|
NY COP FORUM AUGUST 1999
QUESTION:
Lieutenant Patricia Feerick, and two fellow police officers, Orlando Rosario and John DeVito, have been sentenced to serve jail time after having been found
guilty in a ten year old case.
A fourth officer, Myra Schultz, has been given a three-year sentence of probation. The officers were accused of abusing their power by conducting an illegal search for a stolen police radio from members of an alleged East Harlem drug gang. What is your opinion?
RESPONSES:
We are all outraged over the convictions of Rosario, DeVito, Schultz, and Feerick.
We believe this case was tried as a political lynching as a result of the Mollen Commission. PBA President Patrick Lynch described the sentence as 'one of the worst miscarriages of justice in the city's history'.
Robert Zink, PBA Recording Secretary
Rzink@nycpba.org
The city is gone...ten year old case, complainants, the Purple Hill Drug Lords, the Mayor should hang his head in shame...the only
way an officer can keep out of trouble and the crime goes down is 'don't do the job'...terrible. But that's what is has come down to...cut the legs off the police and the city appears safe...God help us all.
Rworth1@gate.net
My opinion is that this is a tragedy. The DA obviously has no idea what abuse of power really means. This is just an excuse, which the DA used to show how much
he loathes cops.
Sometimes, DAs show how ignorant they can be, and Hickey really showed us. He is a zero through and through. Hopefully, Governor Pataki will show some spine (that hard to do for a politician, I know) but let's hope so. God bless those cops.
Anonymous
The cops will always be guilty in this liberal society. Although I am not familiar with this incident the only way to be a 'good cop' is to be a '0 cop'. Right now the
only reason I think NYC cops are staying on the force is because it's too much of a hassle to find something else to do and make the same money. My last opinion is that most New Yorkers do no deserve the
outstanding police they have.
I wish New York would go back to what it was like 15 or 20 years ago, then you would see these liberals get on their knees begging for aggressive policing. They should stop paying attention to the insignificant percentage of cops that do act incorrectly and stop condemning the whole department. To end this note, I am still extremely proud to be a NYC cop and no liberal will take that away from me.
Xnlight@aol.com
I believe that the team did what every good cop should have done and gone back to retrieve the radio and keep it out of the hands of perpetrators who could have reeked
havoc and endangered the lives of our brother officers. We can't sit back and let this happen! We must stand behind our good cops who are out there giving their all.
Marty Schenkman
Detective, NYPD (retired)
Martycocacola@webtv.net
They may have abused their authority in reclaiming a Department radio...but Jail?.....For that?...When they start jailing cops for stuff like
that, based on testimony from murderers and drug dealers, it's time for the cops to call it a career and go dead.
Anonymous
Could have, would have, happened in every (4) Department I've
serve with. I hope that they are well represented on appeal.
Hyork@cetnet.net
This is a setback for the entire law enforcement community. These police officers were trying to do their
job.
I believe that all police officers are aware of people's rights. In this case, they had to make a quick decision off a tip that they received. Get a radio back that was stolen or wait to get a search warrant and hope that the radio is there when you return. Knowing that the radio in the hands of the bad guys is very dangerous to every cop that works in that area. The intent was not to violate anyone's rights but to recover property that probably saved a few peoples lives.
Ambassone@aol.com
This case shows you the power that the drug dealers have. They have enough influence with the DA to frame a cop. A similar case is that of Federal Agent Joe
Occhipinti. He got too close to the drug lords and he wound up in Federal prison.
Bobk1013@aol.com
Thanks again for reminding us about Lt. Pat Feerick.
This is one of the worst atrocities I know about that has been committed against a police officer in the City of New York. I was on the job since 1968, and retired in 1995. I attended the rally in Staten Island run by Rep. Molinari - couldn't even get in the large hall due to the support by hundreds of detectives, sergeants lieutenants etc. That rally was in a remote spot of S.I., but anybody that cared anything about the job - didn't tell anybody they were going - they just showed up - we all know who we were! In the past, all that I remembered was uniting for a contract or getting together for a cop who was assassinated in the street. This one for me was far worse. I think at that time, and it was upon my retirement, I was leaving for Florida. I had this empty feeling in my stomach that I had not accomplished a damned thing, not in 26 years, and this group alleged to be known in Harlem as the Purple gang showed the youth in their community that they were heroes. I only hope that the judge and DA's in office someday realize what a miscarriage of justice they were a part of. We all wish to look back over our shoulders in retirement and feel proud that we made a difference. I wish these people the same, I hope they don't have conscience, and if they do, go down to One Police Plaza - walk in, take about three steps, turn around and look up. That memorial is loaded with the names of men and women who gave their lives to preserve the City of New York so they could be born here, get educated here, get to the positions that were entrusted to them, so they could perform this tragedy of justice on a former nurse turned police officer, who also became a member of the bar.
