Even less likely lol

115 sounds like you were standing in a no standing… don’t stand

Difference is that when you’re Union in NYC the city can only do this in collective bargaining. The city did not do this, rather they just announced that all retirees would be going into Medicare part C

The NYPD used to do warrant sweeps in shelters. City council said that was inhumane.

The Dept of Homeless services used to put peace officers in some non city run sites. They have since receded. I think the unarmed DHS police (legitimate peace officers) should be in every shelter. To provide security for clients and for staff.

Its one of the reasons why I said the “police defund” would fail.

People pushed for police to have no contact with the homeless. These groups either have been incapable of undertaking the homeless issues in their own facility. OR intentionally don’t want to take control and because they want to force responsibility on the NYPD.

Sadly no

Yeah as I said. DHS made a new rule that they’d no longer cover any facility that was exclusively for homeless with psychiatric issues. So the BRC decided in their infinite wisdom to also remove their security in their generally sleazy operation.

I have had dealings with this building for the last decade. I have never seen it more poorly run, both clients and personnel are at risk to violence, clients with Covid are routinely kicked out for Covid and told to go to their Covid shelter but then told “we don’t know where that is so you’re on your own”

The shelter system needs legitimate government oversight. Or just be city run entirely.

It’s a double edged sword. Many homeless shelters. Absolutely refuse to provide security because it effects their bottom line.

Example the BRC at 127 west 25 street in Manhattan at one point got DHS police onsite. That lasted for a few years until Covid. Then after they were unable to get DHS police back because the facility was for clients of Jack Ryan who were exclusively for those with psych history. They soon after didn’t renew their private security and the building has operated like a thunder dome since 2021.

Which part

So I like that you’re on the right track but the issue lies with the courts. An officer can not submit a summons returnable to a court based on an accumulation of evidence without the presence of expert testimony in court regarding this. At the time of this case law the criminal court handled this case thus it was proceeded by a prosecutor who could call upon an expert witness. This is not done in NYC therefor there is a statement which essentially overrides the Case law.

“I personally observed the commission of the offense charged herein. False statements made herein are punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor pursuant to section 210.45 of the Penal Law. Affirmed under penalty of law.”

In NYS moving violations are returnable to the DMV TVB which an officer must have a burden of proof of “Clear and Convincing Evidence” based exclusively on their observation.

Parking violations are essentially fines sent direct to the Dept of Finance. I’m sure they have a judge somewhere but hearings are direct with an administrative law judge. Therefor personal observation is necessary, as well as generally immediate service of complaint.

OATHs (civil court summonses) DO allow for ticketing based on non observance. One of the most common is “failure to yield to a pedestrian” when it is determined a motorist struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk when the driver had green and pedestrian had a walk signal.

State troopers upstate DO issue moving summonses based on conclusions arrived at during accidents but these are jurisdictions that have their summonses returned to a local criminal court.

In summation. Local courts created summonses which are legal complaints (exception of OATH) which state on the complaint that the issuer did personally observe. If an officer endorsed it, it violates CPL 210.45 which constitutes perjury.

Sigh. Criminal mischief(property damage) is a misdemeanor/felony. It requires no direct observation but rather an officer can reach probably cause based on evidence. Violations or infractions must be personally observed.

Summonses are in lieu of arrest. It’s tantamount to the same thing in the eyes of the law.

felonies and misdemeanors require a burden of proof known as “probable cause.” violations and infractions must be observed.