|
Don't count on internal affairs to bust corrupt cops. Let's face it the system is corrupt to the core.
"The leak accusations seem to lend support to the argument ... that the Police Department is incapable of policing itself" - The first time I got beat up by a cop, and rather stupidly complained about it, I figured that out. Ticket-Fixing Inquiry Grows Into Scandal on Police Leaks By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM Published: September 22, 2011 Early one morning last September, more than 50 members of the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau gathered in Lower Manhattan during a continuing investigation into widespread ticket-fixing by New York officers. They were briefed and divided into teams, and then they piled into cars and vans bound for all 12 precinct station houses in the Bronx and others around the city to seize copies of tens of thousands of summonses. But almost as soon as the Internal Affairs teams set out — and long before the first one arrived at its target station house — their plans were exposed by a betrayal that some investigators suggest is far more insidious than the ticket-fixing itself, according to a person with knowledge of the events of that day a year ago. A union official was captured on a wiretap telling a union colleague who was under scrutiny in the case that he had received a call from someone in the Internal Affairs Bureau, and that the caller had warned him that the investigators were on the way, the source said. The call came shortly after the teams headed out toward the precincts. Investigators suspect that the call was just one of roughly half a dozen instances during the three-year ticket inquiry in which officers believed to be assigned to Internal Affairs leaked information about the case to police union officials, all of them officers, who were under scrutiny, several people with knowledge of the events said. The suspected leaks may be the most damning of the departmental weaknesses unearthed to date in the ticket-fixing investigation. The leak accusations seem to lend support to the argument, long put forward by many current and former prosecutors and police officials as well as academics, corruption experts and politicians, that the Police Department is incapable of policing itself. The timing of some of the suspected disclosures underscores the gravity of the problem. The first came just a few days after Internal Affairs investigators and the Bronx district attorney’s office obtained authorization for their first wiretap on the phone of a police union delegate, one of those with knowledge of the case said. “The first delegate’s phone is tapped in December 2009,” that person said. “Almost instantly, there is another Bronx I.A.B. leak.” Of the 17 or so officers who are expected to be indicted in the coming days, most will probably face ticket-fixing charges. But one, a respected and well-liked lieutenant who worked in Internal Affairs in the early days of the case, will probably face charges that she leaked information, people with knowledge of the case said. Moreover, the Internal Affairs unit that handles the department’s most sensitive corruption inquiries, known as Group 1, is investigating several other officers who are suspected of leaking Internal Affairs information, one of the sources said. It appears that those are administrative, rather than criminal, inquiries. Deputy Inspector Kim Y. Royster, a spokeswoman for the Police Department, would not address the scope of the leak inquiry but said, “There were only two sources that were definitively identified in I.A.B. as leaking information.” “Once this was discovered,” she added, “the investigation was contained by I.A.B.” She said the operation was moved from the Bronx Internal Affairs office and the investigators were vetted and limited to a small group. Inspector Royster would not say whether the lieutenant was one of the two people from Internal Affairs who had been identified as leaking information. And while she said that the Internal Affairs Bureau had determined that none of its other current members had leaked information, she could not say whether others who had left their assignments there or who served elsewhere were under investigation for leaking information about the case. The leaks, she said, had no impact on the case. But several of the people with knowledge of the investigation said that one leak, in February 2010, when investigators were eavesdropping on several police officers, union delegates, resulted in some discussions of the ticket-fixing investigation among a group of Bronx delegates at a union meeting. They were told, one source said, to conduct ticket-fixing business only face to face. After that, for several months, few telephone conversations about ticket-fixing were intercepted, although they eventually picked up again, the sources said. In other instances, some police union officials would speculate about whether their phones were tapped and then blithely proceed to have incriminating conversations, the sources said. Several people with knowledge of the case said the profusion of leaks raised questions about the department’s policy of drafting reluctant investigators and supervisors to serve in Internal Affairs, a unit that is still reviled in the department because of its focus on fellow officers. The policy was instituted nearly two decades ago, to ensure that Internal Affairs had a pool of capable investigators and managers, but it still rankles many, in particular those who have been drafted to serve there. But Inspector Royster said the drafting of officers into Internal Affairs played no role in the leaks. She said it was not true that Internal Affairs’ selection process “may have exacerbated the leaks.” The investigation began in late 2008 with an anonymous complaint against an officer in the 40th Precinct, Jose Ramos, and eventually led to well over two dozen wiretaps, roughly half of them on the cellphones of police union delegates and trustees, several officials have said. In addition to the expected indictments against 17 officers, 10 of whom will most likely be accused of ticket-fixing crimes, more than 550 officers face possible administrative charges.
