I hope Suffolk doesn't go bankrupt just yet, there are a couple more lawsuits they need to settle, like that one with Derek Logue versus Ahearn's group.
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/loeb-settlement-burke-assault-1.16478078
Suffolk agrees to settle Christopher Loeb’s lawsuit, officials say
The county admits no wrongdoing in connection with Christopher Loeb’s 2012 beating by former Chief James Burke.
By Nicole Fuller
nicole.fuller@newsday.com @NicoleFuller
Updated February 1, 2018 7:48 PM
Suffolk County has agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a federal lawsuit brought by Christopher Loeb, whose beating by Suffolk Police Chief James Burke led to the chief’s imprisonment and the indictment of District Attorney Thomas Spota, county officials said Thursday.
Under the terms of the agreement, the county admits no wrongdoing and is released from additional liability in connection with Loeb’s 2012 beating inside a police precinct, Suffolk County Attorney Dennis Brown said in an interview.
“In this particular case, we have an admission from the perpetrator of wrongdoing, so we don’t have a lot of defenses,” Brown said, adding that Burke is not covered under the settlement and could still be held liable.
“His acts, even though he was the chief of police at the time, were not something that the county condones nor is it something that occurred within the scope of his employment.”
The county legislature will have to vote to approve the settlement.
Loeb, 31, of Mount Sinai, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Bruce Barket, a Garden City-based attorney representing Loeb, said he would not comment on the settlement until the legislature gives its final approval.
“But I will note that there is no settlement with Burke and we intend to pursue our case against him vigorously,” Barket said. “He is separately liable for the damages he caused and punitive damages, which are certainly appropriate in this case.”
Barket said Loeb, who is a recovering heroin addict, is currently “doing well and working on his health.”
Burke’s attorney, John Meringolo of Manhattan, declined to comment.
The case began when Loeb was arrested on Dec. 14, 2012, after stealing a duffel bag containing a gun belt, ammunition, sex toys and pornography from Burke’s unmarked police SUV in St. James. In 2015, Loeb filed a lawsuit in federal court charging the county, Burke and six other officers with violating his civil rights after he accused the former chief of assaulting him.
Loeb’s beating allegations sparked a federal probe that led to Burke’s indictment and arrest in December 2015. Burke pleaded guilty to violating Loeb’s civil rights in February 2016 after admitting to assaulting Loeb and then orchestrating a departmental cover-up. He is currently serving a 46-month prison sentence.
Burke’s federal probe led to last year’s federal indictment of Spota and top aide Christopher McPartland on charges they were involved in the cover-up. Both Spota and McPartland pleaded not guilty and were released on bail. Spota retired days after he was indicted.
The county considered several factors in deciding to settle, Brown said, including attorneys’ fees and the unpredictability of a possible jury award.
“We’re looking at years of litigation, very significant litigation costs; there are multiple attorneys that the county is paying for various named defendants,” Brown said. “If we were not successful in the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorney would also be entitled to attorney’s fees, so we could be looking at attorneys’ fees of a million dollars or more.”
Loeb had pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the original case involving the theft from Burke’s vehicle, but in light of Burke’s guilty plea, a state Supreme Court justice vacated the plea after the special prosecutor who was appointed in the case agreed with Loeb’s attorney that the plea was unjustly coerced and tainted by police perjury.
Loeb entered the plea after a pretrial hearing in which several Suffolk officers and detectives testified under oath that they didn’t see Burke beat Loeb.
But when the plea was vacated, the original indictment, which included stealing property and other charges, was reinstated. Loeb again pleaded not guilty to those charges, which included a count of breaking into Burke’s police vehicle and stealing a duffel bag.
A defense motion to dismiss the indictment was later granted.
DuWayne Gregory (D-Copiague), presiding officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, said he would vote for the settlement because going to trial could “run the risk” of a higher cash award.
“It’s frustrating that the taxpayers of Suffolk County have to pay for the egregious actions of any individual that works for the county,” Gregory said.
If approved, the settlement will be paid by floating a bond. The county’s 2 percent interest rate over five years on a $1.5 million bond will total $91,200, said county spokesman Jason Elan.
