MARTIN R. STOLAR Attorney-at?Law 80 Eighth Avenue, Floor New York, NY 10011 (212) 219-1919 (917) 225-4596 - cell mrslaw37?aghotmaiheom June 8, 2020 Via email and First Class Mail Peter Farrell, Esq. New York City Law Department 100 Church St, Fl. New York, NY 10007 Re: v. Special Services Division United States District Court Southern District of New York 71 Civ. 2203 Dear Mr. Farrell: Individuals engaged in peaceful protest over the last week and charged with nothing more serious than curfew violations report that they were questioned about their political associations and activities by NYPD of?cials and FBI agents. We have been here before. In 2003, the NYPD engaged in custodial interrogations of anti-war protestors, asking about their political activities. In response, Hon. Charles S. Height, Jr., U.S.D.J., in his supervision of the decree, criticized the practice as ?resonant with constitutional overtones? and condemned the process by which it was implemented, observing that the NYPD was ?in some need of discipline.? v. Special Services Division, 288 F.Supp.2d 411, 417-8 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). In 2014, as a result of protest activities arising out of the killing of Eric Garner, arrestees were again questioned with respect to their political and associational activities. On that occasion, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters informed counsel and the Court that the NYPD Legal Bureau had directed that post-arrest questioning during protests . .may not be conducted absent explicit advanced authorization by the Legal Bureau on a case by case basis. This is intended to ensure that the Guidelines are either not applicable to such questioning or are fully complied with if applicable. As an added precaution, training that is provided to members of the Intelligence Bureau will also be given to members of the Detective Bureau so that they will be informed of the Handsehu Guidelines and made aware of those situations that raise potential Handsehu issues.? A copy of Commissioner Byrne?s letter is attached. His promise was a positive step. In light of this history and the promises made by the NYPD to the Court, the most recent reports of the interrogation practices raise profound concerns under the Handsehu decree. As class counsel in that matter, the undersigned ask that you provide an explanation as to the scope of such interrogations during the past two weeks. Here is what we believe to be the case. Many individuals arrested in recent days at demonstrations protesting the killing of George Floyd report being questioned by New York City Police Department of?cials and FBI agents about lawful political activity. They report they were questioned by NYPD personnel and FBI agents, notwithstanding that each was arrested on relatively minor charges. The questions put to these individuals, as reported to us1 included the following: - What social media accounts do you follow? - What do you know about antifa? - Why did you come to New York City? - Are you in antifa? - Are you with anarchist groups? - What do you do to organize protests? How did you hear about the protest? - Who told you about the protest? Who on social media is the best way to ?nd out about protests? - Do you use social media? - Do you follow protest related accounts? - Did you get information from Instagram? - Who is in charge of the protests? - Mat are you protesting about? Our history with the NYPD teaches us that these questions are being asked in order to generate records like the ?demonstration debrie?ng form? used by the NYPD in similar circumstances in 2003. See Handsehu 238 F.Supp.2d at 413. As you are aware the Revised Handsehu Guidelines2 prohibit the NYPD from maintaining records about class members 1 See also media reports: Univision broadcast. Friday, June 5.2020 ork-watv:r rotesters-are-hein -interro d-b i-a ents?abcut-their? political-views- -video and The Intercept s: fitheinterce t.comf2020f06f04ffhi protests! 2 Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the stipulation of settlement, so ordered on March 2017, Docket No. 472, the Revised Handsehu Guidelines consist of Appendix A to Handsehu [273 F.Supp.2cl at 349-351] and Exhibit A to 241 F.Supp.3d at 443-460. The Guidelines de?ne an Investigation as a police activity to obtain information, and Political Activity as the exercise of a right of expression or association for the purpose of maintaining or changing governmental policies or social conditions. 273 .Supp.2d at 350. 