Their Juvenile Records Were Supposed To Be Sealed. The NYPD Accessed Them Anyway.
According to a new lawsuit, NYPD officers have been illegally accessing sealed juvenile arrest records.

New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers are illegally accessing sealed juvenile arrest records, according to a recently filed class-action lawsuit. According to the suit, officers have been obtaining these sealed records in violation of New York state law and have even gone so far as giving those records to prosecutors.
In New York, several provisions of state law (often called the "youth sealing statutes") require that when a minor's arrest results in a "favorable" result—meaning that there was a decision not to prosecute the case, or it was dismissed or otherwise withdrawn—the youth's arrest records be sealed. This sealing is wide-reaching, preventing not just everyday members of the public but also any "public or private agency" from obtaining the records, according to the suit. Only a court order can allow someone to access these arrest records.
"The law provides no exception for the NYPD to access, use, or disclose Sealed Youth Records—including records it created—for law enforcement purposes or for any other purpose absent a court order," the complaint reads. "Yet, the NYPD has engaged (and continues to engage) in a longstanding practice of illegally accessing, using, and disclosing Sealed Youth Records."
The suit names three plaintiffs whose records were allegedly illegally disclosed by the NYPD. One plaintiff says that after she was stopped by an NYPD officer in a Brooklyn subway station, her sealed juvenile arrest record showed up on a search on the officer's mobile device. The officer allegedly questioned her about her arrest. The other plaintiffs claim their juvenile arrest records were given to prosecuting attorneys after further arrests.
This practice of violating New York law has meant that "thousands of New Yorkers have had their rights violated, in just these recent years," according to the lawsuit. "The NYPD uses sealed arrest-related information, including Sealed Youth Records, to make a number of law enforcement decisions, including whether to arrest a person, and, upon information and belief, deciding whether to treat someone as a 'recidivist,' whether a person is affiliated with a gang, and whether someone is a potential suspect in a crime."
According to the complaint, lawmakers were motivated to mandate the sealing of many juvenile arrests because of concerns over how the stigma of a past arrest could affect young adults. However, the NYPD's practices are contravening that purpose.
"I've worked with a lot of adults who have juvenile records," Emma-Lee Clinger, an attorney with The Legal Aid Society, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case, told The Imprint this week. "And every single one of them carries this weight of the stigma of their prior arrest and the fear that it's still hanging over their heads."
"At the heart of the Youth Sealing Statutes is the intention to prevent the 'devasting [sic] prejudice' that may arise from any person or agency accessing Sealed Youth Records," the suit argues. "An arrested juvenile should not suffer stigma based on allegations that are not sustained in a court of law or where a court determines that records should be sealed."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This practice of violating New York law has meant that “thousands of New Yorkers have had their rights violated, in just these recent years,” according to the lawsuit.
Yes, it means rights have been violated, but it also means there are no consequences for violating the law by government agents.
This sealing is wide-reaching, preventing not just everyday members of the public but also any "public or private agency" from obtaining the records, according to the suit.
Unless the law includes punishment for people who violate it, it's merely a suggestion.
OF COURSE there is a punishment. A $5 with many zeroes behind it that will go to lawyers and the victims, all paid for by that evil Police Department.
Taxpayers: TAKE THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT! (here let me get my checkbook!)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
I've got an idea.
STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!
Let's say a kid gets arrested for stealing when he is 15, 16, and 17 but prosecutors decide not to charge him under the premise of not ruining a young person's life before it gets started. When he is arrested again at 18, 19, and 20 for stealing again that shows he never deserved a blank slate going into adulthood. Can we stop pandering to criminals?
I say this with all due respect: Fuck. Off. Slaver.
I’ve got a counter idea: If the government has a problem with a kid, do the work to convict them of a crime, or leave them the fuck alone.
“Can we stop pandering to criminals?”
These kids, by definition, are not criminals. They received a favorable result- that is, they were not convicted of a crime.
We live in a world where everyone of us commits “three felonies a day”. A pissy cop can haul you for any reason. And we live in a world where nanny busybodies sick the police on kids for any odd reason.
For every habitual thug you imagine, there are real kids who were victims of mistaken identities, power hungry “respect muh authoritah!” cops, and vindictive school officials. It is bad enough that they get put through such humiliation in a supposed tolerant society to begin with, but at the least we should be willing to ensure their privacy. They are kids.