Since being released from prison on that case last January after being sentenced to three years, Loeb has gotten into trouble with the law, including a February 2016 argument with his mother, Jane Loeb, that resulted in a harassment charge after authorities said he hit her.
Loeb was arrested in August 2017 and charged with violating an order of protection against his former girlfriend, Suffolk police said.
And last November, Loeb was arrested on charges in connection with the break-in of a car, theft of a purse and credit cards and theft of his mother’s car, police said. He was charged with fourth-degree grand larceny, fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property, possession of a hypodermic instrument and unauthorized use of a vehicle.
He was released on personal recognizance from the Suffolk jail in Riverhead on Jan. 8 after a judge reduced his bail. The charges are pending.
Legis. Robert Trotta (R-Fort Salogna) said County Executive Steve Bellone should pay the settlement. Trotta said he would “absolutely not” vote to float a bond to pay it.
“Steve Bellone violated the trust of every taxpayer by hiring and supporting Jim Burke despite his history of misconduct. Now the taxpayers of Suffolk County will pay yet again for another Bellone blunder.”
Newsday has reported that Bellone was warned in an anonymous letter about issues with Burke, but got assurances of his character from Spota.
Elan, in response, said: “It is the height of hypocrisy coming from a man who has been accused multiple times of workplace violence.”
Showing posts with label Lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuits. Show all posts
Friday, February 2, 2018
Saturday, May 7, 2016
Retired NY Supreme Court Justice SLAMS Laura Ahearn, PFML, and Steve Bellone
This brought a HUGE smile to my face. I'd like to see PFML's reaction to THIS letter from a retired state supreme court justice.
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/letter-why-a-new-deal-for-megan-s-law-group-1.11769142
Letter: Why a new deal for Megan’s Law group?
Updated May 6, 2016 11:52 AM
By Newsday Readers
The story “Group sues sex offender” [News, April 24] refers to a private organization, Parents for Megan’s Law, founded by Laura Ahearn. The group has brought a defamation lawsuit against a registered sex offender, Derek W. Logue, who runs a civil rights organization for sex offenders, on account of his public and critical comments about Parents for Megan’s Law. Several revelations in the article are deeply disturbing.
First is the fact that Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone is about to renew the contract with Ahearn’s organization. And for what? To carry out an exclusively public, governmental legal responsibility, which is seeing that New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act is obeyed.
Parents for Megan’s Law is not the Suffolk County Police Department. As Newsday’s article points out, the group is already a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit for a home interrogation of another man, and now you report that it is hauling into court yet another of its critics.
Is anybody minding the store?
William M. Erlbaum, Forest Hills
Editor’s note: The writer is a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court and an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School.
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/letter-why-a-new-deal-for-megan-s-law-group-1.11769142
Letter: Why a new deal for Megan’s Law group?
Updated May 6, 2016 11:52 AM
By Newsday Readers
 |
| In this Thursday, March 3, 2016 photo, Laura Ahearn, center, executive director of Parents for Megan's Law, poses with retired New York City police detectives who work for her organization verifying the accuracy of the state's sex offender registry, in Ronkonkoma, N.Y. Ahearn's organization is completing a three-year, $2.7 million contract with Suffolk County, N.Y., to verify the registry. In the front row from left are Joe Grimm, Paul Alonzo, and Edwin Rivera. In the back row are from left are Harry Zakian, Robert Carboine and Alex Ramos. (AP Photo/Frank Eltman) Photo Credit: AP |
First is the fact that Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone is about to renew the contract with Ahearn’s organization. And for what? To carry out an exclusively public, governmental legal responsibility, which is seeing that New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act is obeyed.
Parents for Megan’s Law is not the Suffolk County Police Department. As Newsday’s article points out, the group is already a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit for a home interrogation of another man, and now you report that it is hauling into court yet another of its critics.
Is anybody minding the store?
