Tag Archive: NYPD

Judge denies NYPD’s motion to dismiss sound cannon lawsuit

Photo credit: Peter Bergin licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5

Mark Chiusano, AMNewYork, writes about the New York Police Department’s use of long range acoustic devices on people who were protesting against “the non-indictment of Daniel Pantaleo, the police officer involved in the death of Eric Garner on Staten Island.” One protester, Anika Edrei, ran after hearing a crash that sounded like a bottle shattering near the crowd, but then Edrei heard “a different sound,” one which sounded like a very loud car alarm. How loud? “Another listener described it as the loudest noise he’d ever heard.”

Edrei saw two police officers carrying “a bulky appliance,” which was a long range acoustic device (LRAD). LRADS can be used as a loudspeaker, but they also generate “sharper, high decibel “alert” or “deterrent” tones intended to control a crowd.” Chiusano reports that the police’s use of the sharper, high decibel tone on the crowd was “one of the first times the police reportedly used the tone.” Edrei and others claim that they suffered injuries due to the exposure to that tone.

LRADs are military devices that were developed after the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, but Chiusano writes that the devices “made their way to some police departments, too.” The NYPD purchased two LRADs before the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Edrei and others at the protest have sued the NYPD for injuries they claimed to have sustained from exposure to the LRADs, asserting that after exposure they developed migraines, sinus pain, dizziness, facial pressure, and ringing in their ears. Chiusano notes that:

[I]nternal NYPD documents available so far appear to lend weight to the plaintiffs’ claims. A 2010 document from the department’s Disorder Control Unit says the device’s alternate function can emit sounds at higher levels “than are considered safe to human ears. In this dangerous range (above 120 decibels), the device can cause damage to someone’s hearing and may be painful.

Chiusano reports that the judge “appeared convinced of the possibility of danger, finding a ‘cognizable claim’… that use of the LRAD had constituted excessive force.” As a result, the federal lawsuit will continue, while “the conclusion of a separate lawsuit in June requires the police, in part, to release certain documents about current LRAD training and usage procedures.”

It is disgraceful that a U.S. police department would use a device that can permanently injure its victims on citizens engaging in their First Amendment right to protest.

When noise is a weapon

Photo credit: Soundweapon by Peter Bergin licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5

Colin Moynihan, The New York Times, reports that a federal judge has ruled that the sound emitted by a long-range acoustic device (LRAD) used by the New York City Police Department to order protestors onto sidewalks “could be considered a form of force.” LRADs may “resemble heavy-duty speakers of the sort used to make announcements at high school football games,” but they are, in fact, powerful sound cannons. “[D]eveloped in part as a response to a terrorist attack on a Navy destroyer…[the LRAD is] capable of emitting sound bursts loud enough to repel potential attackers.” Moynihan writes that on the night of the protest:

[T}he police used a model called the 100X to emit a series of sharp, piercing beeps directed at people who in some cases were less than 10 feet away. Soon afterward, six of those who were nearby at the time and said they had developed migraines, sinus pain, dizziness, facial pressure and ringing in their ears filed a lawsuit challenging the police’s use of the device.

With this ruling, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, which asserts that “their 14th Amendment rights had been violated, by an excessive use of force,” can proceed against the city and two members of the Police Department’s Disorder Control Unit. The judge found that the officers used one of the LRADs to order protestors onto the sidewalks, but also “employed the deterrent tone between fifteen to twenty times over a span of three minutes” and  “at points the officers used the device within 10 feet of the plaintiffs and angled it toward them.”  One of the plaintiffs said that “the sound that night was earsplitting and seemingly without respite,” adding that “[i]t’s like a noise flamethrower.”

The idea that a weapon developed to repel terrorist attacks was used on U.S. citizens who were protesting peacefully–a right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights–is appalling. One hopes that this lawsuit will remove LRADs from all police arsenals, and lead to the general recognition that sound can be a weapon and noise must be controlled.

 

It’s going to be a long summer

You’re finally settled into your new place! And then you learn that your neighbor is a DJ…

New rules limit NYPD’s ability to address noise complaints. Just in time for the summer, New York City police “will no longer be allowed to go onto private property and remove sound equipment when responding to noise complaints.”  The reason, reports the NY Daily News, is that a new directive provides that “’warrantless entry’…is not authorized solely for the purpose of abating noise conditions.” Under the directive, if police are not given permission to enter an address for which a noise complaint has been made, “the officers ‘may return on the following day and issue summonses as appropriate.’”

While we understand–and applaud–the police department’s concern about officers engaging in warrantless entries, providing that officers “may return the following day” (unlikely) to issue a summons seems like a recipe for disaster: take one obnoxious and indifferent neighbor, add in too much noise, stir in a bucket full of frayed nerves, and shake vigorously. If the NYPD wants to stop warrantless entries for noise complaints while maintaining the peace, maybe it’s time to extend night court hours beyond 1:00 a.m. and allow officers to get a timely summons.