8 ms·

Since NYPD counsel isn't a judge, they don't rule on things. They might make claims or declare things, but they don't make rulings. It matters because there's

Since NYPD counsel isn't a judge, they don't rule on things. They might make claims or declare things, but they don't make rulings. It matters because there's a chance that this will go before an actual judge, who might rule that NYPD's counsel is wrong.

sjg007 13y ago
It always seems to be this way.. The DA or govt will make some claim that the courts eventually refute. It is very weird in some sense.
- meepmorp 13y ago
  It's not weird at all - the courts in the US are an adversarial system. You have defense attorneys making claims that courts later reject, or counsel in civil cases making claims that a judge later decides the merits of. Lawyers get paid, and are legally bound, to faithfully represent the interests of their clients, so they make the best argument they can towards that goal.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    > Lawyers get paid, and are legally bound, to faithfully represent the interests of their clients, so they make the best argument they can towards that goal. In this context that is often the cause of a very serious inequity. The government has lawyers funded by the taxpayers arguing for the government's position against the public, but no taxpayer-funded lawyers are provided to represent the public against the government. Predictably the public interest then gets the short end of the stick in any case where there are no well-heeled private interests willing to pick up the tab.
    - malandrew 13y ago
      If we're paying them, shouldn't they be representing our interests?
      - marcosdumay 13y ago
        Yes. But are they?
      - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        It's like asking, shouldn't the CEO be representing the interests of the shareholders? In theory, but it's a classic principal-agent problem. The agents have different goals than the principals and can be expected to try to game or corrupt whatever system is in place to make them accountable. The trouble is that the accountability system in government doesn't take that into account. The state's attorney is presumed to be representing the interests of the public, so nobody is provided to argue the contrary position when the state's attorney ignores his duty by advancing the interests of the state instead.
001sky 13y ago
Agree. The headline is clear as "muck"... seems par for the course, given the URL. But you raise an important and non-trivial point.
- rhizome 13y ago
  It seems strange that a muck-oriented site would use that language in a headline, even if it was verbatim from the agency.
Zigurd 13y ago
That's sort of beside the point. A good lawyer, especially one who is working for a supposedly representative government, should know not to make assertions that a operating manual, or any normal operating document that might have been reviewed by a lawyer, is privileged communication. He deserves the ridicule he's getting for that.
knowtheory 13y ago
There are indeed many administrative rulings that are not made by judges, but instead by executives in government. That internet service providers are not common carriers is just one example of an administrative FCC ruling. Administrative rulings matter a great deal to the daily operation of government and how citizens interface with their services. It has been and continues to be a major cost in terms of time, effort and resources for news organizations to drag every administrative ruling in front of a judge.
- 001sky 13y ago
  "NYPD Counsel" is not an example of an executive branch agency with rulemaking authority. Counsel is an advocate, and they have merely asserted a position with reference to the law. Absent some other (unprovided) citation, it doesn't behoove anyone to use loose language here. "NYPD's lead freedom of information counsel refused to release the department's freedom of information guides, citing attorney-client privilege."
  - thirsteh 13y ago
    Translation: NYPD's lawyer said they don't need to release it. There was no ruling of any kind.
- meepmorp 13y ago
  Yes, but we're not talking about a regulatory agency that's granted administrative rule making powers.

sjg007 13y ago

It always seems to be this way.. The DA or govt will make some claim that the courts eventually refute. It is very weird in some sense.

meepmorp 13y ago
It's not weird at all - the courts in the US are an adversarial system. You have defense attorneys making claims that courts later reject, or counsel in civil cases making claims that a judge later decides the merits of. Lawyers get paid, and are legally bound, to faithfully represent the interests of their clients, so they make the best argument they can towards that goal.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  > Lawyers get paid, and are legally bound, to faithfully represent the interests of their clients, so they make the best argument they can towards that goal. In this context that is often the cause of a very serious inequity. The government has lawyers funded by the taxpayers arguing for the government's position against the public, but no taxpayer-funded lawyers are provided to represent the public against the government. Predictably the public interest then gets the short end of the stick in any case where there are no well-heeled private interests willing to pick up the tab.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    If we're paying them, shouldn't they be representing our interests?
    - marcosdumay 13y ago
      Yes. But are they?
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      It's like asking, shouldn't the CEO be representing the interests of the shareholders? In theory, but it's a classic principal-agent problem. The agents have different goals than the principals and can be expected to try to game or corrupt whatever system is in place to make them accountable. The trouble is that the accountability system in government doesn't take that into account. The state's attorney is presumed to be representing the interests of the public, so nobody is provided to argue the contrary position when the state's attorney ignores his duty by advancing the interests of the state instead.

001sky 13y ago

Agree. The headline is clear as "muck"... seems par for the course, given the URL. But you raise an important and non-trivial point.

rhizome 13y ago
It seems strange that a muck-oriented site would use that language in a headline, even if it was verbatim from the agency.

Zigurd 13y ago

That's sort of beside the point. A good lawyer, especially one who is working for a supposedly representative government, should know not to make assertions that a operating manual, or any normal operating document that might have been reviewed by a lawyer, is privileged communication. He deserves the ridicule he's getting for that.

knowtheory 13y ago

There are indeed many administrative rulings that are not made by judges, but instead by executives in government. That internet service providers are not common carriers is just one example of an administrative FCC ruling. Administrative rulings matter a great deal to the daily operation of government and how citizens interface with their services. It has been and continues to be a major cost in terms of time, effort and resources for news organizations to drag every administrative ruling in front of a judge.

001sky 13y ago
"NYPD Counsel" is not an example of an executive branch agency with rulemaking authority. Counsel is an advocate, and they have merely asserted a position with reference to the law. Absent some other (unprovided) citation, it doesn't behoove anyone to use loose language here. "NYPD's lead freedom of information counsel refused to release the department's freedom of information guides, citing attorney-client privilege."
- thirsteh 13y ago
  Translation: NYPD's lawyer said they don't need to release it. There was no ruling of any kind.
meepmorp 13y ago
Yes, but we're not talking about a regulatory agency that's granted administrative rule making powers.