[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: The ACLU hard at work protecting the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
URL Source: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news ... lawsuit-1-5-million/746698002/
Published: Jul 2, 2018
Author: Mary Spicuzza
Post Date: 2018-07-02 15:37:06 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 1524
Comments: 8

After the price tag for the City of Milwaukee's proposed settlement with ACLU of Wisconsin over police stop-and-frisk practices ballooned to $6 million, officials are trying to limit their costs by capping fees for a consultant linked to the deal.

A tentative deal set to go before a Common Council committee Monday would limit the city's costs and fees for the consultant to about $1.5 million.

If that proposal passes the Judiciary and Legislation Committee and the full Council, and is approved by Mayor Tom Barrett, the city's settlement costs would total about $3.4 million.

The previous proposed settlement stalled in May after aldermen learned the city's costs could skyrocket to $6 million or more, a steep increase from the initial figure of $1.9 million.

If approved, the deal would involve the city paying an estimated $1.5 million over the next five years to a Chicago-based consultant, Hillard Heintze.

Hillard Heintze would then oversee changes to procedures within the Milwaukee Police Department to address concerns that the department's search practices unfairly target African-Americans and Latinos.

The tentative settlement would include a five-year consent decree requiring the department and the city's Fire and Police Commission, the civilian oversight board, to reform stop-and-search practices, improve data collection and require officers to undergo more training on stops and searches.

The consultant would monitor compliance with the agreement, which will remain under the jurisdiction of the federal court, and issue periodic reports. Aldermen previously raised concerns that approving unknown fees for the consultant would amount to writing a blank check.

Ald. Michael Murphy said he's hopeful an agreement will be reached soon.

"We've gotten to a point where I think we've been able to reduce the costs and come to equitable terms as it relates to the consultant," Murphy said. "I think they're almost there. I don't want to be too optimistic, but hopefully we'll get to a place where both parties will agree."

The lawsuit did not seek damages, and most of the monetary settlement would go toward litigation costs, primarily for expert witnesses and depositions, the ACLU has said.

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU of Wisconsin in February 2017, accuses Milwaukee police of routinely stopping thousands of minorities without cause or suspicion.

Such stops are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires police to have “reasonable suspicion" that the person is dangerous or has committed a crime, the suit said.

The suit also accused officers of conducting stop-and-frisks “motivated by race and ethnicity” in violation of the 14th Amendment. It was filed against the city, the Fire and Police Commission and then-Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn.

Earlier this year, the city filed a motion to dismiss the suit now that Flynn, the "sole architect" of those practices, had retired. Flynn denied that his department practiced stop-and-frisk and defended high-volume traffic stops as effective in reducing nonfatal shootings, robberies and car thefts.

Police Chief Alfonso Morales, who was appointed after Flynn's retirement, ended the Neighborhood Task Force that performed most of the traffic stops. He has said there will be no quotas for stopping and questioning people.

The Journal Sentinel reported last fall that police misconduct has cost Milwaukee taxpayers at least $17 million in legal settlements since 2015, forcing the city to borrow money to make the payouts amid an ever-tightening budget.

When factoring in interest paid on the borrowing and fees paid to outside attorneys, the amount jumps to at least $21 million, the Journal Sentinel found. The costs far outstrip the $1.2 million the city sets aside each year for settling all of the claims it faces.


Poster Comment:

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU of Wisconsin in February 2017, accuses Milwaukee police of routinely stopping thousands of minorities without cause or suspicion.

Such stops are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires police to have “reasonable suspicion" that the person is dangerous or has committed a crime, the suit said.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.

#4. To: Gatlin (#0)

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU of Wisconsin in February 2017, accuses Milwaukee police of routinely stopping thousands of minorities without cause or suspicion.

Such stops are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires police to have “reasonable suspicion" that the person is dangerous or has committed a crime, the suit said.

The case was Collins v. City of Milwaukee, WIED 17-cv-234 with the initial COMPLAINT filed 22 Feb 2017.

