'NYC IS FREE AS CAN BE'
Police commissioner answers post-9/11 civil liberties questions
Rob Ulon
Issue date: 11/21/06 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Civil liberties have not been lost since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, according to the police commissioner of New York City who visited Rutgers-Newark last Wednesday.
"The protection of civil liberties is as important as the protection of the city itself," said Raymond Kelly, the NYPD commissioner who spoke at the Center for Law and Justice about the balancing of national security interests and civil liberties in a post-9/11 world.
Kelly detailed steps the NYPD has taken to preserve civil liberties during its counter-terrorism campaign.
Among them, the NYPD employed a "cadre of the most distinguished legal minds and counter-terrorism experts" to ensure the department's counter-terrorism measures comply with the United States Constitution and current developments in civil liberties, Kelly said.
The legal advisory board reviews police conduct as well as informing officers of the requirements necessary to obtain search warrants.
Kelly, the only person to hold the NYPD commissioner slot during two separate tenures, also noted that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the city's search program of "random, suspicion-less subway baggage," was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. This program was implemented after the July 7, 2005 London subway bombings.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."
The New York Civil Liberties Union sued the police department in December 2005, claiming the search program was unconstitutional on the grounds that it was overly intrusive and didn't coincide with the Fourth Amendment requirement that searches result from individualized suspicion.
However, the court concluded that the program fell within the amendment's "special needs exception," which allows the court to balance "the need for the search against offensiveness of the intrusion" when securing a warrant would seem impractical, Kelly said. In addition to serving the purpose of evidence gathering, the search program serves the "special need of deterring terrorist attacks," Kelly said.
"The protection of civil liberties is as important as the protection of the city itself," said Raymond Kelly, the NYPD commissioner who spoke at the Center for Law and Justice about the balancing of national security interests and civil liberties in a post-9/11 world.
Kelly detailed steps the NYPD has taken to preserve civil liberties during its counter-terrorism campaign.
Among them, the NYPD employed a "cadre of the most distinguished legal minds and counter-terrorism experts" to ensure the department's counter-terrorism measures comply with the United States Constitution and current developments in civil liberties, Kelly said.
The legal advisory board reviews police conduct as well as informing officers of the requirements necessary to obtain search warrants.
Kelly, the only person to hold the NYPD commissioner slot during two separate tenures, also noted that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the city's search program of "random, suspicion-less subway baggage," was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. This program was implemented after the July 7, 2005 London subway bombings.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."
The New York Civil Liberties Union sued the police department in December 2005, claiming the search program was unconstitutional on the grounds that it was overly intrusive and didn't coincide with the Fourth Amendment requirement that searches result from individualized suspicion.
However, the court concluded that the program fell within the amendment's "special needs exception," which allows the court to balance "the need for the search against offensiveness of the intrusion" when securing a warrant would seem impractical, Kelly said. In addition to serving the purpose of evidence gathering, the search program serves the "special need of deterring terrorist attacks," Kelly said.
Be the first to comment on this story