William M. Erlbaum, Forest Hills
Editor’s note: The writer is a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court and an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Parents For Megan's Law sues a poor man from another state in retaliation for Internet comments. Your $900k a year at work
The Suffolk nonprofit hired by the county to monitor registered sex offenders has sued a Cincinnati registered sex offender, accusing him of defaming the group with his online posts.
 |
| Did the law offices of WeitzPascale gave these to PFML? Seems like it. |
Why is PFML really suing Derek Logue? Because he had the courage to stand up to them. After all, PFMl is already being sued for harassment. This is a blatant abuse of law, and I'm pretty sure this lawsuit will backfire.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/parents-for-megan-s-law-files-lawsuit-against-sex-offender-1.11724412
Parents for Megan’s Law files lawsuit against sex offender
Updated April 23, 2016 8:06 PM
By Laura Figueroa laura.figueroa@newsday.com
Parents for Megan’s Law filed a lawsuit in Suffolk state Supreme Court in Central Islip on Tuesday, claiming Derek W. Logue, who runs a support website for sex offenders, made “false disparaging statements about the integrity” of the Ronkonkoma-based group on his Twitter account and an online news forum.
Logue, who was served with court papers as he protested outside of the nonprofit’s Comac Street office on Wednesday, contends his posts accusing the group of receiving “kickbacks” are protected by the constitutional right to free speech.
The legal dispute comes as the group, which tracks the addresses of more than 1,000 registered sex offenders and provides counseling services to sex-abuse victims, renegotiates its three-year $2.7 million contract with Suffolk. It is set to expire at the end of the month.
Vanessa B. Streeter, a spokeswoman for Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone, said the county plans to renew the group’s contract, but is “still working out the terms.”
At the center of the lawsuit is a Feb. 23 post Logue wrote responding to an online article about an upstate Broome County lawmaker’s call to increase the 20-year period Level 1 sex offenders must remain on the state’s registry to 25 years.
“This is what is known as ‘moving the goal post,’” Logue wrote in the comments section of Binghamton’s FOX 40 WICZ TV news website. “ . . . The REAL reason the state is pushing this is because Parents for Megan’s Law gets millions of dollars in kickbacks.”
In that post, and on his Twitter account, Logue questioned whether the agency’s funding went to “padding” the pockets of the Broome County legislator pushing for the increase, a claim the nonprofit’s attorneys say is “false” and made “with reckless disregard for the truth.”
Laura Ahearn, founder and executive director of Parents for Megan’s Law, said she couldn’t comment on the lawsuit, and referred questions to the group’s pro-bono attorneys at the Mineola law firm of WeitzPascale.
“You can’t go around defaming innocent organizations that are here only to defend children, the elderly, the disabled,” said attorney Brian C. Pascale, a partner at the firm.
Logue... said he has traveled to other cities to protest sex-offender residency restriction laws.
He said he came to Suffolk to protest the county’s tracking program because he believes municipalities should focus on funding “rehabilitative” programs that help offenders reintegrate into society.
“They’re trying to silence me for speaking up,” Logue said in an interview. “It’s easy to go after and dehumanize a group that’s invisible in the eyes of society.”
Logue, who carried a sign that read “Parents for Megan’s Law: Stop Supporting Myths for Money,” said he tried to stage a larger demonstration. He said he sent letters to 300 Suffolk registered offenders encouraging them to come out and protest, but only one showed up.
Parents for Megan’s Law is also defending itself against a federal lawsuit filed last month by a Suffolk registered sex offender, who claims the nonprofit violated his civil rights by interrogating him at his house.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Parents For Megan's Law is a "state actor" and can be sued, according to US Disctrict Court
Scroll down to the other article I posted today, and you'll see it didn't take long for someone to sue PFML.
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202750067373/Groups-Monitoring-of-Sex-Offenders-Called-State-Action
Group's Monitoring of Sex Offenders Called 'State Action'
Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal
February 19, 2016
A private group hired by Suffolk County to increase monitoring of registered sex offenders is a state actor and can be sued for civil rights violations, a federal judge has ruled.
Eastern District Judge Joanna Seybert said representatives of Parents for Megan's Law were acting under color of state law in 2013 when they went to the home of a man convicted of sex offenses, questioned him about his addresses and the car he drives, demanded to see his driver's license, and threatened to show up at his job with no notice.
The plaintiff, John Jones, was convicted of rape and sodomy in 1992. He was released from prison in the late 1990s and now lives in Suffolk County with his wife and children. As a convicted sex offender, Jones has been required to abide by the reporting procedures in the New York Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA).
