Faced with a $70 million budget gap, Mayor Cory Booker has proposed cost-cutting measures ranging from layoffs to shutting down city pools to wiping out the city's toilet paper budget.
But one important area for potential multi-million dollar savings hasn't gotten the attention it deserves: cutting the astronomical costs of police misconduct. Each year, Newark spends millions of dollars defending itself in lawsuits and paying out settlements to victims of police abuse.
The public hears little about police misconduct lawsuits because the vast majority of cases settle, and victims are typically forced to agree to remain silent as a condition of settlement. In addition, only settlements over $21,000 require approval from the city council. Public records about all settlements exist, but there is no central location, making it difficult for citizens who want to know the actual cost of police misconduct.
To uncover the true costs of police misconduct, the ACLU of New Jersey has combed court databases, meeting minutes and a battery of public records.
This is what we found: Between January 2008 and July 2010, there were 24 cases brought by citizens against the Newark Police that ended in settlement or arbitration. For the 19 cases those settlement amounts we could uncover, Newark paid out $1,041,617. That figure is only for cases that have already settled -- there are another 31 cases pending. And that same 18 months, at least 51 tort claims were filed against the police department - notices of lawsuits to come.
The cases describe nightmarish encounters with police: beatings, malicious prosecution, arrests of people videotaping police, homophobic slurs, recklessly driven police cars, and at least one sexual assault. Many of the officers named in the cases have a history of complaints against them, including one who has racked up 62 Internal Affairs complaints and another with 45.
Starting Monday, the ACLU-NJ will publish the details of a dozen such cases - settled and pending - brought by citizens against the Newark police on its website. We will release one case per day for the next twelve business days. Until now, most of these cases had never seen the light of day.
In the same 18-month period, the ACLU-NJ uncovered 11 settlements and one verdict in cases in which the Newark Police Department was sued by its own employees. In these cases, Newark had to pay a total of $2,691,503. Again, this covers only cases that have concluded; there are another nine cases filed by employees pending. The details of the cases that already settled, which the ACLU-NJ released in July, not only reveal the high financial costs of police recklessness, but the costs to officer morale and their professionalism on patrol.
When counting the costs, it's important to remember that the money paid to those who sue makes up just one part of the bill. Taxpayers also foot the enormous expense of municipal lawyers and outside law firms defending the city in these suits, as well as the legal fees the city must pay opposing counsel when it loses in court. In the case of Darren Nance, a terminated Newark Police officer who recently won a $600,000 verdict, the total cost of the city's defense, the plaintiff's legal fees and the calculation of interest owed to Nance will ultimately reach into the millions.
Make no mistake - this money comes from taxpayers. Newark doesn't have liability insurance. In fact, the settlement money comes from a general liability line in the city budget, not from the budget of the police department, so the Newark Police Department does not directly feel the financial pain of the pain its officers inflict.
And the financial costs are only the ones we can easily quantify; the steeper costs are incalculable. In the words of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, "If individuals' civil rights are compromised, public trust and confidence in the police are severely compromised." In other words, police misconduct severely jeopardizes community safety and erodes the trust officers need from the public to effectively fight crime.
Lawsuits and settlements can serve as teachable moments: they can reveal important information regarding dangerous patterns and practices in a department. Our review of lawsuits against Newark shows identical problems and behaviors spanning decades. When properly utilized, this data can provide police leadership the information they need to institute better training and accountability systems. Simply paying out damages will only lead to more abuse and more costs for the citizens of Newark.
Instead of trying to smooth over its mistakes with payouts, Newark should invest in reforms that can generate massive returns - in dollars, in lives, and in public confidence - allowing Newark to chart a path toward a new identity as a lean organization that will respect individual rights as capably as it protects public safety.
Until then, the citizens will involuntarily foot the bill for officers who violate our rights and for leaders who neglect the underlying problems that have plagued a floundering department for decades.
The Washington Post editorial board (generally not known for being the most progressive opinion page) gave him a shout-out today, citing him as the sole Republican to speak out for the sane position on religious freedom:
And Republican leaders - and we use that term loosely - have been almost universally eager to exploit the issue for political purposes. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie objected to both sides using the issue "as a political football," but he is the rare exception.
Christie, who's become a conservative icon, took a vocal stand against the xenophobia and mob mentality driving the opposition to the Park51 Muslim community center in Manhattan. More than that, he took a stand for one of our most fundamental founding rights.
In the words of our governor:
We cannot paint all of Islam with that brush. We have to bring people together.
You made New Jersey proud Monday, Governor.
Governor Christie chose to speak out, taking one for the team to remind us all what too many Americans too often forget: religious freedom doesn't belong to one faith - it belongs to everyone. No religion can claim a monopoly on the Constitution, and no race or ideology can claim exclusive access to the core values at the heart of America.
New Jersey witnessed the collapse of the towers from just across the Hudson. The Garden State grieved for the lives that were so senselessly lost, and we prayed for the commuters who would never make it home from the World Trade Center Path Station.
A cadre of fanatics sought to undermine America. They do not deserve the power to watch us undermine American values. Millions of Muslim Americans - whose religion claims as wide a range of members as every other - should not suffer for an attack that violated the country they love, too.
So we of the ACLU-NJ - as well as (we hope) everyone who believes in the First Amendment - thank you, Governor Christie, for speaking up Monday for religious freedom, for the Constitution, and for New Jersey.
