On October 11, 2017, Officers Frank Poncello and Jon Baker, from NYPD’s 25th Precinct, assumed a call around 1:30 P.M. regarding a domestic incident, involving Ellen Griswold and Ty Webb, at a Coffee Shop. As the officers approached the scene, they could hear, from almost a block away, Webb and Mrs. Griswold yelling at each other and causing a scene. (Ex. 5 p.2). The officers tried to calm the two and diffuse the situation. (Ex. 4 p.1). Officer Poncello spoke to Mrs. Griswold and Officer Baker took Webb aside and spoke to him. (Ex. 4 p.1). Mrs. Griswold presented Officer Poncello with an Order of Protection and it appeared Webb was violating the order. (Ex. 4 p.2). Officer Poncello told Mrs. Griswold that she need not worry about Webb, everything would be ok, and she would be able to continue working because Webb left. (Ex. 3 p.1). At 8:00 P.M., when Mrs. Griswold’s shift ended, Webb returned and assaulted her. Officer Poncello did not mention arresting Webb. (Ex. 3 p.1). Mrs. Griswold trusted the cops and felt safe enough to continue working without any issues. (Ex. 3 p.2). The officers did not mention providing Mrs. …show more content…
Griswold with police protection, nor did she call the precinct to ascertain that Webb was arrested. (Ex.3 p.4 & p.9). The officers remained in their patrol car for about 10 minutes, filling out an incident report, then left the scene. (Ex. 4 p.2). Mrs. Griswold was not contacted by the police again after the afternoon incident. (Ex. 3 p.2). The only officers that Mrs. Griswold saw after the incident, were those who came to purchase coffee or food and who were patrolling the streets for traffic violations, which was not unusual. (Ex. 3 p.3). Officer Baker did not speak to Mrs. Griswold on October 11, 2017 and did not make any assurances to her. (Ex. 5 p.1). Officer Baker told Webb that “he needed to relax and that he can’t keep having these incidents with his ex-wife. My primary focus was calming him down and preventing the situation from escalating. I told him to get out of there as it was not worth it. I asked him why he wanted to risk getting arrested for someone who does nothing but scream and belittle him. By the end of the conversation, he seemed pretty calm and under control, so I felt like he was in a good place and that he had finally come to his senses and was going to move on.”(Ex. 5 p.7). An arrest was not warranted at the time because the officers “did not feel as though he was a threat or that the situation was going to escalate. By the time he left, they were both pretty calm and based on our history with them, we were pretty sure it was like every other time and that he would go on his way, and that would be it until the next time. We did not feel as though there was any danger of violence at that time.” (Ex. 5 p.4). When responding to a violation of an order of protection, the officers follow standard protocol, which is what they did on October 11, 2017. (Ex. 5 p.3). The officers speak to the parties, get their respective sides of the story, obtain a copy of the order of protection, to confirm that there actually was one in effect and what the terms of that order were, a determination is then made as to what should be done under the circumstances. (Ex. 5 p.3). Officers do not always arrest a violator, “the decision whether to arrest is very case specific,” and depends on if “there was a risk of harm, or perhaps harm had already occurred.” (Ex.5 p.5). Violators are also not arrested “based on the number of violations.” (Ex. 4 p.3). If there is a known violent history, the officers “might be on heightened awareness for an escalation to violence.” (Ex. 5 p.3). Officer Poncello did not believe Mrs. Griswold was in any immediate danger, when they arrived to the coffee shop. (Ex. 4 p.6). The Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to serve a Late Notice of Claim on February 22, 2018.
The Court signed an Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Leave to File a Late Notice of Claim on March 2, 2018. The Plaintiffs served the Late Notice of Claim upon the City of New York on March 2, 2018. The City of New York conducted an examination of Mrs. Griswold, Ty Webb, Officer Frank Poncello, and Officer Jon Baker on March 12, 2018. The Plaintiffs then commenced an action against the City of New York by serving and filing a Summons and Complaint dated April 2, 2018. The City of New York filed its Answer with the Court on April 16, 2018 and filed and served a Notice of Issue on April 30, 2018. The City now moves for Summary Judgment, pursuant to CPLR 3212, and dismissal of the Summons and Complaint and such other and further relief as the Court deems
proper.
James Griffin v. The City of New York, No. 10 cv 02592 (RJD) (MDG) (D.C. Cir. ).