Jack E. Magee
Sergeant-at-arms
Brevard 10-13 Association
Class of 10-25-68
Capnjac@webtv.net
EDITORIAL RESPONSE:
Lieutenant Patricia Feerick, NYPD, was
convicted in 1994 of criminal charges for actions taken back in 1990.
The jury found that the Lieutenant and police officers under her command had abused their power when they grabbed back a lost police radio from members of an alleged East Harlem drug gang called the Purple City crack gang. The gang had found the radio and used it for a period of five days during which they taunted and made threats over the police frequency. The Lieutenant had appealed the conviction, but now has been ordered to begin a two-year sentence in prison.
The conviction of these police officers gives rise to some interesting legal questions. For instance, a novice student of criminal law must be thoroughly familiar with the Latin term: MENS
REA. This legal concept is translated into English as "EVIL MIND".
When jurors are presented with the evidence in a case, they must determine the mental culpability of the defendant.
Lieutenant Feerick was convicted of Criminal Trespass, Unlawful Imprisonment, and Official Misconduct. All of the charges were misdemeanors. The mental states that are required for a defendant to be convicted of those crimes are "knowingly" or "intentionally" as defined in Article 15 of the Penal Law of the State of New York.
What was the "intent" of Lieutenant Feerick?
Was it her "conscious objective" to commit the acts that constitute crimes in the Penal Law? Did she set out with the police officers under her command to knowingly violate the constitutional rights of innocent citizens? What was her "mens rea" or evil intentions? What "benefit" would she and the officers receive? Was it financial gain? Did she have some selfish objective that requires us as a society to punish her severely?
In other words, what message are we sending police officers, who in good faith and with courage put themselves in harm's way in the performance of their official duties?
Are they to be destroyed for taking action in situations that require their immediate response?
Some libertarians will argue that we must be ever vigilant to punish the police who violate our
constitutional rights. They are correct in their basic arguments, and we have the legal avenues available for such punishment of police who fail to live up to their sworn oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution
of the United States.
The whole body of Case Law that has grown over the two centuries of our history has limited the powers of the government. The police, who are the visible agents of the government, are restricted in search and seizure laws.
When the police violate the constitutional rights of citizens, they are punished in a number of ways. First, the case against the defendant is dismissed.
This has resulted in many outcries by the police and victims that justice has been denied. In many cases, this is very true. The Miranda Decision, Wade Decision, and many others have resulted in the dismissal of charges against defendants who would otherwise have been convicted.
Police misconduct has been severely punished by such dismissals.
To add insult to injury, when otherwise guilty defendants win their case against police misconduct, civil judgments against the police have
rewarded them with lucrative financial settlements.
Title 42, Section 1893 of the United States Code provides for citizens who have been deprived of their constitutional rights to seek redress for their grievances.
When individual police officers
engage in criminal acts such as assault, robbery, and burglary, they have been arrested, convicted, and sentenced to jail terms for their actions.
No one will argue against that. However, in cases of
criminal charges against a police officer, the motivation or "mens rea" becomes a paramount issue.
Police officers, when acting in their official capacity and in the proper performance of
duty, are agents of the State.
They are no longer merely individuals or private citizens. We have empowered them to enforce the law. We require them to take an oath of office. They are subject to the same laws that govern all public officials. We ask much of them. The responsibility that they have is awesome. The power to use deadly physical force when necessary is the ultimate power a government can grant an individual.
Since we as a society already punish the police by our courts that dismiss charges against defendants who have been wronged, and by financial judgments in civil litigation against the police, must we also
punish the individual police officers with prison? Certainly, the answer would be yes if the acts committed by the police officer were grievous crimes. But, is prison always the appropriate response?
In the case of Lieutenant Feerick and the officers under her command, a prison sentence is absolutely outrageous.
The motivation of the officers obviously was to prevent harm to police officers who may have been endangered by the use of a police radio not only to monitor police calls, but also to transmit bogus calls over an official radio frequency. If indeed an error was made, it was one of the head, not of the heart. Their actions may not have been proper, but their motives were good. Must we punish them as if their intentions were evil? What ever happened to the "spirit of the law" Vs the "letter of the law"? The physical actions of defendants cannot be judged in a vacuum. The culpable mental states that indicate a motivation for the actions must be part of any judgment. That is why the law provides for defenses such as justification, duress, entrapment and others. Even when a defendant has been convicted, the court considers motivation and remorse of the defendant prior to sentencing.
Do we want to send police officers who have engaged in good faith law enforcement to prison?
Are we as a society so mean-spirited? Must we destroy the individual police officer? This case will not rest. I predict that it will come back to haunt this City. I believe that if the citizens of the City of New York knew the full details of this case, they would not support this travesty of justice.
Copyright © 1999 Edward D Reuss
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FORUM QUESTIONS
|
