Court of Appeal Restore New York City Law ban police officers from compressing suspects’ diaphragms, the latest turn in a protracted legal battle over the measure through the two years ago.
The law is part of a broader effort to limit the types of physical restraints police can use to detain someone, including those keeping secrets. Police unions sued almost immediately after the statute was passed, saying it was too broad and would prevent officers from physically restraining suspects, even if it was necessary or done in good faith.
A state Supreme Court judge in Manhattan agreed and repealed the policy last fallsays its language is “vaguely unconstitutional.”
In Thursday’s ruling, the Appellate Division ruled the judge erroneously lowered the policy and said the statute clearly explains what officers can and cannot do.
“A trained police officer should be able to tell when the pressure he is creating on a person’s chest or back, in the vicinity of the diaphragm, makes it difficult for the person to breathe, as well as the driver. can know when. the amount of alcohol he has consumed makes it unsafe for him or her to drive,” the investigative panel wrote.
The use of barriers by police officers was a felony under the laws of the State of New York, and guidelines from the New York City Police Department prohibit their use. Conduct prohibited by law passed by the City Council includes gripping, but any other physical restraint can also be applied, including pressing on another person’s neck or kneeling on the person’s back. Under city law, either can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor.
The council passed the law in the summer of 2020, as nationwide protests against police brutality flooded the streets following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers.
Even law enforcement officials who welcomed the banning of the barriers said at the time that they were concerned the provisions of the law were too broad and could put officers at risk of indiscriminate prosecution. base.
But the panel rejected claims that the law lacked specificity. Pretending that police officers cannot understand the difference between acceptable restraint and a dangerous level of suppression is to make a weak argument, the judges said.
Patrick J. Lynch, president of the city’s largest police union – which joined the lawsuit challenging the statute – chastised the judges for reinstating the law and said the ruling would prevent officers from doing their jobs their own even as the city struggles with an increase in some crime.
“Our city leaders need to recognize that this ruling deals a direct blow to the fight against the violence that is tearing our city apart,” Mr. Lynch said in a statement. “This puzzling statute makes it virtually impossible for police officers to safely and lawfully detain violent criminals – the very work that New Yorkers are urgently asking us to do.”
The union did not immediately say whether it would appeal to New York’s highest court.