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
In October of 1993, R.D.S., a Nova Scotian Black youth, was arrested by a white police officer and charged with assault on a police officer in the execution of duty, assault with intent to prevent the lawful arrest of another, and resisting his own arrest. In a Nova Scotia Youth Court, R.D.S. testified that he did not touch the police officer or assault him in any way. He stated that he spoke only to his cousin, who was being arrested by Constable Steinburg, to ask the nature of his arrest and whether or not to contact his mother. R.D.S. testified that Constable Steinburg told him to either "shut up" or face arrest. The youth argued that the police officer proceeded to place both himself and his cousin in a choke hold. Constable Steinburg maintained that R.D.S. assaulted him and obstructed his cousin's arrest. He made no reference to telling the youth to shut up or to placing either youth in a choke hold. (1)
al., Appellants v. City of New York et al. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 1998. Web. 6 May 2014.
The case is one that is all too familiar thanks to the growing trend within social media platforms. Allegations of police using excessive force, raising concerns about law enforcement’s credibility.
The case involved a line of duty shooting that took place between Illinois Officer Mary Redmond and suspect Ricky Allen, whom Redmond fatally wounded, and revolved around the family’s excessive force complaint, which they filed on the grounds that the witness testimony differed from Redmond’s account. [1]
(Purdon’s, 166). Also in 1989 in addition to what sections officers could arrest for they also had to “observe recent physical injury or other corroborative evidence and the victim is a spouse of the suspect or a person with whom the suspect resides or has formally resided with.” (Zimmerman, 30).
I observed the officer claim that when he questions the defendant, he felt as if he was off. The victim gives a full detail report to the officer, describing what the person looked like and everything. One of the officers had taken his picture, and sent one to the transit police, to see if it was the same person they were looking for. In the meantime, the woman officer was interrogating him about where he has been and of prescription medication that was discovered in his bag. However, the defendant lied about why his taking the medicine. I observed that the police mentioned the defendant was very yielding and being extremely corporative. The officer mentioned that he took him to the hospital for psych assessment being that he was acting odd, so they kept him because of strange behavior. I observed the officer mention that from there, they got a report that the defendant was the same person they were looking at in the pictures. It was at the hospital that they arrested the defendant.
Discretion is often one of the most critical aspects of a police officer’s daily duties. In the past, police discretion was considered taboo until 1956 when a study conducted by the American Bar Foundation discovered that there is nothing illegal or improper about discretion, and that it is in fact of practice (“The Role of Discretion in Police Work,” 2012). Before discretion was officially accepted as practice, police officers would not admit to be involved in police discretion. The basic definition of discretion is the use of personal choices when carrying out typical police job duties. For example, a police officer may decide to arrest one suspect for police interference, but will let another suspect go home, for the exact offense. When using discretion, however...
Police misconduct has been in existence since the 1600’s, European Influence on American Policing. Ironically, Police Officers in modern day continue the legacy of the police “culture” (Barry, 1999). A culture of abuse of authority or discretion, code of silence amongst officers, discrimination, and a strong belief that “cops — and firefighters — stick together, in life and death situations” (Wetendorf,
Police misconduct is as rampant as ever in America, and it has become a fixture of the news cycle. Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose. The media is inevitably drawn toward tales of conflict, hence why there are so many crime and police stories on the news. Despite the increasing frequency of misbehaving cops, many Americans still maintain a high respect for the man in uniform. Still, police misconduct is a systemic problem, not just an anecdotal one. Here are some reasons why it is a problem. First, many departments don’t provide adequate training in nonviolent solutions. With this, police are unfamiliar with what to do in a non-violent situation, often resorting
Linch G., & Diamond, E. (1983) Police Misconduct. In Kadis, S. Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New York: The Free Press
A various points throughout the night we came across other officers who were dealing with accidents and various other tasks. Unless there was a rush to respond to a call, Officer Crutchman would slow his cruiser down and check to see if his fellow officers required assistance. Furthermore, after assisting multiple officers from his unit in a potential trespass violation at a local school, instead of driving going about their separate ways the officers began swapping arrest stories and offering their opinions on the progression of the resulting criminal cases. Afterwards, between some hilarious joke telling, the talk moved to personal and professional concerns and issues; one officer had a badly fitting bullet-proof vest that was on loan. Officer Crutchman offered to give his extra armor to his fellow officer since they were around the same
Mr. Rodriguez called 911 to report loud music from his neighbor’s house. He then walked to his neighbor’s house with his firearm and a video camera. After the confrontation with his neighbor, he called law enforcement once more to tell them he felt threatened and that he was standing his ground. While Paul Rodriguez waited for law enforcement to arrive at the scene, he used deadly force against Kelly Danaher. In this case, Mr. Rodriguez initiated the confrontation and there was no proven evidence that he was in danger (Flatow,
Communication in social environments is necessary for police officers because they have to make fast decisions about interacting with victims, witnesses, and suspects. Specifically, the better communication that the officers ...