks to see if they have outstanding warrants, according to a class action lawsuit that was settled by the city on Friday.

Officers will only be able to detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to, or has already been committed.

They can no longer continue to detain the person and run additional searches to see if they are wanted in connection to another crime — have missed a court appearance or are late in paying a court summons.

The settlement removes a method officers have used to catch violent offenders — which involved running warrant checks after they were stopped for lesser violations.

The department has agreed to update its patrol guide —and has already issued a memo to all officers advising them of the new rule.

NYPD will no longer detain anyone while they run background checks

How very interesting...full of loopholes but interesting!

As someone who has been detained pending the result of a search for wants and warrants...I laugh at this a little because everyone knows that the agenda of a police officer is whatever he/she/alternative pronouns, wants to do at that particular time in their day!

Training on the regulation is set for January 2023.

Actual training for this nonsense will be next month...so that gives them time to learn how to undo everything that they've been doing as part of their routine for the last 100 years or so!

The New York Police Department has agreed to prohibit officers from detaining anyone while running background checks on outstanding warrants in many instances, including in the event a person encounters police for minor violations, according to a class action lawsuit settled by the city on Friday.

Officers will only be able to detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to or has already been committed, according to the settlement.

CNN LINK

New York City police officers can no longer detain people solely to determine if there is a warrant for their arrest, if they don’t believe a crime has happened or is imminent, under a settlement filed in Manhattan federal court on Friday.

The police often stop people because officers believe they have illegal weapons, or have committed another crime. But now, during these stops, officers will be permitted to ask only questions related to the stop itself, under the new settlement. If the reason for the stop is resolved, the person will be free to go.

NYT LINK

New York City cops are no longer permitted to detain people while checking if there’s a warrant for their arrest – unless they believe the person committed a crime or is about to do so, according to a settlement filed in Manhattan federal court Friday.

Updated language in the patrol guide — filed in the settlement — says cops will now have to cut loose people they stop when officers wrap up their work on the specific issue.

“Once the tasks tied to the reason for the stop are completed or reasonably should have been completed, a person may not continue to be detained to search for a warrant,” it states.

New York Post Link

It's a shame they don't do the before hiring LEO's.
Police officer who gave feces sandwich to homeless man fired again.

Estimates indicate that two-thirds of fired San Antonio cops have been allowed to return to their jobs because of arbitration clauses in old union contracts.

Because of the public outcry, the San Antonio city council ultimately revised its police contract to reduce the arbitrators' power to return fired cops.

This is a common problem among police departments in other states in the US: The one in Washington, D.C. for example, allowed at least 37 fired officers over six years to return to their job, costing the city more than $14 million in back pay.

Almost half of the cops had been fired for behavior deemed a "threat to safety."

[www.jpost.com...]

a reply to: nugget1

It's a shame they don't do the before hiring LEO's.
Police officer who gave feces sandwich to homeless man fired again.

That is awful, disgusting and disgraceful!!! Worthy of it's own thread IMO!!!

originally posted by: jerryznv
a reply to: nugget1

It's a shame they don't do the before hiring LEO's.
Police officer who gave feces sandwich to homeless man fired again.

That is awful, disgusting and disgraceful!!! Worthy of it's own thread IMO!!!

No doubt, but it disgust me too much to make one. Feel free to do so!

originally posted by: nugget1
It's a shame they don't do the before hiring LEO's.
Police officer who gave feces sandwich to homeless man fired again.

The whole turd ... or just a nugget?

Their ability to do that before wouldn't have been a huge problem, except they abused it. Over and over again.

This was an eventuality they engendered themselves, by allowing the practice to be used to satisfy bean-counting politicians... because to them the detained weren't people until they say it is so.

originally posted by: Maxmars
Their ability to do that before wouldn't have been a huge problem, except they abused it. Over and over again.

This was an eventuality they engendered themselves, by allowing the practice to be used to satisfy bean-counting politicians... because to them the detained weren't people until they say it is so.

They abuse their power just by showing up to work IMO! They enforce laws they have to know are unconstitutional and then to top it off...they only enforce the ones they see fit, when it suits them! That in it's very nature is against the oath they took (or maybe they didn't) to serve and protect the citizens they police!

There is an agenda though...we're seeing it unfold before our very eyes!

Cops will still validate open warrants or equivalent.

Pull car over - “license and registration please” - back to cruiser - run license and registration - find open warrant - arrest subject.

I think these new rules are made to sound woke but will functionally change little.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Yea I am with you...they will just spend a few extra min in their car checking NCIC which already takes barely any time to do. You won't even know they are doing it unless you do have a warrant and then what...you going to try and argue to a judge that you shouldn't go to jail/prison because the officer wasn't allowed to search NCIC while you waited for your ticket. Good luck with getting a judge to see it your way...

originally posted by: nugget1
It's a shame they don't do the before hiring LEO's.
Police officer who gave feces sandwich to homeless man fired again.