N.Y.P.D. Ticket-Fixing Scandal Jin Lee/Bloomberg News Updated: Sept. 23, 2011 Over the years, the practice of fixing traffic tickets has persisted in New York despite many headlines, court cases and the wrecked careers of law enforcement officers. In 2011, the practice became the focus of a major multiprecinct investigation, the largest focused on ticket-fixing since the 1950s. Hundreds of officers could be disciplined by the time a grand jury in the Bronx finishes its work, including roughly two dozen officers who could face criminal charges, officials and others briefed on the case have said. The inquiry began when the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, in an unrelated investigation, taped an officer in mid-2009 trying to have a ticket fixed. The scheme centers on union delegates and trustees. Officers wanting to make a ticket disappear — or following orders to do so — would seek out union officials who seemed plugged into a network for doing it safely. Though the investigation has not been formally announced and has not resulted in any arrests, its reach has already begun to extend to Bronx trial courtrooms. It rolled into an attempted murder case in late May, and the following week touched drunken driving. Any police officer swept up in the scandal — and the number is thought to be as high as 300 — is susceptible to being asked about the topic when showing up as a witness in unrelated cases. And if jurors cease to believe the words of police officers because they monkeyed with tickets, something many defense lawyers may hope occurs, then it is in these courtrooms that the most corrosive impact of the scandal may be felt. In September 2011, a Bronx grand jury announced that it expected to issue criminal charges against more than a dozen officers — a considerable number, but significantly fewer than originally anticipated. The criminal inquiry took an unsettling turn when a 62-year old police officer who had recently testified before the grand jury touched the third rail of an elevated train track in the Bronx, apparently in a suicide attempt, an official and people who knew him said. To many, the episode was proof of the severe strain that the investigation had placed on some veteran officers, who could suddenly find their careers facing ruin and their reputations threatened. Police Leaks And in late September 2011, a union official was captured on a wiretap telling a union colleague who was under scrutiny in the case that he had received a call from someone in the Internal Affairs Bureau, and that the caller had warned him that the investigators were on the way, the source said. The call came shortly after teams of investigators headed out toward the precincts. The call was one of what investigators suspect was just one of roughly half a dozen instances during the three-year ticket inquiry in which officers believed to be assigned to Internal Affairs leaked information about the case to police union officials, all of them officers, who were under scrutiny. The suspected leaks may be the most damning of the departmental weaknesses unearthed to date in the ticket-fixing investigation. The leak accusations seem to lend support to the argument, long put forward by many current and former prosecutors and police officials as well as academics, corruption experts and politicians, that the Police Department is incapable of policing itself. Of the 17 or so officers who are expected to be indicted in the coming days, most will probably face ticket-fixing charges. But one, a respected and well-liked lieutenant who worked in Internal Affairs in the early days of the case, will probably face charges that she leaked information, people with knowledge of the case said. That charge, however, is administrative rather than criminal. In addition to the expected indictments against 17 officers, 10 of whom will most likely be accused of ticket-fixing crimes, more than 550 officers face possible administrative charges. Background Ticket fixing has been around since police officers walked their beats. In 1951, officers in Manhattan’s 20th Precinct were investigated for sabotaging paperwork to kill traffic citations, as favors for politicians. In the middle of the inquiry, the ledger recording all the precinct’s summonses mysteriously disappeared. Three years later, an inquiry uncovered 100 officers who had sidestepped the summons altogether: they sold $10 courtesy cards that motorists could flash and go free, according to the police and the Brooklyn district attorney. Between those two scandals, reformers hatched what was thought to be an incorruptible solution: Gov. Thomas E. Dewey proposed redesigning the summons books that officers carry, with ticket slips consecutively numbered, each in quadruple form. A newspaper report called it “a system of non-fixable tickets.” It didn’t quite work out that way. In 1987, a veteran police officer, Robert Hanes, was dismissed from the force after a departmental trial found he had persuaded another officer to give false testimony that let a motorist evade a fine for speeding. In 1996, a federal judge sentenced William Caldwell, a former police captain and president of the Housing Police Superior Officers Association, to a year in jail for fixing thousands of parking tickets. His scheme often involved false paperwork claiming the cars had been stolen or were disabled at the time the ticket was issued. In pleading guilty, Mr. Caldwell said, “Some of these things I did were for friends of mine, some were for profit.