Allison Peltzman works as communications specialist for ACLU-NJ, but this is what she believes no matter what her job is.
Retweet? @CoryBooker - do you have comment for @BlueJersey on ACLU charge of Newark transparency issues? - http://bit.ly/aSKiqg --- promoted by Rosi (link's corrected, thanks MJ)
Two weeks ago, amid news of layoffs in Newark, the City and its taxpayers took yet another financial hit: a high dollar verdict for a former police officer mistreated by the Newark Police.
A jury awarded Darren Nance $600,000, finding that the Newark Police had racially discriminated and retaliated against him.
Once lawyers tally up interest for this verdict, legal fees for his attorneys, plus the two private law firms hired to defend Newark, this case will likely cost millions.
Most cities rely on insurance to cover misconduct-based payouts, but Newark is deemed too high risk to qualify for a policy. Instead, these payouts come out of the pockets of Newark taxpayers. And for every case like Nance's that goes to trial, many others settle out of court behind closed doors.
It is difficult to know, therefore, the full financial impact of police misconduct on Newark taxpayers. We're also left in the dark about the details of the misconduct at the center of those cases, and whether the officers involved are sanctioned.
This is a shame because lawsuits - especially settled ones - can reveal dangerous practices in a department. And when individual officers are openly held accountable for the misconduct, it can deter others from engaging in similar acts.
To determine how much police misconduct cases cost Newark, and shed light on the underlying abuses, the ACLU of New Jersey has combed court databases, City Council minutes and other public records to find settlements.
We found that since January 2008, nine lawsuits by Newark police officers against the City were settled, with the settlements totaling $1,696,503. These cases primarily involve discrimination and retaliation.
Lawsuits from officers are just the tip of the iceberg. In that same time period, Newark awarded at least 23 payouts to citizens filing lawsuits over mistreatment ranging from false arrest to death in custody. Those, too, come with a hefty price tag - $766,617 from the 18 cases for which we have settlement amounts.
More cases are coming through the pipeline. We have identified 27 pending cases ordinary citizens have filed against the Newark Police since January 2008, and seven more filed by employees.
And there are likely others; since information about these lawsuits is not publicly disseminated or maintained in a centralized placed, we couldn't find every case filed against the Newark Police.
The costs go well beyond finances, of course. Lawsuits aside, police misconduct jeopardizes community safety and erodes the trust officers need from community members to effectively protect and serve.
But money matters, too, especially during a budget crisis. If the money Newark spends to defend and compensate for police officers' mistakes went towards reforms instead - training, technology, and resources for police - it would save money, lives, and public confidence in the long run.
The ACLU-NJ has an unwavering commitment to both government transparency and sound police practices. For the public's benefit, starting today, the ACLU-NJ will publish "the dirty dozen" of these cases on our website - representing some of the most egregious claims of discrimination, retaliation, beatings, and internal affairs corruption. We will release one a day for the next twelve business days. Many of these settlements have never before seen the light of day.
Darren Nance, however, got his day in court. He started his career as a Newark police officer in 1989 and encountered racism in the department after just a few months on the job. He spent the next seven years fighting for his rights, until the Newark Police fired him in 1996.
The jury verdict for Nance, along with these settlements, demonstrates that justice for police abuses can indeed come. But it also demonstrates a disturbing pattern: we see the abuses described in Nance's complaints from 15 years ago repeated in the settlements and pending lawsuits of today. The ACLU-NJ, which turned 50 this year, has fought the same kinds of abuses against Newark Police since our founding; change is overdue.
The only way to prevent the same mistakes, the same wounds, and the same payouts from the same stories is root out their sources. Otherwise, the citizens of Newark will continue to pay for bad apple officers who engage in abusive conduct and for managers and elected officials who fail to fix the underlying problems.
Yesterday morning wasn't the usual in Trenton. I had expected to testify against S1872, which creates a school voucher system in New Jersey. But instead of a hearing before the Senate Economic Growth Committee, I found myself at a rally of voucher supporters - mostly children attending private schools and their parents. From a basic strategic standpoint, they weren't the best faces for their cause, having an obvious, direct financial interest in the bill's passage - S1872 reserves 25 percent of the funding for private schools for families with students already in private schools. But I suppose they made up for their self- interest with enthusiasm.
The hearing became a cheerleading session when Senator Raymond Lesniak, the committee chairman and the bill's sponsor, expressed his outrage at the NJEA members who had filled the hearing room, while his hundreds of voucher supporters rallied outside. I understand why the situation frustrated him, but there were other, more productive, less divisive ways to solve the problem.
Instead, we all paid the price for his political theater. His sideshow cost the committee and those following the debate meaningful input from groups like the ACLU-NJ, Education Law Center, League of Women Voters, and NAACP. Instead of delivering my remarks collegially, seated at a table facing the legislators voting on the bill, I was forced to speak with my back to the legislators who were scarcely paying attention anyway. It's hard enough to hold legislators' attention in a hearing room with decorum, let alone with your back turned to them at a rally. It felt like an exercise in disrespect for the bill's opponents, the hearing process, and the constitutional analysis I had come to share.
At the end of the day Senator Lesniak said that the kids had learned a lesson in civics - but he was teaching from a bad curriculum. The students had been taken out of the classroom for the day to witness a mockery of the democratic process.
