Dinler v. City of New York, 607 F. 3d. 923 (2d. Cir 2010)
Dinler v. City of New York, 607 F. 3d. 923 (2d. Cir 2010)
Hacer Dinler, Michael Schiller, Dierdre Macnamara and others as the Plaintiffs and or Respondents and The City of New York, Raymond Kelly (Commissioner of Police) and others as the Defendants and or Petitioners.
Prior Proceedings
The case has been previously heard at the United States South District Court of New York in which granted the motion compelling the production of sensitive intelligence reports originating in the custody of the New York City Police Department. This case is, therefore, a petition seeking a writ of mandamus that overrules the order from the lower court. In that respect it should be noted that the Plaintiffs are the Respondents while the Defendants are the Petitioners.
Facts
In 2003 February, Mayor Bloomberg announced that the Republican National Convention for 2004 would be held in the City of New York. This necessitated the New York Department of Police hereinafter NYPD to embark on development plans with the intention of ensuring safety in light of the terrorist attacks threats.
In appreciation of the violent protests that had characterized recent political events, it was the contention and finding of the Deputy Police Commissioner that any demonstration would pose a security threat.
The Commissioner and his Intelligence Division embarked on a gathering of information concerning extremists groups that may cause violence. This compelled some of the intelligence officers to go undercover and infiltrate the organizations for purposes of gathering information.
In reliance of the intelligence gathered, the Police Commissioner devised a plan called the Mass Arrest Plan that had instructions conferred to the police officers to arrest without issuing any summonses any Republican National Convention disorderly protestors and that these protestors’ fingerprints be captured for verification at the custody. Over 800000 people protested, and around 1200 people were arrested. The arrested included the Plaintiffs.
In 2004, the Plaintiffs sued the New York City and the Department of Police citing that the manner in which they had been handled was in gross violation of the Constitution of the United States of America and the applicable law of the City of New York.
In the prosecution of the cases, it was the Plaintiffs request that the Police Department produce the Field Reports that contained the previously gathered information on some of the arrested individuals.
The Department of Police declined the request contesting that the request was overboard, lacking of admissible evidence and that the information in question was protected by the privilege granted to law enforcement officers. The Plaintiffs declined this response and sued in court for an interpretation. The District court rules in their (Plaintiffs) favour ordering for the release of the Field Reports. The Police Department opposed this order hence the petition at this honourable court
Issues/ questions of Law
Whether the Court should grant the writ of mandamus as desired by the Petitioners. In satisfaction of that question, the party must prove that it has no other alternative of relief, the court must be satisfied that the issuance of the writ is justified and that the petitioners demonstrate issuance of writ to be clear and indisputable.
Arguments / Objectives of the Parties
The Petitioners argue that the release of the field reports would be an affront to the law as it would expose information that is privileged to the public. The Respondents hold that it is the release of the Field Report that would adduce sufficient evidence that would be used in discharging justice.
Holding/ Ruling of the Court
The Court granted the City’s petition for the writ of mandamus overturning the ruling of the District Court.
Rationale
That among other findings, the Field Report in contention fall under the province of privileged information under law enforcement and that disclosing it would be an affront to the law.
Relation to core value of integrity
Adherence to the rule of law in evidential issues during trial is essential.
References
Dinler v. City of New York , 607 F.3d. 923 (United States of America Circuit Court of New York June 9, 2010).