Grand Jury Is Set to Act in Ticket-Fixing Inquiry By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM Published: September 19, 2011 The grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the long-running police ticket-fixing investigation is expected to begin deciding on charges in the case as early as Tuesday, and people with knowledge of the matter said as many as 17 officers — among them a lieutenant and two sergeants —would most likely face charges. Prosecutors in the office of the Bronx district attorney, Robert T. Johnson, were expected to seek charges of grand larceny and tampering with public records against as many as 10 officers, all officials of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, for allegedly fixing tickets, the people said. That group includes three senior officials, who hold the union position of trustee or financial secretary in the Bronx, and six or seven precinct delegates. Prosecutors were also expected to ask the grand jury to charge as many as seven other officers, possibly including a lieutenant who is suspected of leaking sensitive information about the case, two of the people said. The lieutenant, who was deeply involved in the early stages of the case while she was assigned to the Internal Affairs Bureau, was later transferred to a Bronx precinct, a move that preceded the accusations against her, the two people said. The investigation, focused on several precincts in the Bronx, found widespread instances of ticket-fixing, in which union delegates or trustees sought to make traffic tickets disappear. The trustees do not work as police officers, having been released to spend all their time on union business, while the delegates are working officers. More than two dozen wiretaps were placed, half of them on the phones of police officers. And although many of the instances of ticket-fixing were not expected to result in criminal prosecution, more than 550 Police Department employees have been implicated in misconduct and could potentially face administrative charges, one of the people said, though it is quite likely that the 18-month statute of limitations for such matters has lapsed in some of the cases. The district attorney’s office was expected to seek criminal charges against three other officers and a sergeant for allegedly covering up an assault by a store owner with whom they had a relationship, one of the people said. Prosecutors were also expected to ask the panel to indict another officer suspected of aiding a drug dealer, one of the people said. An anonymous complaint against that officer, accusing him in late 2008 of involvement with a man investigators believed was a Bronx drug dealer, led to the ticket inquiry, according to several people with knowledge of the matter. In early 2009, an investigation led to a wiretap on the officer’s cellphone, which he frequently used to discuss criminal business at the Bronx barbershop that he owned, several people said. The officer, Jose Ramos of the 40th Precinct, was overheard talking about fixing a ticket in mid-2009, leading to the expansion of the inquiry, several people briefed on the matter have said. It initially focused on dozens of officers, but grew to encompass hundreds, for violations of departmental rules, the people said. The panel has been hearing evidence on and off since March, meeting four days a week at times. Several people with knowledge of the matter said it would probably take several days, if not longer, for them to be instructed on the law and finish voting on all of the charges. Several people who are not police officers will also be named in the indictment or indictments, one of the people said. Among those expected to be charged is the reputed drug dealer with whom Officer Ramos was supposed to be close. The first wiretap eventually led to more than two dozen more, roughly half of them on the telephones of officers; one officer had two phones that were tapped, two people said. All of the wiretaps on officers except one were on cellphones, one person said. Officer Ramos’s job was driving one of the precinct’s sergeants, and that supervisor may also face charges, two of the people said, possibly official misconduct. The most serious charges in the case are likely to be leveled against Officer Ramos, one of the people said. The officers against whom the district attorney’s office will seek charges are assigned to six different Bronx stationhouses: the 40th Precinct, which covers the Port Morris, Mott Haven and Melrose sections; the 41st Precinct in Hunts Point; the 42nd Precinct in the Morrisania section; the 45th Precinct, which covers Co-op City and the Parkchester section; the 48th Precinct in Belmont; and the 52nd Precinct, which covers the neighborhoods of Bedford Park, Fordham, Kingsbridge, Norwood and University Heights. The officers who are expected to be charged in connection with ticket fixing are likely to be allowed to surrender, rather than face arrest at their homes or precincts. Several officers who were facing internal charges have already sought to retire, expediting efforts by the department to discipline them, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Last week, a 62-year old officer who had testified before the grand jury touched the third rail of an elevated train track, apparently in a suicide attempt, people who know him said. He survived. Joseph Goldstein contributed reporting. |