escort decades their disciplinary records were subject to a special protection against public disclosure that wasn't available data to the employee under fifty last year that special protection was preserve the status quo for trial because the city is rushing to create online registries that will indiscriminately include tens of thousands of unsubstantiated unproven  allegations of only law enforcement officers and they are going to do that without any prior legal review of existing legal protections for those records now there are a number of issues that are raised in the briefing book st i want to address the finding that there was no irreparable harm to appellant safety and privacy because it's really on the minds of every officer and the facts and law on these submitted empire center help that the releasing of names along with tired police officers created a risk of violence to the officers and the  already protected with important and so it wasn't necessary to have fifty day in order to address the threat of harm to police officers the empire center case which is  year and a half after the repeal of the since simply just corroborates and supports that finding so i can look at no one wants to exaggerate the risk your honor but you have to address in my time who were seeking the clear injunction under article seventy five dollars to rent the city from that have already been condensed arbitrations seek to import our collective bargaining rights have unfounded and exonerated allegation was removed from our personal the creation of these massive public registries are obviously going to make that arbitration meaningless and empty retired i have a question about that the section seven c section seven c new situation doesn't change that they will still be removed from the personal folder and and that and therefore the complaint on which an officer has been exonerated  will not have any negative effect or in any effect on personnel decisions or things that would be influenced by what's in the personal folder but the seven to see right doesn't doesn't give the officer the right to have  documentary evidence of this nature removed from all of the city's biomes it will be removed if i understand it correctly from the personal folder but that doesn't mean it gets to be removed from from everything single one of them independent me to be able to prevail here as a district work correctly found the language is clearly implying focus that focuses on the moving information by the chief personnel from the personal folder alternatively called the personnel folder not from public record and even if that even if it had created some sort of a broader right it still wouldn't reach the record issue here because the tech provision only it reaches investigative reports from clo not formal charging and following all the forward from there so there was there's absolutely zero overlap between what this d b a provision even if broad reading possibly protect and what the unions are the city that are being objected to do not include the any form of making public or releasing the documentation with respect to complaints that were not substantiated charges in the final decisions after a trial as a disciplinary hearing as a disciplinary trial so there's there's zero overlap between that and the section seven the provision the records that  very limited injunction and that limited and young should under section eight stand and we didn't challenge it it allows for the police commissioner to expunge the record of a case of a certain very small subset of something called a schedule a violation which is officer then he's not guilty to a charge against that and prevails at church trial they have a right under the c p a to quote unquote expunged the record of the case the district court was really careful considering comparing that language in section eight the court said you know there could be a question here about what this provision means and entered an injunction and i guess i just want to know that the intervenor cross appellant has a pill that portion of the a section of the c b a part of the patrol guide is something that the city remains has the authority to withhold from public record even after the repeal so there is no problem with public policy  there i think it's important and i can i can walk the court through if you have any questions about the other claims that the union could raise none of them has any merit in fact they all fail on multiple fr fail because there's not even such a thing as a right to inforce oil and in any event but my service was worth it by the person who's the subject of the record as opposed to the person requesting the record going to the open records laws but it in any event new york the city is complying with the preliminary injunction because the city intends and believe that we will prevail in arbitration on that provision the section eight language is at least intention to release the documents relating to components on which the officer has been exonerated and you answered no with respect to the police but that answer me that the that the answer would have been i think the s e n y currently doesn't have a plan in place they're waiting to see how this case unfolds so there is not and nor is there of the department of corrections plan to release at this point allegations  city of new york that was just too important principles up for close arguments st of the court held that the city itself has no authority to make agreements that remove certain records from poilus breach and so the arbitrator what's the right for authority from the violations but in the opinion of the city is appropriate for schedule a and there have been media reports that we fighting on breaks that serious and fractions are being funneled through section special as we won we can't take the city word for that schedule technical infractions because it's undermined by their own discipline matrix and secondly even if they were correct about what a technical infraction is they have no authority it would be boys under public policy safety because i want to put on the record that of course no one here is downplaying or taking for granted the threat that officer but it's important to focus on what the district court found she did likely to happen and if it is not clear that the harm that they're threatening is linked at all before they will disclosure then it is not clear that the injunction will stop it and more importantly go on what we have in this record i trends like chicago which the district court found was a fair comparative to new york not a single threat not a single instance of harm the fault in an officer and so on this record not only have the union failed prove that it's likely to happen but what i interest for transparency is needed at some future time but it is in fact an urgent need the public has a strong interest in immediate access to these records and their koku point that like to make about why this is the case very quickly one police violence officer killing of her son she could not get any information about the choir of the officers involved and meanwhile every negative thing about her was in the public square and so in the aftermath of these events the debate is often one sided unfair and that is why the public is or her has to be able to immediately determine the prior everyone involved not just the victim and nd the lack of transparency creates a chilling effect in that it  good the district court find with respect to the contention that the schedule is not really limited just to technical technical infractions and requirement that's right your honor and that comes from planning to release information before there's been a determination as to whether or not it's been finally exonerated or unfounded charges and specifications what's really a black box w stand there are not the end of the process so we're protected against the release of exonerated allegations you have to determine whether or not those allegations are going to be exonerated so i think on both those grounds those are matters for an arbitrary to decide and argue with ups the empire case completely devastated the argument that you just heard c p r and that is this is a dangerous time for police officers what happened in chicago or every four or five years ago was not relevant to the time today information to among others people who will make future liberty based employment decisions about police officers and they've done that without any pre hearing they've done that on the basis of no articulated  forty years the legislature did not correct the production of disciplinary records and send the disciplinary records will now be treated like everybody else's weapons and everybody else's records are protected by collective bargaining rights  unsubstantiated allegations unfounded allegations is an unwarranted invasion of privacy for officers just the same way it has been for other city employees for years and years and certainly that can be protected by the collective bargaining