SORA classifies offenders on three levels, with Level 1 being those who pose the lowest risk of re-offending. Jones was classified as Level 1, which still requires him to fill out an annual registration form, visit his local police station every three years for a new photo, and notify police or the state, within 10 days, of any changes in his address, educational enrollment or "Internet identifiers."
In 2013, Suffolk County passed the Community Protection Act, Local Law 10-2013, which was intended to toughen sex offender monitoring and verification. The law allowed the Suffolk County Police Department to enter into a three-year contract with Parents for Megan's Law to verify residency and monitor offenders already under the requirements of SORA.
Agents of Parents for Megan's Law, who are required to be former law enforcement officers under the contract, knocked on Jones' door, asked him questions and then followed him closely down the front walk to the street where his car was parked. He handed them his license, which they kept for several minutes while asking about his employment. The agents then told him they might make later, unannounced visits to his place of employment to conduct additional inquiries.
Two agents returned to his home in July 2014 and three more agents followed up a week later, again taking his license and asking him questions.
In Jones v. County of Suffolk, 15-cv-0111, Jones alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He claimed that Parents for Megan's Law, which advocates requiring sex offenders to live far away from population centers, has left him and his family in fear that the neighbors will find out about the visits. Jones also said he has been less active in the community and in his children's activities.
Suffolk County and Parents for Megan's Law moved to dismiss, saying the private group was not a state actor, and there was no constitutional violation nor any municipal liability.
Seybert said the fundamental question in the different tests for determining state action, whether it be the "close nexus" or "joint action" test is whether the actions of the private entity can be "fairly attributable" to the state.
"Although the mere existence of a contract between the state and a private entity does not create state action, additional factual allegations that the state 'insinuated itself' into the management of the organization are sufficient to confer state actor status at the pleading stage," she said.
Here, the judge said, Suffolk County "retained the power to actively manage the home verification program," as the police department "proscribed the number of visits each registrant was scheduled to receive, and Parents for Megan's Law was required to submit a schedule of its in-home verifications" to the department, which could then modify the schedule.
And the department also created the appearance of joint action when it sent registered sex offenders, including Jones, a letter saying they needed to show personal identification and employment information to Parents for Megan's Law (PFML) agents.
"In addition, Jones sufficiently alleges that the county delegated to PFML the inherently public function of monitoring registered sex offenders," she said, and the "monitoring program was described in the contract as a 'law enforcement initiative' and it required PFML to use ex-law enforcement personnel to perform the work."
Having found the private group was a state actor, Seybert declined to dismiss a Fourth Amendment claim, turning aside the defendants' contention that the Parents for Megan's Law agents were doing no more than a "knock and talk" with Jones.
"[T]he allegations in the complaint raise questions about whether a reasonable person in Jones' position would feel free to terminate his interactions with the PFML," she said. "The questioning here did not take place in an open field, or a Greyhound bus (other situations in which courts have held police inquiries and seizures did not violate the Constitution) but rather within Jones' curtilage—an area afforded heightened Fourth Amendment protection."
Christopher Dunn and Erin Harrist of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Jennifer Spirn and Lawrence Spirn of Spirn & Spirn in Hauppauge represent Jones.
Harrist said the decision vindicates the view "that the suspicionless home investigations that Suffolk County is running violate the Constitution."
"Instead...the county should be investing services that really help people and help registrants find stable housing and employment. That's the best way to ensure public safety," she said.
Assistant County Attorney Marlene Budd represents the county.
Michael Miranda and Richard Epstein of Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin Verveniotis in Mineola represent Parents for Megan's Law.
See the court decision HERE:
http://nylawyer.nylj.com/adgifs/decisions16/021916seybert.pdf
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202750067373/Groups-Monitoring-of-Sex-Offenders-Called-State-Action
Group's Monitoring of Sex Offenders Called 'State Action'
Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal
February 19, 2016
Eastern District Judge Joanna Seybert said representatives of Parents for Megan's Law were acting under color of state law in 2013 when they went to the home of a man convicted of sex offenses, questioned him about his addresses and the car he drives, demanded to see his driver's license, and threatened to show up at his job with no notice.