Our federal government is dithering on immigration reform. The recently created NJ group, Latino Action Network, is rightly despairing of any action this year. However, such does not stop NJ from instituting reform of its own.
Local NJ counties and the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can only be viewed as shameful in their treatment of incarcerated immigrants. It is time for NJ to end the cruel and inhumane practices in its detention centers.
These counties, including Union, Bergen, Hudson, Essex and Monmouth, have reaped big money - blood money - for their coffers by renting out over-priced, under-serviced, and over- crowded jail space to ICE for locking up immigrants. Conditions are often squalid. Medical care has been limited and sometimes non-existent. The food is often so bad that there have been hunger strikes. Visitation rights are cumbersome and hours are limited. Nationally documented cases of deaths resulting from negligence and abuse have been reported. Should our counties be in the business of generating extra income through mistreatment of immigrants?
ICE, a unit of Homeland Security, not only countenances such practices but aggravates them. They make it difficult for concerned family and relatives to find out where immigrants are incarcerated. They frequently move immigrants from one facility to another. No sooner does a public advocate begin to help a detainee than the person may be moved to another location. So bad were some of the practices in the NYC Varick facility that ICE recently began transferring its detainees to a Hudson County jail in Kearny and to other NJ centers. Will they be better off in NJ? The NJ and NY ACLU recently wrote to Homeland Security expressing grave concern.
Congratulations to those individuals who staged a ten-mile walk last week from the foot bridge for Ellis Island to the Elizabeth Detention Center to highlight the plight of immigrant detainees. "America's greatness is represented by the Statue of Liberty over there, not the Elizabeth Detention Center," said Shai Goldstein, spokesman for the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network.
The problems regarding ICE's deportation system, of course are broader. As the NY and NJ ACLU group indicated in their letter, "Detention itself is a relatively new, costly, and inappropriate response to other problems within the deportation system that are better addressed by true alternatives to detention aimed at reducing rather than expanding the detention system as a whole." The Ellis Island organizers seek an overhaul of immigration policy and want to see "community-based alternatives to detention as well as judicial discretion in the deportation."
In the meantime local immigrant detention continues to be characterized by inhumanity, secrecy and greed. NJ should undertake its own reform and assure that humane standards are being met in our detainee jails.
So far local jails have made only token improvements. In his budget address to the legislature Governor Christie said, "For those who stay in the corner defending parochial interests, please be on notice - people will band together and drag you to the center of the room to make our state the place we know it can be." Go for it Governor! Or else the courts should intervene.
Today is the day that the NJ Senate finally votes on marriage equality. This is hardly a news flash for regular readers of this blog, but it's still feels kinda surreal that it's finally show time.
If anyone reading has pics, video or updates to add, please feel free to share here. If you're on site in Trenton, grab a snack cuz it's gonna be a long day....... I estimate the marriage vote to go down sometime around 5:30pm.
Jay Lassiter planned all along to go down to the statehouse yesterday and blog for us. But then, something happened in his hometown, that made him stay there, to capture for you today what the people of Cherry Hill did when the fools came to town. Great job, Jay - promoted by Rosi
Today the NJ Senate Judiciary voted on gay marriage equality. And what a long strange trip it's been clearing the first hurdle.
Hell yes, it's on. And if any of you Blue Jersey readers are down there advocating for parity in our marriage laws, by all means chime in with your own comments, pictures or a diary of your own. - - Promoted from the diaries by Rosi
Update 12:01pm 300 pro-equality lobbyists - gay and straight - showed up on our side, with people still coming. Fewer than 75 people showed up to tell your state legislators to keep marriage only for us straight folks. 300 is 4 times 75, babies. Fierce turnout!
Update! 11:44am Our press conference begins at noon. Video to follow.
Update! 11:08am. Senator Cardinale just arrived. He's at his irrepressible best which means all is well with the world. One thing I've noticed about our opponents is their thinking is a generation behond for a good reason: They tend to be older. I'm thirty-seven and I'm an elder statesman on my side. On their team, I'd be the youngest buck.
Update! 10:20 am and the pro-equality crowd is so massive that we're still filing through security. In fact the progressive coalition's now filled yet another committee room to capacity. The pro-marriage crowd looks young and vital while the haters have a look that says "time is NOT on our side."
It's 9:20 am and it's officially on. If juicy lame duck is you're thing, the State house is the place for you.
The Senate Judiciary hearing room is packed to max with marriage equality friend and foe.
But little do they know, we have reinforcements. See below.
If you can't make it personally, maybe you can make some phone calls. You guys know the drill: Sweeney and Sarlo need to hear from you. Every day.
There's been a lot of buzz about the progressive coalition headed to Trenton Monday to lobby towards Marriage Equality. (details below, hat tip Alison Pelzman)
I'll be there. Lots of my friends and allies will be there too. Will you? Consider this a pre-lobby day open thread.
Rally with the Garden State Equality/BlueJerseyACLU-NJ/DFA in Trenton Monday, November 23.
We're meeting at:
Garden State Equality's New Jersey Office
110 W. State Street, Trenton
Monday, November 23, 2009
8:30 a.m.
If there's a day to take off work for a cause, it's Monday. Your day off could mean a lifetime of equality for families in New Jersey.
If you live in another state, just promise to help us raise hell, deal? If we win, we'll celebrate at the Atlantic City boardwalk. If we lose, we'll go to the casinos and take bets on what we'll see first: civil rights for New Jersey's gay families or a lesbian Miss America.