2 concerning purely political activity. Here, as in 2003, class members have been detained on minor charges and subjected to continued questioning about their political activity. Such questioning, which can only be for the purpose of generating records, is prohibited. We ask that you inquire as to whether there is current compliance with the Legal Bureau?s 2015 directive. We also have the following additional questions regarding this matter: - How many arrested individuals were interrogated over that past two weeks regarding their political activities? - As to each individual interrogated, which NYPD bureaus were involved in the interrogations? - Was the FBI involved in the interrogations? - How, if at all, were these interrogations authorized? - What, if any, legal justi?cation supported these interrogations? - Where are the notes or recordings of these interrogations being maintained? Your prompt inquiry into these matters is important because these demonstrations are expected to continue. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, . (9h, Paul G. Chevigny Jethro M. Eisenstein Martin R. Stolar Franklin Siege] Arthur Eisenberg, New York Civil Liberties Union cc: Stephen C. Robinson, Esq., Civilian Representative via email only Encls. THE CITY OF NEW YORK Peter G. I-?arrell gaoHaar EATER LAW DEPARTMENT Deprqv Division oar NEW YORKNY 10007 July 22, 201 5 MI ar Mail Honorable Charles S. Haight United States District Judge Re: Handsehu v. Special Services. 71 Civ. 2203 (CSH) Dear Judge Height: Enclosed please ?nd a courtesy copy of Defendants? Letter to Class Counsel dated July 21, 2015. Defendants? letter responds to Class Counsel?s letter to Defendants dated May 11, 2015 regarding certain post-arrest interviews. We are sending you this response letter in light of the fact that you were copied on Class Counsels? initial letter of May 1 1, 2015. Defendants are not requesting any action by Your Honor and are sending this to you purely as an FYI. Respectfully submitted, . Peter G. Farrell cc. Jethro M. Ei senstein, Esq. (via e-mail) POLICE DEPARTMENT new YORK. NY. moss LAWRENCE BYRNE DEPUTY LEGAL MATTERS Frank Siegel Attorney At Law President Street Brooklyn, NY 11231 Dear Counsel, Commissioner Bratton has received your letter dated May 11,2015, addressed to the Commissioner and Corporation Counsel Zachary W. Carter. As you know, representatives of the NYPD and the Law Department met with some of you on April 30, 2015, and gave you an oral briefing on some of the issues subsequently raised in your May 11 letter. This letter further responds to your May 11 letter. The NYPD first learned in April 2015 that there were concerns about certain post-arrest interviews that took place in December 2014 and subsequently when we received an inquiry from a New York Times reporter. In response to The New York Times inquiry, the NYPD looked into the matter. As result of an internal review, which was overseen by the NYPD Legal Bureau, we advise you of its ?ndings and conclusions. On the evening of November 24, 2014. immediately following the announcement that a Missouri grand jury had decided not to bring an indictment in connection with the death of Michael Brown, Commissioner Bratton and members of his security detail were splattered with fake blood by protesters who had assembled in Times Square. That incident marked the beginning of a series of physical attacks on police of?cers,acts of vandalism against NYPD vehicles and facilities. and a proliferation of threats communicated over social media and by other means calling for police of?cers to be murdered and assaulted. On December 20, 201 4, NYPD Detectives Rafael Ramos and Wen ian Liu were assassinated as they sat on duty in their marked patrol car. Threats of violence against police of?cers communicated over various forms of electronic media continued unabated for several months. In response to the foregoing incidents and threats, NYPD utilized traditional, lawful investigative techniques in an effort to investigate both individual incidents of assaults against its officers and threats against officers that were continuously communicated. Toward that end, beginning with the November 24th incident, members of the NYPD Detective Bureau began questioning persons arrested for avariety of criminal offenses, including offenses committed during the course of demonstrations, about their knowledge of actual. planned or threatened acts of violence against police of?cers. This questioning, along with other well-established, lawful investigative techniques. led to the arrests and criminal prosecution of several individuals for assaulting or threatening police of?cers. COURTESY PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT Website: NH: 243?43 (Riv 03-14}