NYC Police Chiefs Stir Conflict with Incorrect Judge Identification in Bail Critique – Sky Bulletin
[ad_1]
In a social media debacle, top chiefs of the New York City Police Department attracted objections from judicial authorities after mistakenly identifying a judge during an online attack regarding a bail ruling. This incident underscores the tension between NYPD officials and the judicial branch, as the former rarely call out judges by name.
Through his official Twitter account, NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell erroneously named a state Supreme Court judge and criticized her for releasing a man described as a habitual criminal within the city’s transit system, back into the public.
Chief Chell’s social media update suggested that the community is at risk due to the judge’s decision: “Our city streets or next train ride might involve an encounter with this predator seeking new victims,” he stated.
The post, which was repeated by three senior NYPD executives, led to a viral spread and provoked multiple reactions targeting the mistakenly identified judge, even circulating a photo of another judge with the same surname.
By Thursday evening, Al Baker, a state court spokesperson, revealed that several facts in the NYPD’s narrative were incorrect, specifically that the incident occurred in a different county and that the judge named was not at all involved in the case. The NYPD’s media relations office had yet to comment that evening.
Recently, NYPD has turned to social media to voice their concerns over perceived leniency towards crime or unfair critiques of the department. Prior to the correction from the court, Tarik Sheppard, NYPD’s leading spokesperson, endorsed the public admonishment of judges and signalled such actions would persist.
Legal experts including Steven Zeidman, who heads the criminal defense clinic at CUNY Law School, argued that the NYPD’s action risks placing a judge in peril and exemplifies why police should not publicly share such opinions.
The criminal case in question involved an individual who had been arrested for fare evasion, illegal narcotics possession, and holding a stolen iPhone. Bronx prosecutors advocated a $10,000 bail; however, the factual presiding judge, Michele Davila, released the individual based on a defense argument against flight risk.
While Bail determinations in New York must consider the defendant’s likelihood to reappear in court, the erroneous message from Chief Chell included the suspect’s mugshot as well, an act usually prohibited by state law unless for public safety reasons, according to NYPD justification.
Before the revelation of the judge’s misidentification, City Hall spokesperson Charles Lutvak upheld the chief’s critique, attempting to distinguish the NYPD’s version as fact-based against other social media misinformation.
FAQ
Q: What was the mistake made by NYPD Chief of Patrol on social media?
A: He incorrectly named a state Supreme Court judge as responsible for releasing a repeated offender, when in fact the judge had no involvement in the case.
Q: What was the public’s response to the NYPD’s social media post?
A: The post went viral, with many people criticizing the misidentified judge and even sharing her photo.
Q: Has the NYPD commented on the issue?
A: As of the report, the NYPD’s media relations office had not provided a comment on the correction issued by the state court system.
Q: What is the NYPD’s current stance on critiquing judges publicly?
A: The NYPD’s leading spokesperson affirmed their support for condemning judges’ decisions publicly and indicated that such practices would continue.
Q: What do laws in New York say about sharing mugshots?
A: New York law generally bans sharing mugshots, except for public safety purposes, which the NYPD claimed as their reason for sharing in this instance.
Conclusion
The misstep by NYPD officials in publicly condemning a misidentified judge highlights the complexities and potential dangers associated with law enforcement agencies engaging in public criticism of the judiciary, especially in the era of social media where misinformation can rapidly spread. The NYPD faces scrutiny from both the public and legal experts who question the appropriateness of their assertive tactics. Moving forward, discerning fact from opinion becomes essential to maintaining the balance between law enforcement advocacy and preserving the integrity of the judicial process.
[ad_2]