Allison looks at Mad Men and sees New Jersey. Hell-o? Then sews it all up with a shout out to her ACLU-NJ friends to join her Monday in Trenton for marriage equality. By the way, this is Allison's first-ever post at Blue Jersey. Beat that with a stick! Thanks, Allison - - promoted from the diaries by Rosi
"Maybe it's not the time for civil rights."
It was shocking when Betty Draper said that to her black housekeeper Carla upon hearing the now-infamous news that a bomb in a Birmingham church had killed four little girls in 1963 Alabama.
Mad Men has become an American pop-culture sweetheart partly because the anachronistic, chauvinistic, homophobic, racist, politically incorrect sentiments sound absurd today. Characters toss back bigotry as easily as a glass of Jameson at the beginning of their workday. It seems just as wrong, and there's about as much slurring in both.
If only the prejudice on the show were actually anachronistic. Earlier this week, New Jersey's Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney told the press that civil rights for New Jersey couples should wait. And we say to him, if not now, then when?
If New Jersey doesn't pass marriage legislation now, any possibility in the near future is as good as gone. We have just a few weeks until Governor Corzine, who supports the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry, officially hands over the reins to Governor-elect Chris Christie, who vocally does not.
We have a state whose majority supports equal rights for gay couples, we have a legislature whose majority supports equal rights for gay couples and we have a governor - for now - who also supports equal rights for gay couples.
But we don't have a leader in the state senate brave enough to say, "That's enough. New Jersey is going to do the right thing."
Instead of taking up the responsibility to do what they know is right, they're taking cover behind the economy. We have four years ahead of us to fix New Jersey's withering finances. We have less than two months to make sure that people aren't forced to live with the indignity of discrimination brought on by civil unions, affecting every corner of their lives, every day of their lives.
I wasn't shocked that Betty Draper wavered on civil rights in front of Carla. Coldness is Betty's signature characteristic; callousness isn't surprising. I was shocked because, from the vantage point of the 21st Century, after this country fought against the legacy of some of the darkest episodes of human history - the middle passage, hundreds of years of slavery, a brutal war that killed more Americans than any other, the failure of reconstruction, the nadir of American race relations, Jim Crow laws, unending injustices - I could not imagine what the world would look like if the leaders of the 60s had thrown their hands up and said, "You know, maybe it's not the time for civil rights."
Americans made it the time for civil rights. They didn't politely ask politicians to pencil them into their schedules - they left the politicians without a choice, and they changed the world. Segregation came to an end, miscegenation laws were repealed, American soldiers protected the rights of African Americans in America's schools and streets, and people across the country rode buses for days to march for miles in some of the most dangerous places in the world for a black person or a Jew. The equality they all hungered for eclipsed their fear of taking personal risks. And those sacrifices make politicians' political fears look like a farce.
Mr. Smith has never lived in Washington, and he certainly doesn't go to Trenton. It usually takes an extraordinary leader to take bold action, even to do the right thing - with one exception. Politicians take bold action when the chorus of Americans together becomes too loud to ignore.
Can you imagine what the world would look like if the people concerned about civil rights in 1963 decided that it wasn't the time for civil rights? Would Loving v. Virginia be a 2009 case instead of one from 1967? Even if we're constantly fighting against backslides in our voting rights, at least we have the Voting Rights Act to hold our government to. We don't have poll-tax free-for-alls.
"But gay rights. That's so new and radical."
It's not, though. We've been in the same place for decades. The Stonewall raids, the assassination of Harvey Milk, the panicked response to AIDS. It was never the time for civil rights back then. So why not now?
January Jones, the actress behind the Betty Draper mask, lampooned her character's cheerful bigotry in a Saturday Night Live sketch that told housewives how to host the perfect party. "Homosexuals should be addressed by Ms. or Mrs., depending on their age. If a black person arrives ... just kidding. A black person won't arrive. That's an example of party humor."
It's tongue in cheek, sure, but it's still the same mindset that declared, "Now isn't the time for civil rights." It's a mindset of exclusion, and it's rooted in the belief that only some people deserve to have their constitutional promises kept. That's not who we are as Americans, and that's not who we want to be in New Jersey.
We've come too far to retreat. The "economy" excuse is a red herring, a false dichotomy, an easy way out, and just plainly and simply wrong. Marriage would bring money into New Jersey, and it would solve the financial straits of gay couples who struggle because their civil unions deprive them of health benefits.
It is the time for civil rights, because our momentum as a country pulls us toward the expansion of rights, not their restriction. I want to be shocked in 40 years because a character on a retro TV show about the early 21st century suggests that now isn't the time for marriage equality. I don't want to live in a world in 40 years where I have to tell myself, "Well, maybe this time we'll succeed."
It's up to New Jersey legislators, who know that marriage equality is the right thing, to secure the civil rights of our state's gay and lesbian families. But it's up to us, the rest of New Jersey, to pressure our state's legislators into not having a choice.
If you live in New Jersey, there are ways you can take immediate action. We need you to e-mail your state senator, call the senate majority leader at 856-251-9801 -- urge him to take up marriage legislation -- and rally with the ACLU-NJ in Trenton Monday, November 23.
We're meeting at: Garden State Equality's New Jersey Office
110 W. State Street, Trenton
Monday, November 23, 2009
8:30 a.m.
If there's a day to take off work for a cause, it's Monday. Your day off could mean a lifetime of equality for families in New Jersey.
