Port Authority Police Union Sues Over Searches of Officers’ Cellphones

[Omaha Steve]

Source: NY Times

By BENJAMIN WEISER

An internal investigation by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey led to the dismissal in November of nine probationary police officers and the suspension of three others for their conduct at a graduation party at a bar in Hoboken, N.J.

Now, the Port Authority’s police union has sued the authority, charging that investigators improperly demanded that probationary officers grant them access to their personal cellphones, making it clear that if they did not cooperate, they would be fired.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in Federal District Court in Manhattan, argues that the cellphone searches violated the officers’ constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The lawsuit by the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association cites a unanimous 2014 Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. that said that the police need a warrant to search the cellphones of people they are arresting.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/nyregion/port-authority-police-union-sues-over-searches-of-officers-cellphones.html

---

I have no idea what the fired individuals did at the party. But the SCOTUS ruling seems to be in their favor.

[geek tragedy]

1. there's no constitutional right to carry a gun and a badge

They weren't stopped and searched, they were told to cooperate with an investigation. Any cop that refuses to cooperate with an investigation has no business being a cop.

This is an attempt to manipulate a decision holding police accountable into one that enables police to avoid accountability entirely.

[Omaha Steve]

2. At a party I doubt they had a gun and a badge

We don't have enough info for a full breakdown. What were they fired for?

Probably off duty at a party though gives them more rights.

Did they have a union representative when questioned? Did they get their Loudermill hearing?

Probationary employees can usually be fired for anything period.

Even Sgt. Joe Friday says cops have rights.

[geek tragedy]

3. it was a criminal investigation.

According to the lawsuit, the authority conducted a widespread investigation into allegations that off-duty members of the police graduating class had engaged in theft, trespass, sexual assault and other potential criminal activity at the bar in Hoboken on Aug. 23, 2014.

The Port Authority, in a news release in November, said its inspector general’s office had interviewed more than 100 police officers, customers and staff members of the bar, local police officials and others, and reviewed “videotapes, social media communications and other electronic messages.”

The lawsuit says the authority, in demanding that probationary officers grant investigators access to their phones, made it clear “that they had no choice but to comply.” As many of the cellphones were locked, the investigators told the probationary officers to unlock them, the suit says.

I don't see how a probationary police officer could expect to (a) refuse to cooperate with a criminal investigation and then (b) expect to be made a permanent law enforcement officer.

Especially after the incident involved them getting drunk and out of control at a bar, then flashing their badges at bouncers who tried to calm them down,

They certainly had a constitutional right to refuse to cooperate, but that's as good as admitting they're dirty and unworthy to carry a badge.

I gotta say, glad these guys aren't out with a badge so they can abuse their authority against the community.

[Omaha Steve]

4. Criminal off duty means search warrant is required

Damn SCOTUS.

[geek tragedy]

5. They had the choice to refuse to cooperate. They could have said no.

The constitution allows them to refuse to cooperate. It doesn't protect them from all consequences of failing to cooperate.

Just like the First Amendment gives people the right to send hideously racist emails and texts.

But, if you're a cop--even a long-tenured one--and you send hideously racist texts and it gets discovered, you can and will be fired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappas_v._Giuliani

Judge Pierre N. Leval, with Judge Colleen McMahon concurring, found the firing of Pappas was permissible under the Pickering test. The views Pappas expressed, the finding held, might undermine the effectiveness of the department. They further held that, despite his mailing anonymously, the mailing of the material was seeking to publicize his view. They quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the case McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, "A policeman may have a constitutional right to [speak his mind], but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman."

The probationary officers had a constitutional right to refuse to cooperate absent a search warrant, but they had no constitutional right to be a police officer.

[Omaha Steve]

6. Depends on the police contract too

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 06:04 AM - Edit history (1)

State law and or arbitration may come into this too.

And we still don't know if they were fired for a crime, not handing over the phones, etc.