911 Caller Busts NYPD Safehouse in NJ

[Kamakazie Sith]

If they made any arrests off their information then that would violate the law. If they simply gave their information to say the FBI then that would not. Basically, it'd be like a common citizen providing intel to law enforcement.

Which begs the question of how could the FBI legally make use of anything the police gathered, because it seems like a great way to skirt around the 4th amendment. I'd like to think there's a huge difference between "happening to notice something" and "actively spying on a group of people for weeks."

How do you figure? Were these NYPD officers conducting wiretaps, searching homes, searching people. You don't need a warrant to watch someone from a place you're legally allowed to be.

[Sarevok]

Which begs the question of how could the FBI legally make use of anything the police gathered, because it seems like a great way to skirt around the 4th amendment. I'd like to think there's a huge difference between "happening to notice something" and "actively spying on a group of people for weeks."

How do you figure? Were these NYPD officers conducting wiretaps, searching homes, searching people. You don't need a warrant to watch someone from a place you're legally allowed to be.[/quote]

What about officers acting undercover ? Can they do that on their own initiative without being sanctioned by higher authorities ?

[Serafina]

What were they doing that involved the use of police powers? I didn't see anything in the article. Don't misunderstand me. I do not like what the NYPD is doing here but they aren't violating any laws.

If they were told to do what they did by their superiors, or received support (such as the radios they had there), then that should count as "police powers". Otherwise the distinction becomes meaningless.

And i don't think that the police officers who ran that observation post paid for the apartment out of their own money, stole the necessary equipment from work without anyones approval and did so out of their own initiative.
If they DID, then they should obviously be fired (because they stole equipment).

[Kamakazie Sith]

What about officers acting undercover ? Can they do that on their own initiative without being sanctioned by higher authorities ?

No.

If they were told to do what they did by their superiors, or received support (such as the radios they had there), then that should count as "police powers". Otherwise the distinction becomes meaningless.

Police power is defined. It is the power to enforce laws. Watching someone is not enforcing laws.

And i don't think that the police officers who ran that observation post paid for the apartment out of their own money, stole the necessary equipment from work without anyones approval and did so out of their own initiative.
If they DID, then they should obviously be fired (because they stole equipment).

It's quite clear that they had approval from a higher authority. It's clear because it is stated in the article...

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way, Kamikaze.

Let's think about why limits on police powers and surveillance even exist. It is one thing to engage in police surveillance of a mafia family, or a drug smuggling ring, or something of that order.

But when the police are doing long term surveillance and fishing expeditions of a religious group for political reasons, in hopes of finding something that can be used to charge those groups with crimes...

Please, just stop for a moment, take off your cop hat and put on your "I took Government class from high school like everyone else" hat. Doesn't that sound like the kind of thing that the First and Fourth Amendments are supposed to stop?

Police, acting in secret, outside their jurisdiction, spying on a political or religious group, without any clear evidence of a crime being committed.

That is, practically speaking, the foundation of a police state. All you need is one or two laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts and you have a police state, once you're doing that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Put this way, Kamikaze.

Let's think about why limits on police powers and surveillance even exist. It is one thing to engage in police surveillance of a mafia family, or a drug smuggling ring, or something of that order.

But when the police are doing long term surveillance and fishing expeditions of a religious group for political reasons, in hopes of finding something that can be used to charge those groups with crimes...

Please, just stop for a moment, take off your cop hat and put on your "I took Government class from high school like everyone else" hat. Doesn't that sound like the kind of thing that the First and Fourth Amendments are supposed to stop?

Police, acting in secret, outside their jurisdiction, spying on a political or religious group, without any clear evidence of a crime being committed.

That is, practically speaking, the foundation of a police state. All you need is one or two laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts and you have a police state, once you're doing that.

Sigh

EDIT - I suppose I should have some content in my post. Simon, in my very first post in this thread I commented that I do not like this. It's very frustrating from my point of view when you tell me to "take off my cop hat" when that was the very first thing I did.

Second edit - What does the fourth amendment say? Here allow me - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word investigation does not appear. Notice the word surveillance, watched, or observed does not appear. Should it include those words? Probably. Especially when you consider the advances in technology. However, at this moment it does not. So, once again. I do not like the fact that the NYPD is conducting surveillance of muslims...even inside NYC. However, it is not illegal under any form of law at this moment.

I'll also remind you that SCOTUS just recently struck down warrantless GPS tracking of vehicles. A huge win for civil rights but it was only a win because the installation of a tracking device was considered an intrusion on a persons effect.

[Simon_Jester]

I apologize. Reflex on my end, I really shouldn't get like that.