If you live in another state, just promise to help us raise hell, deal? If we win, we'll celebrate at the Atlantic City boardwalk. If we lose, we'll go to the casinos and take bets on what we'll see first: civil rights for New Jersey's gay families or a lesbian Miss America.
Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey contributed this piece. - - promoted from the diaries by Rosi Efthim
In his six months in office, President Obama has disappointed social justice advocates with his positions on issues like gay rights, warrantless wiretapping and, most recently, indefinite detention. We all want to see our President succeed; he generates hope and excitement, and embodies long-awaited change. But we also feel conflicted - while we're sympathetic to the many obstacles he faces to creating meaningful change, the president still needs a resolute front to hold his feet to the fire.
Newark, NJ, a microcosm of Obama's plight, is a petri dish of a place with a visionary leader who inspires hope. When Mayor Cory Booker took office three years ago, he promised long-suffering Newarkers that he would capitalize on untapped resources, restore public trust in government and honor the civil liberties he has always held close to his heart. He also implored us to hold him accountable, knowing that government depends on citizens to keep it in line.
Mayor Booker has a full plate: reducing crime, confronting poverty and educating students whose schools have for too long failed them. But, in Newark, every plate needs a big scoop of civil liberties. After all, few cities have as extensive histories of civil liberties abuses against its citizens - the 1967 rebellion and riots were fueled in large part by police brutality. The mayor personally experienced violations of free speech and other rights under the prior leadership of the city, as the acclaimed film Street Fight documented.
This week, the ACLU of New Jersey issued Mayor Booker's junior-year report card on civil liberties; he earned a disappointing C-average. When it comes to civil liberties, the mayor hasn't reached his potential.
The mayor earned his best grades - B's - in two subjects: open government and immigrant rights. In open government, the mayor swiftly corrected problems, such as his administration's practice of having corporation counsel scrutinize each response to public records requests.
In immigrants' rights, the mayor has set the right tone and backed up his words, working closely with community advocates to address tensions over day laborers waiting for work in Newark's Portuguese district. He recognizes Newark's diversity and the importance of defusing tensions between different communities and has demonstrated exceptional grace in discouraging anti-immigrant sentiment, even in the face of political consequences.
However, the Mayor earned unacceptably low grades on two essential subjects: a C- in free speech, and a D in police practices.
Mayor Booker has yet to resolve basic free-speech failures. For seven years, the ACLU-NJ has grappled with the city to stop it from illegally requiring people to purchase million-dollar liability insurance policies before holding public demonstrations. The ACLU-NJ won a lawsuit ordering the city to end this practice and helped the city formulate its free speech policy, but City Hall workers still misinformed people that they needed insurance to exercise free speech in Newark.
The Mayor received his lowest grade, a D, in police practices, the subject that has most direct impact on citizens. The ACLU-NJ has received an unprecedented number of complaints against the Newark Police during the Booker Administration. We represent teenagers treated abusively by the Newark police, as well as a newspaper publisher illegally held in custody in an attempt to suppress his First Amendment rights.
Most recently, the ACLU-NJ took on the case of a woman stopped by two Newark officers who apparently had made a bet about her gender. The officers demeaned, harassed and arrested her on false charges.
Our clients who contacted internal affairs for help only encountered further rights violations, including having their complaints lost, misdirected, ignored and even refused, a grave situation given internal affairs' status as one of the mayor's top priorities.
At the end of the day, our report card is more than just handing out a grade. We're looking at the real lives of people in this city and adding up the costs to their rights. While many of the civil liberties problems originated long before Mayor Booker arrived on the scene and some are perpetuated by the culture of the city, the mayor should have made more progress on civil liberties by now.
We recognize that, as with President Obama, the mayor has countless political and economic obstacles. But when it comes to taking decisive action to protect freedom of speech or stop abusive police practices, the citizenry is 100 percent on the side of the mayor's success. We need him on our side in return. He has tremendous power to better protect civil liberties in Newark, provided he has the will to dig in and take charge.
We hope that the mayor will make civil liberties a higher priority in his "senior" year. Newark can't have public safety without public trust, and Mayor Booker must earn that trust by respecting the rights of the people. Idealism and soaring rhetoric are inspiring in a politician, but bold actions must follow bold words.
The ACLU released their report card yesterday grading Mayor Booker and the city of Newark on four criteria: Immigrant rights, Open Government, Free Speech and Police Practices. The report card is the first prepared by the ACLU on a specific city, and focused on Newark, because it is the state's largest city.
They were very critical of the police practices in Newark and also tough on the city regarding the free speech analysis. You can see the whole report for their concerns and analysis.
Booker last week said he welcomed, "constructive input on how to get better," but said the report card failed to recognize progress that was being made in addressing ACLU concerns. He noted that ACLU had been given a level of access to city officials the agency never had under his predecessor, former Mayor Sharpe James.
"We think we've made some pretty incredible strides," Booker said.
[snip]
Booker said a B grade for open government was "outrageous," after he pushed for reinstatement of a citizen's right to speak at city council meetings.
The city, also under the Booker administration, the mayor said, created a constituent concerns office, has heard residents at open-office-hour events around the city, established the state's first "4311," information line, for non-emergency citizen issues, and even has used the social networking website, Twitter.com, to communicate with residents.