The plaintiff, John Jones, was convicted of rape and sodomy in 1992. He was released from prison in the late 1990s and now lives in Suffolk County with his wife and children. As a convicted sex offender, Jones has been required to abide by the reporting procedures in the New York Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA).
SORA classifies offenders on three levels, with Level 1 being those who pose the lowest risk of re-offending. Jones was classified as Level 1, which still requires him to fill out an annual registration form, visit his local police station every three years for a new photo, and notify police or the state, within 10 days, of any changes in his address, educational enrollment or "Internet identifiers."
In 2013, Suffolk County passed the Community Protection Act, Local Law 10-2013, which was intended to toughen sex offender monitoring and verification. The law allowed the Suffolk County Police Department to enter into a three-year contract with Parents for Megan's Law to verify residency and monitor offenders already under the requirements of SORA.
Agents of Parents for Megan's Law, who are required to be former law enforcement officers under the contract, knocked on Jones' door, asked him questions and then followed him closely down the front walk to the street where his car was parked. He handed them his license, which they kept for several minutes while asking about his employment. The agents then told him they might make later, unannounced visits to his place of employment to conduct additional inquiries.
Two agents returned to his home in July 2014 and three more agents followed up a week later, again taking his license and asking him questions.
In Jones v. County of Suffolk, 15-cv-0111, Jones alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He claimed that Parents for Megan's Law, which advocates requiring sex offenders to live far away from population centers, has left him and his family in fear that the neighbors will find out about the visits. Jones also said he has been less active in the community and in his children's activities.
Suffolk County and Parents for Megan's Law moved to dismiss, saying the private group was not a state actor, and there was no constitutional violation nor any municipal liability.
Seybert said the fundamental question in the different tests for determining state action, whether it be the "close nexus" or "joint action" test is whether the actions of the private entity can be "fairly attributable" to the state.
"Although the mere existence of a contract between the state and a private entity does not create state action, additional factual allegations that the state 'insinuated itself' into the management of the organization are sufficient to confer state actor status at the pleading stage," she said.
Here, the judge said, Suffolk County "retained the power to actively manage the home verification program," as the police department "proscribed the number of visits each registrant was scheduled to receive, and Parents for Megan's Law was required to submit a schedule of its in-home verifications" to the department, which could then modify the schedule.
And the department also created the appearance of joint action when it sent registered sex offenders, including Jones, a letter saying they needed to show personal identification and employment information to Parents for Megan's Law (PFML) agents.
"In addition, Jones sufficiently alleges that the county delegated to PFML the inherently public function of monitoring registered sex offenders," she said, and the "monitoring program was described in the contract as a 'law enforcement initiative' and it required PFML to use ex-law enforcement personnel to perform the work."
Having found the private group was a state actor, Seybert declined to dismiss a Fourth Amendment claim, turning aside the defendants' contention that the Parents for Megan's Law agents were doing no more than a "knock and talk" with Jones.
"[T]he allegations in the complaint raise questions about whether a reasonable person in Jones' position would feel free to terminate his interactions with the PFML," she said. "The questioning here did not take place in an open field, or a Greyhound bus (other situations in which courts have held police inquiries and seizures did not violate the Constitution) but rather within Jones' curtilage—an area afforded heightened Fourth Amendment protection."
Christopher Dunn and Erin Harrist of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Jennifer Spirn and Lawrence Spirn of Spirn & Spirn in Hauppauge represent Jones.
Harrist said the decision vindicates the view "that the suspicionless home investigations that Suffolk County is running violate the Constitution."
"Instead...the county should be investing services that really help people and help registrants find stable housing and employment. That's the best way to ensure public safety," she said.
Assistant County Attorney Marlene Budd represents the county.
Michael Miranda and Richard Epstein of Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin Verveniotis in Mineola represent Parents for Megan's Law.
See the court decision HERE:
http://nylawyer.nylj.com/adgifs/decisions16/021916seybert.pdf
Parents For Megan's Law is sued yet again for harassment as they are looking to renew their contracts
You won't be able to read the article without paying for it so here is the full article. PFML is being sued for harassment, and they are currently in talks to renew their contract.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/sex-offender-sues-suffolk-monitoring-group-over-harassment-1.11527834
Sex offender sues Suffolk, monitoring group over ‘harassment’
By Darran Simon
Newsday March 1, 2016 7:45 PM
A registered sex offender claims in a federal lawsuit that a Suffolk County group charged with monitoring offenders violated his rights when former police officers visited his home and “interrogated” him.