The hypothetical kid is a criminal and a repeat offender, what they are not is a felon.
You have corrupt, ideological DAs refusing to apply the law and your genius idea is to go with it until we consider The Purge good policy? Do we apply the same standard to every cop the DA refuses to prosecute and just declare "no problems there, move along"? Or are you suddenly justifying a double standard?
There need to be fewer laws so the consequential ones can be enforced but doing the activists bidding by ignoring even those, something that isn't going to help anyone.
Agreed. I want less laws on the book, but the ones that make sense should be enforced.
Bad on the cops for breaking the law here. Let them be charged whatever is deserved. However, what I see here is a system of prosecutorial discretion that likely enables crime by first handwaving it away and later pretending it never happened. Kids have some amount of agency. If a pattern of behavior develops in childhood and continues into adulthood it doesn't make sense to ignore a long-existing pattern just because someone crossed their 18th bday
Then change the law. I have known plenty of people, including myself, who, in their callow youth, may have violated one law or another. And then gone straight. Teenaged boys are hooped up on testosterone, and don’t have the mental maturity to handle it. Most of the guys here went through at least some of this, and survived.
Of course I want all those things (consistent application of the law, fewer of those laws)...and none of that is mutually exclusive with a government that respects the privacy of minors.
Further, even when kids DO break the law, I simply don't believe that should haunt them all their lives. Some kid gets swept up in the moment and drinks in a park? Shoplifts from a store? Gets in a fight?
Certainly, some crimes- especially violent crimes- should have deep consequences. And habitual offenses should have their own consequences. But a kid who commits a felony once should have the opportunity to repay society quickly and move on with their lives. This ability for police and other government officials to dredge up these records from their past is wrong.
Don’t forget that kids are kids. They be confused and doing stupid shit. Where does mens rea fit into teenage impulse control? They’re irrational. Treating them as if they are/were rational is evil, and exactly what I would expect police, prosecutors and judges to do.
But if they kill you, you're just as dead.
I had a long reply but Overt said it better and shorter.
Except the records being disclosed were not for any conviction of a crime. They were sealed because the charges were dropped or dismissed with no guilty verdict.
The question is: if someone has been arrested 9 times but has been let off every time as the charges were dropped for example, should the cops or prosecutors be able to use that as a basis to question someone or show a pattern of lawlessness in a courtroom if the person was there for something else? Remember, the person was arrested but was never found guilty of any crime.
I'd say that would depend on why the person was arrested, and also why they were released without charges.
If they were arrested 9 times while shoplifting, but the prosecutor (questionably) declined to charge, then it should be admissible as evidence of a pattern of theft when the person is arrested the 10th time, but now for grand theft.
If they were arrested 9 times while walking "suspiciously" in their own neighborhood, and the prosecutor (rightly) sends them home for having committed no crime at all, then it should not be admissible as evidence of anything, except maybe as evidence of living in the neighborhood.
But, either way, what good is done by sealing those records? Either there's a pattern of lawlessness aided by an ineffectual/incompetent/lawless prosecutor, or there's a pattern of harassment/lawlessness by the police. They're public records.
If the officer had easy access on his phone for a teenager chosen at random, it's not a officer problem, it's an IT problem.
I'm guessing the bill which required this sealing didn't actually contain any standards for HOW the sealing was to be done, or hire anyone to DO the sealing, or check the current IT contract to see if sealing was even supported by the current software?
Most legislation doesn’t have standards, and instead assigns that to a regulatory agency. Nevertheless, it is the police departments’ responsibility to comply with the law. This is the fault of the police department in general, and expressed in their IT policies.
And for the record, if a police department's software doesn't support a current law, that isn't the legislature's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to execute laws. And the Police Departments failed at it.
No budget, no updates.
If The software they own requires each record to be sealed individually, and the legislature didn't include a budget for sealing-agents or updated software....
There are very important precedents about how the legislature does NOT have the authority to, say, order a specific ambulance to be at a specific street at a specific time, or order the president to bomb a specific target.
If the legislature didn't SAY how to afford doing all these redactions, the chief of police is well within his rights to say "I can't spare taking any officers off patrol to deal with this" or "I can only afford to take ONE officer off patrol to deal with this, and he'll never be able to catch up with the backlog"
Now, granted, there is a pretty good argument to be made that if that was what was happening, the Chief of Police or the Head of IT or whomever really should have TOLD the legislature that he was unable to comply with the law as written, and did they want to try again? But that's just a normal level of government dysfunction if they didn't bother to do so. We live in fallen times.