And there was additional criticism of the report:
Julian Neals, Newark's Corporation Counsel, said the low grade on police practices alone was unwarranted because the lawsuits remain unresolved.
"It's like giving somebody a final grade during mid-term season," he said. "I think it's a little bit premature."
I've seen him talk about many of these issues, but the ACLU doesn't feel like the actions have backed up all of his words. Even the Mayor himself acknowledges regularly that there is more work to do, but he seemed pretty disappointed by this report as not giving credit for the strides they have already made. He just doesn't seem to see some of the points as constructive criticism.
We've all been huddled inside all the winter, but that doesn't mean we weren't all busy improving the community. The ACLU-NJ is hosting our Young Professionals Mixer at the Coffee Cave in Newark, and it's a chance to share what you've been up to and to learn what the ACLU-NJ, as well as groups of do-gooder types in the community, has been up to.
We'll have good drinks, good conversation, and a chance for you to meet other interesting like-minded young professionals working to improve our community, both with the ACLU and independently.
Entrance also pays for a year membership in the ACLU-NJ if you're not a member. And everyone gets a goody bag full of swag.
I hope to see you there Tuesday.
WHAT:
Young Professionals Mixer
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Food, drinks, and music.
WHERE: The Coffee Cave
45 Halsey Street
Newark, NJ
COST: $15 for ACLU-NJ Members
$20 for Non-members (an ACLU-NJ membership is included in your entrance fee!)
If you haven't been following the eerie and interesting developments regarding Chris Christie's warrantless monitoring program while he was US Attorney, you've been missing out on how Christie's office was following the Bush Justice Department's "Big Brother is watching you" mantra.
And last night on Blue Jersey radio, Catherine Crump, lead ACLU attorney on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit which brought to light the government's warrantless tracking of New Jerseyans - using their own cell phones - under then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie dropped a few more bombshells about the case.
I strongly recommend you take a listen to the show, especially the last 10 minutes, which was kicked off by a question by one of the Blue Jersey radio listeners (thanks much, Frank) about whether Christie's office lied about this program while he was still US Attorney.
Ms. Crump's first comment provided a timeline of events that culminated in the release of a letter indicating that not only was there a widespread use of warrantless monitoring of cell phones by US Attorneys' offices around the country, but Chris Christie's office utilized this warrantless monitoring program far in excess of any other US Attorney office.
But that wasn't all she divulged. When asked about the timing of the release of this letter (as some Christie supporters have hinted at due to the Republican primary in a few weeks), she indicated that the initial request in 2005 resulted in the ACLU being told by Christie's US Attorney office that there were NO instances they could find of warrantless monitoring of cell phones, only to have his successor provide this information after Christie's office was sued for this information AND Christie left office.
Oh yeah, the Court ordered the information be provided not once, but twice, in September 2007 and again in October 2008. And just to repeat, Christie's office was sued while he was US Attorney, and only provided the information after he left office.
Let's review this timeline again:
December 2005: ACLU submits Freedom of Information Act request for records from the Justice Department, the FBI and the National Security Agency;
2007 (per Ms. Crump): Additional Freedom of Information Act request to Chris Christie's office to release information related to warrantless monitoring of cellphones;
2008 (per Ms. Crump): ACLU received response from Chris Christie's office that it had "no records or documents related to warrantless monitoring of cell phones";
July 2008: The ACLU files suit to obtain records about the federal government's tracking of cell phones;
December 31, 2008: US Department of Justice letter issued indicating the depth and breadth of NJ's US Attorney's office warrantless monitoring program. Per Ms. Crump, "NJ is being more aggressive than essentially any other state we could find in using this tracking technology"
Why is this such a big deal? Well, according to Ms. Crump (link to DOJ Reply to ACLU request here as well):
"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," Crump said. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."
On the show last night, Crump also revealed that the warrantless monitoring of cell phones can provide information related to when someone leaves for work, what time they get home, what friends they are visiting as well as other habits and associations.
Why was Christie stonewalling the ACLU on their Freedom of Information Act request, even after his office was sued? Why was this information still withheld even after there was a court order to provide such information? And why did Christie's office indicate that there was absolutely no documentation about a program that Christie revealed just recently to be something that he not only knew about, but gave conflicting answers on what groups or individuals he was monitoring without a warrant?
And how can Chris Christie still claim to be taking the high road and having respect for the rule of law when time after time after time shows how he has used his connections and office to step right up to the line of stretching the law. There are too many coincidences - whether it is this, the no-bid contracts, the way he was on and off the US Attorney firing list or his brother's non-indictment - and a clear pattern of abuse has developed.
Was he lying then, or is he lying now? And if he wasn't (or isn't) lying, then how does he explain his knowledge of this widespread practice going on within his office at a time when his office was denying that any record of this widely utilized program even existed?
Each week, Blue Jersey Radio streams LIVE with New Jersey's latest political buzz, interviews with newsmakers, and your stimulating calls.
Special heads up: Tomorrow night, Tuesday, at 8:00 p.m., we're LIVE with a very special guest: ACLU attorney Catherine Crump, talking about the government's warrantless tracking of cell phones, including here in New Jersey under then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. As chief counsel in the ACLU's challenge to the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program, Crump has worked extensively on protecting individuals' civil liberties, and will help us delve deeper into an issue we started discussing during last week's show.
Just give us a call, and share what's on your mind. Remember, it's all LIVE, so while you listen to us, remember that the government may be watching you listen, and tracking where you are. Sound like freedom? Chris Christie apparently thinks so.