The COMPLAINT requested Declaratory and Injunctive Relief as set forth below.

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU of Wisconsin in February 2017, accuses Milwaukee police of routinely stopping thousands of minorities without cause or suspicion.

Such stops are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which requires police to have “reasonable suspicion" that the person is dangerous or has committed a crime, the suit said.

The suit also accused officers of conducting stop-and-frisks “motivated by race and ethnicity” in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Really? When did stop and frisk become a constitutional violation? When was Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) overturned? Oh wait, motivated by race and ethnicity.

When was this case, Collins tried?

My bad, it wasn't. Below is the Relief that was requested in the original COMPLAINT.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Wherefore, the named Plaintiffs and other members of the Main Class and Subclass they seek to represent respectfully request that:

A. The Court assume jurisdiction over this action;

B. The Court issue an Order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the Main Class and Subclass;

76

- - - - - - - - - -

C. The Court issue a class-wide judgment declaring that the Defendants' policy, practice, and custom of conducting suspicionless police stops and frisks, as challenged in this Complaint, violates the rights of the Main Class under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;

D. The Court issue a class-wide judgment declaring that the Defendants' policy, practice, and custom of conducting stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity, as challenged in this Complaint, violates the rights of the Subclass under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;

E. The Court issue an Order for the following injunctive relief:

a. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting police stops without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity;

b. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting police frisks without reasonable suspicion that the subject of the frisk is armed and dangerous;

c. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity;

77

- - - - - - - - - -

d. Enjoining the use of formal or informal quotas for stops and frisks by MPD officers;

e. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement improved policies and programs with respect to training, supervision, monitoring, and discipline that will eliminate the policy, practice, pattern, and custom of suspicionless stops and frisks;

f. Requiring the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement improved policies and programs with respect to training, supervision, monitoring, and discipline to eliminate the Defendants' policy, practice, and custom of suspicionless stops and frisks that are motived by race or ethnicity;

g. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement appropriate and adequate supervision and discipline of MPD officers who conduct stops and frisks;

h. Requiring the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to implement appropriate measures to ensure that MPD officers document all stops and frisks, the basis for each stop and frisk, and demographic and location information related to each encounter, regardless of whether the encounter is followed by the use of force,

78

- - - - - - - - - -

consent search, citation, or arrest, and to do so in sufficient detail as to permit supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

i. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to implement appropriate measures to ensure that documentation of all traffic and pedestrian stops and frisks is retained in a single, up-to-date computerized database;

j. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to make publicly available data on all stops and frisks conducted by the MPD on a semiannual basis, including information on the race, ethnicity, location, and reasons for stops and frisks;

k. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC and Flynn to monitor and audit MPD stop-and-frisk policies, practices, and customs, to ensure that stops and frisks comport with constitutional and statutory requirements, including by, among other things, periodically reviewing forms documenting stops and frisks and analyzing data on stops and frisks. F. The Court award reasonable attorneys' fees to all Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

79

- - - - - - - - - -

G. The Court award costs of litigation to all Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988; and

H. The Court award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate and in the interests of justice.

Respectfully Submitted this 22nd day of February,

s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY N.Y. State Bar No. 4538302
JASON WILLIAMSON N.Y. State Bar No. 4645529
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc.
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
Fax: (212) 549-2654
nchoudhury@aclu.org
jwilliamson@aclu.org

KARYN L. ROTKER WI State Bar No. 1007719
LAURENCE J. DUPUIS WI State Bar No. 1029261
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation
207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 272-4032
Fax: (414) 272-0182
krotker@aclu-wi.org
ldupuis@aclu-wi.org

80

- - - - - - - - - -

How did a settlement agreement get reached with the city giving away $$$ millions?

A new police chief, Alfonso Morales, was appointed after Chief Edward Flynn retired.

The city decided to give away money. Hell, it was not their money. And so they decided to pay all costs of litigation without specifying a limit, and lo and behold, they were presented with a bill.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/30/milwaukee-tentative-settlement-and-consent-decree-aclu-stop-and-frisk-police-lawsuit/567090002/

The possible settlement was approved unanimously Monday by the city's Judiciary and Legislation Committee. It must be approved by the full Common Council and Mayor Tom Barrett.