That said, I really do not like this and hope it gets smacked down; the NYPD is not the Okhrana and should not start trying to impersonate them in hopes of getting similar remit.

[Serafina]

The problem i see with this is that it essentially leaves a giant hole that police can easily abuse to violate peoples civil rights. Off-the-record investigations just shouldn't happen, because they eliminate accountability. Because they shouldn't happen, they should have negative consequences for those who perpetuate them.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The problem i see with this is that it essentially leaves a giant hole that police can easily abuse to violate peoples civil rights. Off-the-record investigations just shouldn't happen, because they eliminate accountability. Because they shouldn't happen, they should have negative consequences for those who perpetuate them.

I agree, but I don't see the part where these investigations are considered off the record?

[Aaron MkII]

That's just the excuse they went with for court. We all know here that its a sanctioned operation.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's just the excuse they went with for court. We all know here that its a sanctioned operation.

Except the article doesn't say that. It doesn't say the investigation is off the record. It says those involved aren't conducting official police duties or acting as police officers. Which means they're acting in just an investigator capacity.

[Mr Bean]

Except the article doesn't say that. It doesn't say the investigation is off the record. It says those involved aren't conducting official police duties or acting as police officers. Which means they're acting in just an investigator capacity.

Then the cops are guilty of waste/fraud/and abuse unless they were paying for that apartment and department equipment with money from their own pockets. Then the question becomes who authorized the creation of this safe house outside their jurisdiction.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Then the cops are guilty of waste/fraud/and abuse unless they were paying for that apartment and department equipment with money from their own pockets. Then the question becomes who authorized the creation of this safe house outside their jurisdiction.

Pay attention.

It is a sactioned surveillance operation. While on this operation they are not using police powers or engaged in police duties. What that means is they aren't arresting people, writing warrants, detaining people, enforcing state or local laws.

[Mr Bean]

Pay attention.

It is a sactioned surveillance operation. While on this operation they are not using police powers or engaged in police duties. What that means is they aren't arresting people, writing warrants, detaining people, enforcing state or local laws.

I did pay attention, under what department guidelines is it okay to approve the creation of a safehouse outside your jurisdiction without so much as a case to go on.

Imagine this alternative scenario, you get to play the Chief
"Hey Chief Kamakazie Sith of the NYPD, we want to rent an apartment in Atlantic City, New Jersey. We don't have any know criminals we are surveying, we just want a safe house to watch a mosque full of Muslims. Also we want a secondary safe house in Honolulu to watch a mosque down the street from the Penthouse we have as our purposed rental site.

The common thread is we want to watch Muslims because you know... Muslims.
Now are you going to sign off on on the creation of either safe house to investigate no know crimes?

I know why you need a safehouse, because of an investigation your working, but safehouses require a certain level of crime. Are you going to set up a Safehouse to track down purse snatchers in New Brunswick? Probably not, how about a single car theft from NY that was found in New Brunswick. Most likely no you would agree.

There's no crime or criminal linked back to this safehouse, it has no purpose for creation except as a fishing expedition, perhaps a literal fishing expedition... maybe the fishing is great in New Brunswick. But a safehouse without a crime falls under waste/fraud/and abuse for the NYD. It's one thing to be out of your jurisdiction, it's another to be out running a broad based investigation without any crime or any suspects.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I did pay attention, under what department guidelines is it okay to approve the creation of a safehouse outside your jurisdiction without so much as a case to go on.

Imagine this alternative scenario, you get to play the Chief
"Hey Chief Kamakazie Sith of the NYPD, we want to rent an apartment in Atlantic City, New Jersey. We don't have any know criminals we are surveying, we just want a safe house to watch a mosque full of Muslims. Also we want a secondary safe house in Honolulu to watch a mosque down the street from the Penthouse we have as our purposed rental site.

The common thread is we want to watch Muslims because you know... Muslims.
Now are you going to sign off on on the creation of either safe house to investigate no know crimes?

I know why you need a safehouse, because of an investigation your working, but safehouses require a certain level of crime. Are you going to set up a Safehouse to track down purse snatchers in New Brunswick? Probably not, how about a single car theft from NY that was found in New Brunswick. Most likely no you would agree.

There's no crime or criminal linked back to this safehouse, it has no purpose for creation except as a fishing expedition, perhaps a literal fishing expedition... maybe the fishing is great in New Brunswick. But a safehouse without a crime falls under waste/fraud/and abuse for the NYD. It's one thing to be out of your jurisdiction, it's another to be out running a broad based investigation without any crime or any suspects.

I think their guilty of racial profiling.