Last week, we learned that former US Attorney and Republican Gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie oversaw a vast warrantless monitoring program to track in real time dozens of Americans' cell phones. In the past few days, Christie has come under attack from both the left and right on this important privacy issue. Christie has defended himself against these attacks by claiming that warrantless monitoring is "lawful." This assertion, which has gone largely unchallenged by the media, is incorrect. Indeed, warrantless monitoring cannot be lawful, because violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
Christie and other government officials who claim that warrantless cell phone monitoring program is "lawful" rely on two statutes to support this assertion. Both the Pen Register Act and the Stored Communications Act establish a standard less demanding than "probable cause" for the state to obtain a court order forcing cell phone companies, ISPs, and other entities to give up electronic records. Both of these acts were intended to extend privacy protections to certain communications that were previously completely unprotected by affording them some measure of protection. US Attorney Christie, however, blatantly disregarded Congress's intent, interpreting the acts as expanding, rather than limiting law enforcement surveillance powers.
While his disregard for the legislative intent of the two acts weakens Christie's position, his interpretation of the federal law ultimately fails because it runs afoul of the highest law in the land, namely the United States Constitution. There is a principle in constitutional law, called the Avoidance Canon, that states that given two reasonable constructions of a statute, if one conflicts with the Constitution and the other does not, the one that conflicts with the Constitution is always incorrect. Christie's overzealous reading of federal statutes is therefore not valid, and his claim that warrantless monitoring is "lawful" is false.
While neither the Supreme Court nor any US Circuit Court has yet ruled on warrantless cell phone tracking, a majority of federal district court judges who have considered the issue have found such searches to be unconstitutional. The judges who did rule in favor of the government endorsed only the least precise and invasive methods of tracking. While US Attorney, Christie used the most precise and invasive technology available-GPS tracking that can pinpoint the location of a cell phone to within 20 feet. The US Attorney's office continued their warrantless monitoring program even though it could be effectively thrown out when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers New Jersey) rules on a pending case (an Electronic Frontier Foundation amicus brief on the case can be found here).
Below the fold, I present the most compelling Consitutional argument against warrantless cell phone tracking. I contend that tracking the precise (to within 20 feet) location of a cell phone without a warrant is, in general, an unreasonable search, and thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Blue Jersey readers who are interested in preserving privacy and free speech and promoting innovation in new media should visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website. Despite being less than 20 years old, the EFF has become the preeminent advocacy group for civil liberties online. The EFF is, in a sense, the ACLU of the 21st century.
While he was U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Chris Christie gave approval to track people's precise whereabouts through their cell phones, and he did this without a first obtaining a warrant, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
This is just the newest example of our privacy rights careening over the edge with federal officials drunk at the wheel. Big Brother is tucked away in our cell phones, and the man behind the curtain is Chris Christie.
If this accusation is true, Chris Christie grossly overstepped the authority of his office while serving in New Jersey as the federal government's point-man for the U.S. Justice Department. And it makes it ever more clear that what he was really serving were the interests of a paranoid president of his party, George Bush, who thought little of using his authority to spy on the citizens of his country. And that would make Chris Christie New Jersey's spy on the ground for George Bush.
ACLU's accusations are based on Justice Department documents made public today following a July, 2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). EFF is a civil rights organization dealing with digital-age issues.The documents reveal show that the government is actively taking advantage of GPS or other similarly precise technology to monitor people's coming and goings, specifically in New Jersey as well as Florida, and that it does not always obtain a search warrant beforehand, according to ACLU-NJ.
"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."
The just-released documents show that federal prosecutors in both New Jersey and Florida are obtaining court orders merely by showing the tracking information gathered is "relevant and material" to a criminal investigation. That is a much lower burden than the "probable cause" standard required by the Constitution.
The documents released by the ACLU say the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey identified 79 such cases on or after Sept. 12, 2001 -- 66 of which resulted in a criminal prosecution.
"This search also found that nineteen applications were granted after November 16, 2007, to permit the government to obtain GPS or similarly precise location data on target cell phones without a judicial determination of probable cause," the document by the Department of Justice states. "Seventeen of these cases resulted in a criminal prosecution."
Christie was the U.S.Attorney for New Jersey Jan 17, 2002 - November 2008. The documents don't make clear how many of the applications were made during that time.
EFF senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston:
Many people aren't aware that they can be tracked using the GPS chip in their cell phones, even when the phone is not in use. It's time for Congress to step in and make clear that federal law requires the government to get a warrant before tracking your cell phone.
This story is being filed, quickly, and ACLU is still hunting some of this information - specifically, the names of people who were under this warrantless surveillance, using their own cell phones to track them. Who was tracked? How many? We're going to stay on top of this story.
Officer Anthony Cavallo of Union Police is a liar and a serial exaggerator for concocting a story about the Defendant that he jumped Red Light out of whole cloth. Under oath he repeatedly said he was Parked on the other side of the intersection by the Chase Bank and at the same time kept on denying he was not parked in the Handicapped Parking!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3...
Second time Officer Cavallo followed the Defendant for more than 15 minutes and gave him a parking ticket with his blinkers still on without issuing any Summons to other vehicles belonging to Whites parked there for hours eating inside the bakery. Defendant was still outside the Blue Ribbon Bakery holding its door to get in just to pick up a big pie kept ready for him. When the Defendant took pictures of other parked vehicles in loading zone Cavallo made a obscene gesture to the Defendant F*** You
http://www.flickr.com/photos/3...
