Handschu agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Handschu agreement is a set of guidelines that regulate police behavior in New York City with regard to political activity.

Background[edit]

In 1971, 21 members of the Black Panther Party were tried for conspiracy to blow up police stations and department stores. They were acquitted of all charges after only 90 minutes of jury deliberation.[1] The trial revealed the extent to which the NYPD had infiltrated and kept dossiers on not only the Black Panthers and other radical groups, but also on anti-war groups, gay rights activists, educational reform advocates, religious groups, and civic organizations.[2]

A large coalition of activist groups accused police of compiling information to punish and repress lawful dissent.[2] Barbara Handschu was a lead plaintiff in the 1971 class action suit Handschu v. Special Services Division, 605 F.Supp. 1384, affirmed 787 F.2d 828.[2] In the 1985 ruling, the court sided with Handschu,[3] finding that police surveillance of political activity violated constitutional protections of free speech.[2] The ruling brought about the agreement.[4]

Provisions[edit]

According to the terms of the agreement, purely political activity can only be investigated by the Public Security Section (PSS) of the NYPD's Intelligence Division, and then only when the Section suspects criminal activity. When the PSS does suspect criminal activity on the part of political groups, it must obtain a warrant from the three-person Handschu Authority, a commission made up of two deputy commissioners and a mayor-appointed civilian.

The agreement also prohibits indiscriminate police videorecording and photographing of public gatherings when there is no indication that unlawful activity is occurring.

The department is also prohibited from sharing information pertaining to political activity with other law enforcement agencies unless those agencies agree to abide by the terms of the Handschu agreement.

The court order mandates the compiling of annual, publicly available reports listing the surveillance requests made by the NYPD and the number of such requests granted.

Current status[edit]

In 2002, the NYPD asked federal judge Charles S. Haight, Jr., the judge who presided over the original case, to abrogate numerous provisions of the agreement, claiming that they inhibited the department's ability to prevent future terrorist attacks.[5] The requests, if granted, would allow any branch of the department to investigate any political activity, even without suspicion of criminal activity, but only by accessing publicly available meetings and information "as members of the public."[6] It would further allow the department to perform any type of surveillance of public gatherings deemed Constitutional, which is likely to include videorecording. The department also requested that the function of the Handschu authority be changed to investigating complaints of constitutional violations, which would take away the authority's power to oversee political investigations.

In regards to the requested changes, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said, "Today we live in a more dangerous, constantly changing world, one with challenges and threats that were never envisioned when the Handschu guidelines were written."[7]

Chris Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal "troubling," stating that the NYPD "has no legitimate reason to spy on lawful political activity."[7]

Former New York City mayor Ed Koch, previously a critic of police surveillance, agreed with the proposal to rescind large portions of the Handschu agreement. "That's the necessary cost of protecting the public in these times where we're dealing with terrorism," he said.[8]

In February 2007, Judge Haight ruled that the NYPD had violated the terms of the agreement by videotaping two demonstrations by advocates of the homeless, one in Harlem in March 2005, the other in front of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's house in December 2005. On June 13, 2007, Haight reversed the ruling, saying that attorneys for the city had provided new evidence indicating that the protestors may have been "disorderly."[9] Lawyers for the demonstrators vowed to continue fighting to prove that the action was legal and peaceful.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Joy James; Duke University (2007). Warfare in the American Homeland: Policing and Prison in a Penal Democracy. books.google.com. p. 74. ISBN 978-0822339236. 
  2. ^ a b c d Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldberg; Simon & Schuster (2013). Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America. books.google.com. p. 44. ISBN 978-1476727936. 
  3. ^ Mathieu Deflem; Emerald Group Publishing (2008). Surveillance and Governance. books.google.com. p. 67. ISBN 978-0762314164. 
  4. ^ Ryan Devereaux (February 23, 2012). "NYPD intelligence chief wanted sources in every mosque within 250 miles". theguardian.com. 
  5. ^ Perrotta, Tom (2002-09-27). "New York Police Request Broader Surveillance Rights". New York Law Journal. Law.com. Retrieved 2007-05-08. [dead link]
  6. ^ Silber, Mitchell (2012-06-01). "Who Will Defend the Defenders?". Commentary Magazine. commentarymagazine.com. Retrieved 2012-05-27. 
  7. ^ a b Kevin Flynn, Jacob H. Fries (September 26, 2002). "THREATS AND RESPONSES: SURVEILLANCE; Police Ask to Change the Rules and Ease Restrictions on Political Investigations". nytimes.com. 
  8. ^ Lee, Chisun (2002-12-24). "The NYPD Wants to Watch You: Nation's Largest Law Enforcement Agency Vies for Total Spying Power". Village Voice. Retrieved 2007-05-08. 
  9. ^ "Court reverses ban on NYPD videotaping of protesters". Associated Press. 2007-06-14. Retrieved 2007-06-22. [dead link]

See also[edit]