It seems like you are aware of NYC's policies that define what waste/fraud/abuse are. If that is the case then accept my concession and apology.

[Sea Skimmer]

Worth keeping in mind the NYPD has an 'overseas' agent program including offices in Canada, Spain, Israel, France, Britain and several other countries specifically as intelligence fishing expeditions. This is besides the posting of around a hundred NYPD officers to FBI units that operate overseas already. I don't think jurisdiction or avoiding waste are high on the priority list.

[Mr Bean]

I think their guilty of racial profiling.

It seems like you are aware of NYC's policies that define what waste/fraud/abuse are. If that is the case then accept my concession and apology.

I went through basic with one of those only in America style stories, thirty four years old eight year veteran of the NYPD, decides to join the military but hates marching so he join the Navy. Later on he gets stationed at the same place I'm at two years later and we get to sit through the monthly require class and it's Waste Fraud and Abuse month and he talks about how the NYPD procedures are pretty much the same as the states procedures which are themselves identical to Federal procedures which are identical (mostly) to the military procedures we are going through including how to report WFA, the little rewards you get for reporting when the government is pissing away millions of dollars. Later at the bar (where else) a talk goes up about things police have to get approval for and Bad Boys 2 was in theaters at the time and we ask how people working undercover get to justify their expense reports and the talk goes from there to department budgets and the like. Turns out if your assigned to extended stake-outs or surveillance it will be classified as travel so you fill up the spy van with your own money, buy your own donuts and afterwords get the standard .34 cents a mile and 10$ a day for meals or whatever it is these days. Renting locations is handled differently and apparently on a very closely watched government linked credit card or just a civilian credit card controlled by government bean counters so rental can be payed out in whatever fake name supplied and all of this is done prior to the start.

In other words what is supposed to happen is that Chief skimmer approves that location X needs to be rented so undercover cop Y is given an estimated budget that an apartment in that area should cost Z dollars a month plus some for the utilities and he's given a credit card to pay for everything normally (Cash does not leave a trail but paying for everything with cash is something that gives bureaucrats heart attacks.)

Point is there has to be a case to justify the rental of the apartment, at least in theory that's the requirement. But it's the Chief or section Chief, it's some sort of top level decision is required to sign off on such things and they are supposed to follow the same guidelines but are allowed to approve anything (in theory, it depends on how active internal affairs is in accounting) because having that kind of flexibility is intrinsically useful to the job of police work... or so the theory goes.

Worth keeping in mind the NYPD has an 'overseas' agent program including offices in Canada, Spain, Israel, France, Britain and several other countries specifically as intelligence fishing expeditions. This is besides the posting of around a hundred NYPD officers to FBI units that operate overseas already. I don't think jurisdiction or avoiding waste are high on the priority list.

Part of those are justified as the NYPD works hand in glove with the FBI and overseas agencies because of Wall-Street. How many are out there helping hunt financial crimes... who can say.

[Sea Skimmer]

The FBI deployment makes some sense, random police in Spain though, no, I don't think so. The overseas unit is totally an initiative of the NYPD to hunt for counter terror information. They are pretty explicit on that.

[Thanas]

Second edit - What does the fourth amendment say? Here allow me - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice the word investigation does not appear. Notice the word surveillance, watched, or observed does not appear. Should it include those words? Probably. Especially when you consider the advances in technology. However, at this moment it does not. So, once again. I do not like the fact that the NYPD is conducting surveillance of muslims...even inside NYC. However, it is not illegal under any form of law at this moment.

I'll also remind you that SCOTUS just recently struck down warrantless GPS tracking of vehicles. A huge win for civil rights but it was only a win because the installation of a tracking device was considered an intrusion on a persons effect.

So in essence, the police could theoretically just camp outside my house, watch me 24/7 and then arrest/harass me as soon as I committ a misdemeanor?

I doubt the supreme court approved of that and I also doubt it would stand considering the right to privacy.

[Serafina]

See, thats the way i understood Kamikaze Siths comments as well:

That - as long as they don't do it while on duty and in uniform - the police has free reign to observe all my activities as long as they don't use any equipment on my property to do so (and maybe don't look inside my house). And that just strikes me as plain wrong.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So in essence, the police could theoretically just camp outside my house, watch me 24/7 and then arrest/harass me as soon as I committ a misdemeanor?

Theoretically, yes. As long as they were in a place that they were legally allowed to be...such as the road or sidewalk.

I doubt the supreme court approved of that and I also doubt it would stand considering the right to privacy.

