Opinion ID: 221342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The NYCLU's Allegations

Text: According to its complaint, the NYCLU is an organization that advocates for open governmental and judicial proceedings. As an example, the NYCLU submitted materials indicating that it had worked successfully to open hearings at the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission to the public. The NYCLU further asserts that it is involved in advocacy about [New York City Police Department] policies and practices. For instance, the NYCLU has urged the New York City Police Department to ensure that officers know that bystanders are entitled to film and photograph police activity in public transit areas and advocated changes in the police department's public transit sting operations. The NYCLU has also investigated the demographic characteristics of those stopped and frisked by New York City Police Department officers on public transit, and concluded that minorities receive a disproportionate number of citations for Rule violations. These investigative and advocacy activities, the NYCLU alleges, give it a particular interest in observing TAB hearings in which [New York City Police Department] officers testify. The NYCLU also represents clients issued notices of violation. The NYCLU alleges that the inability to observe TAB hearing freely leaves it seriously hampered in its ability to advise clients about their own hearings. Finally, the NYCLU has asserted that it plan[s] to promptly start monitoring TAB hearings if the access policy is enjoined. According to the NYCLU's complaint, law students working under the direction of an NYCLU attorney attempted to observe TAB hearings on several occasions. Some would-be observers were simply denied access to hearings without more. Security guards or hearing officers told them that observation was against the law, that the hearings are not open to the public, or just that they could not enter. Others were told they had to obtain a respondent's consent. On one occasion, [t]he head hearing officer denied the law student's request to observe a hearing unless she could identify a consenting respondent. This requirement prevented her from observing a hearing. On another occasion, after having been told that observers were not permitted, a law student spoke to a security supervisor who, recognizing the student, offered to request a random individual's permission to let the student sit in on a hearing, which the student was allowed to do [o]nce someone consented.