The suit by the Suffolk resident, who served time for rape and sodomy in the late 1990s, says he was “the target of two harassing investigations” in 2013 and 2014 by Parents For Megan’s Law, a Ronkonkoma-based nonprofit.
The plaintiff, identified as “John Jones,” complied because he feared criminal penalties, but the monitoring efforts — allowed under the county’s 2013 Community Protection Act — “far exceed” state sex offender registration requirements, according to the suit.
The former officers twice showed up at the offender’s home “without a warrant, and absent any suspicion” that he was not complying with the state requirements, the suit said.
They parked out front, “interrogated” him about his address and car, and “followed closely behind” as he retrieved his driver’s license from the vehicle. Jones — a Level I offender, the lowest-risk category — claims he no longer attends his children’s school events, and he and his family “live in constant anxiety.”
A federal judge recently denied motions by the defendants, the county and nonprofit, to dismiss the 2015 suit, ruling that Parents For Megan’s Law is a “state actor” and can be held liable for constitutional violations.
U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert, in her Feb. 16 ruling, said Suffolk police “created the appearance of joint action” with the nonprofit by sending letters to sex offenders requiring them to provide information, such as identification to the nonprofit.
Mineola attorney Michael Miranda, who represents the nonprofit, said Seybert’s determination “does not mean that the court has decided the case or vindicated the plaintiff’s view.”
County spokesman Justin Meyers said the county and the group acted reasonably. Erin Beth Harrist, a New York Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the plaintiff, said the ruling “is an indication that this type of forced compliance with these investigations is not OK.”
The nonprofit pays former officers to do regular checks on more than 1,000 Suffolk sex offenders.
Officials say the monitoring has reduced recidivism and alerted police to inaccurate addresses.
Suffolk’s three-year, $2.7 million contract with the nonprofit expires in April and renewal talks are underway.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/sex-offender-sues-suffolk-monitoring-group-over-harassment-1.11527834
Sex offender sues Suffolk, monitoring group over ‘harassment’
By Darran Simon
Newsday March 1, 2016 7:45 PM
The suit by the Suffolk resident, who served time for rape and sodomy in the late 1990s, says he was “the target of two harassing investigations” in 2013 and 2014 by Parents For Megan’s Law, a Ronkonkoma-based nonprofit.
The plaintiff, identified as “John Jones,” complied because he feared criminal penalties, but the monitoring efforts — allowed under the county’s 2013 Community Protection Act — “far exceed” state sex offender registration requirements, according to the suit.
The former officers twice showed up at the offender’s home “without a warrant, and absent any suspicion” that he was not complying with the state requirements, the suit said.
They parked out front, “interrogated” him about his address and car, and “followed closely behind” as he retrieved his driver’s license from the vehicle. Jones — a Level I offender, the lowest-risk category — claims he no longer attends his children’s school events, and he and his family “live in constant anxiety.”
A federal judge recently denied motions by the defendants, the county and nonprofit, to dismiss the 2015 suit, ruling that Parents For Megan’s Law is a “state actor” and can be held liable for constitutional violations.
U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert, in her Feb. 16 ruling, said Suffolk police “created the appearance of joint action” with the nonprofit by sending letters to sex offenders requiring them to provide information, such as identification to the nonprofit.
Mineola attorney Michael Miranda, who represents the nonprofit, said Seybert’s determination “does not mean that the court has decided the case or vindicated the plaintiff’s view.”
County spokesman Justin Meyers said the county and the group acted reasonably. Erin Beth Harrist, a New York Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the plaintiff, said the ruling “is an indication that this type of forced compliance with these investigations is not OK.”
The nonprofit pays former officers to do regular checks on more than 1,000 Suffolk sex offenders.
Officials say the monitoring has reduced recidivism and alerted police to inaccurate addresses.
Suffolk’s three-year, $2.7 million contract with the nonprofit expires in April and renewal talks are underway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)