As part of the settlement, $1.9 million will go toward court costs and plaintiffs' attorneys fees, according to a letter from City Attorney Grant F. Langley.

The settlement includes a five-year consent decree that requires the Milwaukee Police Department and the city's Fire and Police Commission, the civilian oversight board, to reform stop-and-search practices, improve data collection and require officers to undergo more training on stops and searches.

A consultant will monitor compliance with the agreement, which will remain under the jurisdiction of the federal court, and issue periodic reports.

"The reforms in this agreement will advance fairness and equal treatment of people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds in the conduct of police stops and frisks in Milwaukee," Ott said in an email late Monday.

"These reforms are critical to address the decade-long experience of Black and Brown people who have been subjected to baseless stops and frisks, and racial and ethnic profiling," he said.

The lawsuit did not seek damages and the vast majority of the monetary settlement will go toward litigation costs, primarily for expert witnesses and depositions, Ott said.

Ald. Mark Borkowski, chairman of the committee, said, "As much as I hate the fact that it's so much money, I want to believe with all my heart that a lot of good is going to come from this. There will be new policies, new procedures and so there is a silver lining. But obviously it never should have gotten to this stage.

Hell, if they thought $1.9 million for costs and plaintiffs attorneys fee was expensive, they really had not thought the whole "consultant" (Hillard Heintze) thing through. The bill went up to about $6 million. The City of Milwaukee is trying to settle some more to get the bill down to $3.4 million. Note that not a penny of that is for any plaintiff.

http://www.startribune.com/milwaukee-seeks-to-lower-6m-stop-and-search-settlement/487126261/

The city's Common Council will consider limiting the costs of a consultant to monitor police practices as part of a settlement agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. The tentative deal sent to the Council on Monday would lower the city's settlement costs to about $3.4 million.

[...]

The consultant will monitor compliance with the agreement. The proposal caps the consultant's fees to about $1.5 million over the next five years.

Shakedown complete. The shakedown artists get $$$ millions and the black and brown people supposedly being helped get a pat on the head.

The way the ACLU defends the Fourth Amendment is inspiring.

As for the announcement of the Settlement Agreement by the Common Council of the City of Milwaukee, it managed to state:

The plaintiffs have alleged that members of the police department violated their rights and the rights of others by unlawfully stopping, frisking, or searching people and by engaging in such conduct in a racially or ethnically discriminatory manner.

[...]

Among the significant terms of this agreement are the following:

1) the police department is committing to stopping, frisking, and searching people in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution and without racial, ethnic, or other forms of prohibited bias and to put policies in place to effect such commitments;

It seems stopping and frisking is still constitutional as long as it is done without racial, ethnic, or other forms of prohibited bias.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1967) Syllabus:

Held:

1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9.

2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 12.

3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques; and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 13-15.

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" pro­cedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and re­strains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that indi­vidual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police' must whenever practicable secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach peti­tioner and His companions. P. 22.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his com­panions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were con­sistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 2S.

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting him­self and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.

Affirmed.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-07-02   18:01:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 4.

#5. To: nolu chan (#4)

As I remember, back a few years ago there was a set of cases addressing a class action lawsuit against the City of New York and the Police. A US District Court Judge, I believe, ruled that the NYPD violated both the Fourth Amendment by conducting unreasonable searches and the Fourteenth Amendment for conducting stop nd frisks in a racially discriminatory manner. There were appeals and this judge’s ruling was set aside pemding the outcome of the appeals. NYC and the NYPD for some reason dropped the appeal and the original judge’s ruling was reinstated....that the practice was unconstitutional.

Will you please explain that event and its possible effect, if any, on the City of Milwaukee’s case. It appears there still is an unconstitutional ruling, although not by SCOTUS, still standing. What does this mean?

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-02 21:32:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com