Judge Stuart Piem of Superior Court of Union County & Judge Jeffery Angelo of Roselle Park both found Officer Cavallo very credible who had all the help of a Racist Prosecutor Robert Donovan who made the remarks inside the Court room, ""It is a free country you can raise the issue of Racial Profiling or Racial Bias at any place but not in my Court. Every one with traffic violation ticket raises these questions. I am not concerned what happened to you or in the case in the last 1 year.
This Prosecutor Donovan intentionally created commotion and havoc in the Court of Judge Angelo by taking away his Copy of Motion & Photographs as well as of the Defendant despite the fact he had his own copy of the Motion and Photographs. The Court Transcripts are proof of this commotion & havoc by Racist Robert Donovan.
Under Home Rule of NJ rather Gang Rule Judge Stuart Piem also denied oral arguments to the defendant. Judge Piem & Angelo both found the testimony of a liar Anthony Cavallo credible and found nothing wrong in his making F*** You gesture to the victim of Racial Profiling & Selective Enforcement of Law.
It looks like Judge Piem, Judge Angelo and Prosecutor Donovan are still living in the past and do not understood the meaning of the comments made by our first African American Attorney General Eric Holder, "We are a nation of cowards when it comes to race matters". Judge Piem & Angelo have failed in their legal duties in addressing the issue of Racial Discrimination and illegal Traffic Summons Quota practiced by Union Police initiated by Union Twp & legalized by Union Municipal Court.
Home Rule=GANG RULE County Superior Court in cahoots with Municipal Courts in legalizing Traffic Summons Quota, Racial Profiling & Selective Enforcement of Law initiated by Politicians to raise revenue for the comforts of largest elected more than 1 scoundrel & over 50 employees per square mile in the world in Banana Republic of New Jersey. To protect them there are more than 10 Attorneys per square miles majority of the times with Tax Payers money.
Important Statements made by Union PD, Twp Officers
Officer Rad Sangster while parked illegally outside Marina News he made a remark, "they are under pressure to write Summons because they have to fill their Traffic Summons Quota".
Sgt. Fenton of Springfield PD while processing Bail Papers for arrest warrants issued & executed in 5 days by Union MC on fictitious grounds, "Although we are not supposed to have it but Springfield also has a Traffic Summons Quota."
www.flickr.com/photos/28501071@N07/3022944855/
Sgt. Elliott: it has been a long time since any Cultural or Racial Sensitivity Training has been conducted for Union PD. Officer Cavallo who is in the force for last 31/2 yrs only never had any such training!
Officer Jovic's unprovoked voluntary statement after writing a Summons on the intersection knowingly that NJDOT has made it unsafe & inconvenient, "Do not pay the fine, make sure you come to court on Oct. 23rd & talk to the prosecutor. If you send the fine you will have 1 point on your license. We hate to do what we are doing but we are being forced by our Bosses to do it."
Town Administrator James Bradley: "it has been the position of the township since reconfiguration of the intersection, that the State of New Jersey returns the intersection to its original design." The complainant should take up this matter with NJDOT. He further added, "We will forward a copy of your letter and concerns to NJDOT so that they may take your recommendations into considerations."
www.flickr.com/photos/28501071@N07/3023752464/
Sgt. Rego of Union PD while conducting a sham internal affair investigation without any complaint, "I know that it is a bad system and traffic is backing up to Springfield . City was against it and still the State implemented it. State can do whatever they want to do. NJDOT I believe is going to make changes to this pattern. You know how the State works; it will take a while for them to do any thing."
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey says a state directive banning the group from distributing voter information cards at polling places violates free speech and voter rights.
The Attorney General's Office says it is needed to give voters a politics-free haven as they make their way to the polls.
The dispute will land in the state Supreme Court on Tuesday when it hears the ACLU's challenge to the 2007 Attorney General directive banning the distribution of leaflets or any other materials within 100 feet of polling places. The edict also required media outlets to provide two weeks notice for permission to conduct exit polling.
This is the sample voting rights palm card the ACLU provides on their websiteIt's not necessarily what's there that poses the problem, but what might be apparently:
The three appellate judges found no reason to doubt the sincere intentions of the ACLU in providing voters with information, but concluded the Legislature wanted no materials distributed to voters around polling places.
The court worried that "less scrupulous individuals might attempt to secretly place within an otherwise innocuous pamphlet material urging a vote for or against a particular candidate."
So the argument is to prohibit legal action because illegal actions might occur? I guess the state worries about the potential lawsuits that could occur should they open the door. Maybe they should just require that voting rights be printed on the sample ballots that are mailed out before each election.
I would think the legitimate organizations actually face a pretty heavy incentive not to make illegal use of the access. Could you imagine if an organization lost their tax exempt status because they were electioneering? They would lose millions. The decision of the court will certainly have ramifications outside of the specific issue.
"This is an English speaking school and classroom -- any other [sic] language other than English will not be tolerated," the document states. It also informs students that they had to sign the paper -- that their signatures would count as a test grade.
Officials actually got no complaints from parents before the letter arrived from the ACLU. The school said it's not their policy. The substitute was supposed to be a special education math teacher. Imagine what she would have done as a full-time teacher - or if she actually taught English.
