4 ms·

Lawyers don't do this though because the best thing to do for their client is get the NYPD to withdraw, not fight a lengthy and expensive legal battle over the

Lawyers don't do this though because the best thing to do for their client is get the NYPD to withdraw, not fight a lengthy and expensive legal battle over the NYPD's subpoena power. The NYPD would legally fight to retain this power to the bitter end.

bena 3y ago
Not to mention lawyers have to work with the police fairly regularly. They see fostering an adversarial relationship as bad for them. So while the police may have broken the law, caused damages, etc, and whatever, other police aren't going to pursue it and neither will most district attorneys.
- acdha 3y ago
  There’s also a significant personal risk. The NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city if they didn’t want 100% enforcement targeting them personally. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-police-officer-had-backup-secret-recordings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-p...
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. It's obviously criminal. But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys.
    - acdha 3y ago
      I agree that it’s unlikely but going after their subpoena ability seems like the kind of thing which would be taken personally.
    - callalex 3y ago
      > That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior? Explaining, not justifying. Gang-like organisations react more forcefully to perceived betrayal (one up from competition) than bog-standard adversarialism.
        6510 3y ago
        Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't? Not sure what you're getting at. I'm asking for evidence of someone suing the NYPD in the manner this journalist might be harassed in the manner a cop collecting evidence on other cops was.
        6510 3y ago
        To me it works the other way round. You wouldn't want evidence it will happen, you would want evidence it wont happen. I think there will be no consequences if they go there?
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys. That'd be a full time job. Over the last 15 years, NYC has been paying out a million dollars per WEEK for NYPD abuse of power lawsuits alone.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      get real, they'll be vindictive if you file too many 311 complaints
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > neither will most district attorneys Why would a DA pursue it? Is there an allegation of a crime by the NYPD? This looks like a civil matter. The NYPD is sued for--and pays out on--civil damages all the time.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Lawyers don't do this though because the best thing to do for their client is get the NYPD to withdraw This is where groups like the ACLU come in.
- busterarm 3y ago
  The ACLU on their own doesn't have standing. They still have to best represent their client. Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. The ACLU would only have the opportunity if this kind of subpoena was used on the ACLU itself.
  - NewJazz 3y ago
    Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. Even if the client asks for that?
    - busterarm 3y ago
      Are you even thinking about the risks if he loses the case? He'd be giving up his sources and even opening himself up to the risk of them investigating him and charging him with other crimes. Any intelligent attorney would advise their client against it. Once you go to court anything can happen and either way it's prohibitively expensive. People in my own family have done nothing wrong and lost everything they owned fighting in civil court over smaller stakes than this. Going to civil court is the absolute last resort. Nobody wins but the attorneys. Going to court is only worth it in criminal cases and insurance/liability cases. /s used to work at one of the largest lawfirms in the US.
      - fwip 3y ago
        What a lawyer would "advise against" and what they "should be disbarred for doing" is not nearly the same thing.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
pfdietz 3y ago
This is a judgment call. The courts could respect the idea that this is a sword hanging over the plaintiff, even if this specific case becomes moot. This has happened elsewhere in first amendment cases. In no way is this something that would merit disbarment.

bena 3y ago

Not to mention lawyers have to work with the police fairly regularly. They see fostering an adversarial relationship as bad for them. So while the police may have broken the law, caused damages, etc, and whatever, other police aren't going to pursue it and neither will most district attorneys.

acdha 3y ago
There’s also a significant personal risk. The NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city if they didn’t want 100% enforcement targeting them personally. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-police-officer-had-backup-secret-recordings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-p...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. It's obviously criminal. But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys.
  - acdha 3y ago
    I agree that it’s unlikely but going after their subpoena ability seems like the kind of thing which would be taken personally.
  - callalex 3y ago
    > That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior? Explaining, not justifying. Gang-like organisations react more forcefully to perceived betrayal (one up from competition) than bog-standard adversarialism.
      - 6510 3y ago
        Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't?
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't? Not sure what you're getting at. I'm asking for evidence of someone suing the NYPD in the manner this journalist might be harassed in the manner a cop collecting evidence on other cops was.
        6510 3y ago
        To me it works the other way round. You wouldn't want evidence it will happen, you would want evidence it wont happen. I think there will be no consequences if they go there?
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys. That'd be a full time job. Over the last 15 years, NYC has been paying out a million dollars per WEEK for NYPD abuse of power lawsuits alone.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    get real, they'll be vindictive if you file too many 311 complaints
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> neither will most district attorneys Why would a DA pursue it? Is there an allegation of a crime by the NYPD? This looks like a civil matter. The NYPD is sued for--and pays out on--civil damages all the time.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Lawyers don't do this though because the best thing to do for their client is get the NYPD to withdraw This is where groups like the ACLU come in.

busterarm 3y ago
The ACLU on their own doesn't have standing. They still have to best represent their client. Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. The ACLU would only have the opportunity if this kind of subpoena was used on the ACLU itself.
- NewJazz 3y ago
  Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. Even if the client asks for that?
  - busterarm 3y ago
    Are you even thinking about the risks if he loses the case? He'd be giving up his sources and even opening himself up to the risk of them investigating him and charging him with other crimes. Any intelligent attorney would advise their client against it. Once you go to court anything can happen and either way it's prohibitively expensive. People in my own family have done nothing wrong and lost everything they owned fighting in civil court over smaller stakes than this. Going to civil court is the absolute last resort. Nobody wins but the attorneys. Going to court is only worth it in criminal cases and insurance/liability cases. /s used to work at one of the largest lawfirms in the US.
    - fwip 3y ago
      What a lawyer would "advise against" and what they "should be disbarred for doing" is not nearly the same thing.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago

This is a judgment call. The courts could respect the idea that this is a sword hanging over the plaintiff, even if this specific case becomes moot. This has happened elsewhere in first amendment cases. In no way is this something that would merit disbarment.