Estimates indicate that two-thirds of fired San Antonio cops have been allowed to return to their jobs because of arbitration clauses in old union contracts.

Because of the public outcry, the San Antonio city council ultimately revised its police contract to reduce the arbitrators' power to return fired cops.

This is a common problem among police departments in other states in the US: The one in Washington, D.C. for example, allowed at least 37 fired officers over six years to return to their job, costing the city more than $14 million in back pay.

Almost half of the cops had been fired for behavior deemed a "threat to safety."

[www.jpost.com...]

Remember back during the defund/abolish the police movement?

Many warned it would only drive out the honest,good cops and leave the power hungry,crooked ones remaining.

Guess another prediction is coming to pass.

My thoughts on all these policies that favor criminals is to drive down property values. It'll be interesting to see who starts buying up property in the future.

Maybe this all is paving the way to "smart" cities and social credit systems.

originally posted by: nugget1
It's a shame they don't do the before hiring LEO's.
Police officer who gave feces sandwich to homeless man fired again.

Estimates indicate that two-thirds of fired San Antonio cops have been allowed to return to their jobs because of arbitration clauses in old union contracts.

Because of the public outcry, the San Antonio city council ultimately revised its police contract to reduce the arbitrators' power to return fired cops.

This is a common problem among police departments in other states in the US: The one in Washington, D.C. for example, allowed at least 37 fired officers over six years to return to their job, costing the city more than $14 million in back pay.

Almost half of the cops had been fired for behavior deemed a "threat to safety."

[www.jpost.com...]

So one guy gets through the cracks and all police officers should not be allowed a review by independent arbitration after being fired?

a reply to: jerryznv

Officers will only be able to detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to, or has already been committed.

Sound's pretty reasonable to me. No fishing expeditions, no holding people on the off-chance, no using bogus reasons to detain you until they can build a case.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: jerryznv

Officers will only be able to detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to, or has already been committed.

Sound's pretty reasonable to me. No fishing expeditions, no holding people on the off-chance, no using bogus reasons to detain you until they can build a case.

Pretty poorly worded in my opinion...still leaving the presumption of reasonable suspicion in the hands of police!

Now we dive into what constitutes reasonable suspicion...pretty much whatever they make up at the time!

a reply to: jerryznv

As it should be.
Police shouldn't take your time unless they know beyond a reasonable doubt you're about to commit a crime or that you're currently committing a crime.
If they know you have committed a crime previously, they'll knock on your door.

originally posted by: zachsquatch1
a reply to: jerryznv

As it should be.
Police shouldn't take your time unless they know beyond a reasonable doubt you're about to commit a crime or that you're currently committing a crime.
If they know you have committed a crime previously, they'll knock on your door.

Agreed...as it should be!

Too often though (in the past) they'd be able to detain you until they made one up! Which brings up a good point...I wonder if they'll still be able to arrest you and hold you for 72 hours just because!

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Except a tail light out or some other mundane ticket is still cause for an officer to ask for ID and run it to see if its valid...and guess what an NCIC check takes just about 30seconds too so if you think this will prevent that you have lost the plot. Also its it a bad thing to catch people who are fugitives?

a reply to: jerryznv

That'd be shakey if they don't have probable cause too make the stop in the first place. Of they do have probable cause them in some cases I would but yes...doubtful it would be a common thing though. That sort of action is typically only used when they feel there is a good likelihood that they would be able to charge you before 72hrs is up...or they think holding you 72hrs will prevent you from doing some kind of harm they expect you to commit in the immediate future.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Except a tail light out or some other mundane ticket is still cause for an officer to ask for ID and run it to see if its valid...and guess what an NCIC check takes just about 30seconds too so if you think this will prevent that you have lost the plot. Also its it a bad thing to catch people who are fugitives?

This would depend on if you were the fugitive or not right?

a reply to: jerryznv

And if you aren't the likely outcome is that you have no idea they ran an NCIC check when they checked to make sure your license and insurance was valid and then you leave with a warning and 10 or so min of your life wasted. If some guy beats his wife and skips bail I would hope that if stopped he wouldn't slip through the cracks to keep tormenting people. I might be annoyed at wasting 10min of my life if I am in a hurry but it sure is a small price to pay if it means actual bad people have a better chance of being caught when they run. Oh and I have had this happen to me more than once so I am not unfamiliar with how it goes. I have also been the one with a warrant who slipped through the cracks...it just wasn't a felony warrant nor was at for anything which caused harm to anyone else.

How about…72 hour involuntary hold for psyche evaluation because subject seemed nervous and jittery and may have undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder or other chemical imbalance. This is of course a precaution for the benefit of the subject.

That cut it? I mean a deep dive could occur by the time they are deemed psychologically clear.