-----------------------
People v. Arno, A warrant is unnecessary if the suspect knew, or should have known,
there was a reasonable possibility that officers or others might have seen or heard him.
-----------------------

If you go outside your front door and your front yard is open to public areas such as the road or sidewalk you do not have an expectation of privacy. If you surrounded your house with a 12 ft steel fence you'd have an expectation of privacy from ground level. However, if I utilize a tall building to look over your fence your right to privacy is no longer there because I'm using a vantage point that affords me a view from a place I have a legal right to be.

Surprisingly in People v. Claeys, if a view from your neighbors provided me with evidence but I did not have their permission that evidence would not be thrown out because the suspects fourth amendment rights weren't violated. The property owners rights were, but not the suspects. (I personally don't agree with this ruling because I think it falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree but whatever)


Here is my source; le.alcoda.org/publications/files/SURVEILLANCE.pdf

It is a bit out of date because it still considers GPS tracking to be constituational. If you find anything that I missed please post it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

See, thats the way i understood Kamakazie Siths comments as well:

That - as long as they don't do it while on duty and in uniform - the police has free reign to observe all my activities as long as they don't use any equipment on my property to do so (and maybe don't look inside my house). And that just strikes me as plain wrong.

Uh, I'm not sure where you got the not on duty part or not in uniform. That only applies to NYPD and their claim that they aren't conducting official police duties and I'm pretty sure they were on duty just in an undercover role. The official police duties, in my opinion, is enforcing law.

[Thanas]

So in essence, the police could theoretically just camp outside my house, watch me 24/7 and then arrest/harass me as soon as I committ a misdemeanor?

Theoretically, yes. As long as they were in a place that they were legally allowed to be...such as the road or sidewalk.

If they just happen to pass by, sure. But if they were sitting outside?

-

I doubt the supreme court approved of that and I also doubt it would stand considering the right to privacy.

-----------------------
People v. Arno, A warrant is unnecessary if the suspect knew, or should have known,
there was a reasonable possibility that officers or others might have seen or heard him.

First of all, that is an appeals court (California, to be exact).
Second, it does pretty much say the opposite of what you claim it does.

Here is the decision, I'll copy the relavant part:

Suspecting that defendants were operating a commercial venture wholesaling pornographic films, the Los Angeles police conducted a surveillance of their activities and those of their contracts over a 10-day period. Officer James D. Johnson, a member of the surveillance team, stationed himself on a hilltop 200 to 300 yards distant from the Playboy Building located at 8560 Sunset Boulevard. His vantage point was at an altitude approximating that of the sixth or seventh floor of the building. No other vantage points remotely approaching the height of the hill were located closer to the side of the building facing Johnson.
[....]
[3] We thus view the test of validity of the surveillance as turning upon whether that which is perceived or heard is that which is conducted with a reasonable expectation of privacy and not upon the means used to view it or hear it. So long as that which is viewed or heard is perceptible to the naked eye or unaided ear, the person seen or heard has no reasonable expectation of privacy in what occurs. Because he has no reasonable expectation of privacy, governmental authority may use technological aids to visual or aural enhancement of whatever type available. However, the reasonable expectation of privacy extends to that {Page 90 Cal.App.3d 512} which cannot be seen by the naked eye or heard by the unaided ear. While governmental authority may use a technological device to avoid detection of its own law enforcement activity, it may not use the same device to invade the protected right.

The distinction is well elucidated in United States v. Kim (D.Hawaii 1976) 415 F.Supp. 1252. There the federal district court was faced with the admissibility of evidence of two types of optically enhanced view. FBI agents had used a high powered telescope to peer into the interior of an apartment into which no one could see without artificial aid. Other agents had used binoculars to watch a balcony into which anyone could see with the naked eye. Relying upon Katz, the court found that the observation into the interior of the apartment invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy but that the observation of activity on the balcony might not.

Cases cited for a contrary result do not support the proposition for which they are cited. Rather, they approve binocular or other optically aided searches under circumstances where a reasonable expectation of privacy was not established because the activity observed could be seen by others without optical aid. Fullbright v. United States (10th Cir. 1968) 392 F.2d 432 involves observation of bootlegging activity through the open door of a barn from a distance of 75 to 100 yards. (392 F.2d at p. 435.) Commonwealth v. Hernley (1970) 216 Pa.Super. 177 [263 A.2d 904, 48 A.L.R.3d 1172] is concerned with a view through an open window from a distance of about 35 feet. (263 A.2d at p. 905.) People v. Superior Court (Stroud) (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 836 [112 Cal.Rptr. 764] validates an observation of stolen automobile parts by an officer using binoculars from a helicopter where the parts were in a back yard open for all to see. (37 Cal.App.3d at p. 839.) People v. Maxwell (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 124 [144 Cal.Rptr. 95] involves a view through binoculars of activity on a public street. (78 Cal.App.3d at p. 128.)

[1b] Here the activity seen through Johnson's 10-power binoculars within suite 804 was not observable to anyone not using an optical aid. It was as much protected from the uninvited eye as was Katz's conversation from the uninvited ear. We hence conclude that the municipal court erred in denying defendants' motion to suppress the product of Johnson's observations. {Page 90 Cal.App.3d 513}

So, using binoculars and spying on people is a big no-no, at least according to that case. Sure, walking past etc seems to be allowed, but that is not what the NYPD was doing here.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If they just happen to pass by, sure. But if they were sitting outside?

Legally allowed to be = Public area or private property with consent of owner

First of all, that is an appeals court (California, to be exact).

Yup. Are you claiming that New York state law has radically different rulings regarding civil rights?

Second, it does pretty much say the opposite of what you claim it does.

Yes, it does. You failed to comprehend critical pieces. I will point them out. (Your emphasis removed. My emphasis added)

Here is the decision, I'll copy the relavant part:

Suspecting that defendants were operating a commercial venture wholesaling pornographic films, the Los Angeles police conducted a surveillance of their activities and those of their contracts over a 10-day period. Officer James D. Johnson, a member of the surveillance team, stationed himself on a hilltop 200 to 300 yards distant from the Playboy Building located at 8560 Sunset Boulevard. His vantage point was at an altitude approximating that of the sixth or seventh floor of the building. No other vantage points remotely approaching the height of the hill were located closer to the side of the building facing Johnson.
[....]
[3] We thus view the test of validity of the surveillance as turning upon whether that which is perceived or heard is that which is conducted with a reasonable expectation of privacy and not upon the means used to view it or hear it. So long as that which is viewed or heard is perceptible to the naked eye or unaided ear, the person seen or heard has no reasonable expectation of privacy in what occurs. Because he has no reasonable expectation of privacy, governmental authority may use technological aids to visual or aural enhancement of whatever type available. However, the reasonable expectation of privacy extends to that {Page 90 Cal.App.3d 512} which cannot be seen by the naked eye or heard by the unaided ear. While governmental authority may use a technological device to avoid detection of its own law enforcement activity, it may not use the same device to invade the protected right.

The distinction is well elucidated in United States v. Kim (D.Hawaii 1976) 415 F.Supp. 1252. There the federal district court was faced with the admissibility of evidence of two types of optically enhanced view. FBI agents had used a high powered telescope to peer into the interior of an apartment into which no one could see without artificial aid. Other agents had used binoculars to watch a balcony into which anyone could see with the naked eye. Relying upon Katz, the court found that the observation into the interior of the apartment invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy but that the observation of activity on the balcony might not.

Cases cited for a contrary result do not support the proposition for which they are cited. Rather, they approve binocular or other optically aided searches under circumstances where a reasonable expectation of privacy was not established because the activity observed could be seen by others without optical aid. Fullbright v. United States (10th Cir. 1968) 392 F.2d 432 involves observation of bootlegging activity through the open door of a barn from a distance of 75 to 100 yards. (392 F.2d at p. 435.) Commonwealth v. Hernley (1970) 216 Pa.Super. 177 [263 A.2d 904, 48 A.L.R.3d 1172] is concerned with a view through an open window from a distance of about 35 feet. (263 A.2d at p. 905.) People v. Superior Court (Stroud) (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 836 [112 Cal.Rptr. 764] validates an observation of stolen automobile parts by an officer using binoculars from a helicopter where the parts were in a back yard open for all to see. (37 Cal.App.3d at p. 839.) People v. Maxwell (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 124 [144 Cal.Rptr. 95] involves a view through binoculars of activity on a public street. (78 Cal.App.3d at p. 128.)

[1b] Here the activity seen through Johnson's 10-power binoculars within suite 804 was not observable to anyone not using an optical aid. It was as much protected from the uninvited eye as was Katz's conversation from the uninvited ear. We hence conclude that the municipal court erred in denying defendants' motion to suppress the product of Johnson's observations. {Page 90 Cal.App.3d 513}

So, using binoculars and spying on people is a big no-no, at least according to that case. Sure, walking past etc seems to be allowed, but that is not what the NYPD was doing here.

You couldn't be more wrong. Using binoculars is wrong when it is used to spy into the interior of an area where you have an expectation of privacy.

[Gaidin]

Sounds in part like the same logic that's getting various police departments(or is it just NYPD so far?) smacked down for trying to keep people from videoing them on public property.