Sealing court records is not novel. Pretty much every state has some manner of it.
If the Police Department did not have the budget to comply with the law, then they should have petitioned for the budget. Or they should have paid one less "Accident Investigation Fake Cop" for a year and made the changes.
I get what you are saying about the legislature sometimes doing the wrong thing. But EVERYONE should be happy that the state was trying to protect the privacy of kids. Including the Chief of Police. Instead they were (per normal) indifferent. And now the taxpayers will pay the price.
In my experience nothing is sealed. It just can't be used against you in court. But it's not sealed.
In Colorado you can expunge records, after going through a long process of appearing in front of a judge. I worked with a volunteer group helping young adults use this process.
That process includes three court orders from a judge that you send to the arresting city/county, the arresting police department, and to the federal government- all ordering deleting of the records. The lawyer at the firm I worked with says that he believes there is a federal db that never gets touched- because the military always seems to know about these records regardless- but the others get destroyed.
BUT- BUT! the most important thing about expungement is not necessarily the records, it is the legal definition. Once you do this, it is as if the crime never occurred. You are legally allowed to say on college, firearms, and job applications that you were never convicted of a crime.
But what about if those applications are going to people who know the crime DID occur, perhaps from a private database? Are they legally obligated to pretend they don't know?
It's hilarious that you cannot see ypu're cheerleading for a conflict of interest here. Activist politicians demand compliance to new requirements, deny the budget to implement then you blame the cops when the activist politician's buddies sue the department for violating laws they weren't given the ability to comply with.
I suppose the officers could just claim they were acting in their capacity as citizen journalists, ifvthat makes it better.
Seriously, the position on press freedom taken by Reason calls into question whether the government has authority to seal any kind of record from public view.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! You win the Reason Is Clown World Award today sir.
If an arrest, for whatever reason, does not lead to prosecution, the records of that arrest ought to be summarily destroyed.
That seems excessive. What about, say, domestic abuse arrests where the battered wife refuses to testify against the husband, so no prosecution actually happens?
Police need to know that there have been 5 prior arrests when responding to yet another report, and if the battered wife finally changes her mind, the information about prior arrests is hypothetically relevant to both the prosecution and the defense.
One because the arrests happened, the other because they were dismissed.
What about, say, domestic abuse arrests where the wife claims to be battered simply to get an edge in the divorce proceedings?
No crime, no prosecution, but the arrest record follows the man around, casting him in a bad light for all sorts of things -- court proceedings, police dealings, job interviews.
Allowing the process to be the punishment is a perverse incentive for all kinds of bad acts, government and private.
That seems excessive...Absolutely. That's the nature of "innocent until proven guilty." Arrest records that do not lead to prosecution, but linger in history, bias others towards believing guilt without proving it and, consequently, taints the process inappropriately.
Police need to know that there have been 5 prior arrests when responding to yet another report...No they don't. All that does is bias them against the suspect. Prior arrests, particularly ones that don't lead to prosecution, are not evidence of anything except that someone was arrested. However, few people think critically enough -- as evidence, I enter your entire response -- to not be biased and assume they are evidence of past wrong-doing.
I'd go as far as to say, no CONVICTION, no record.
If young violent criminals were being routinely prosecuted, that would be easy to agree with, but, as things are, the lack of a conviction does not mean they aren't provably criminal.
If young violent criminals were being routinely prosecuted, that would be easy to agree with, but, as things are, the lack of a conviction does not mean they aren’t provably criminal.
Then prove it without prior arrest records. Records of arrest are not evidence of criminal conduct. At the most damning, they are merely evidence that someone was suspected of criminal conduct.
If someone is "provably criminal," then fuckin' prove it without any prior arrest records. If your only proof is that they've been previously arrested on similar charges, or any charges, then fuck off.
I’d go as far as to say, no CONVICTION, no record.
I would agree so long as failure to convict is due to an acquittal or the case is dismissed with prejudice. If there is a solid case that gets dismissed in such away that allows for the case to be brought up again, the arrest records et al are a legitimate part of the evidence.
What if the data on the officer's phone was his notes from the arrest and investigation, and NOT the court records that were sealed?
What then?
(and yes, I read the article. this is a hypothetical)
"Sealed" doesn't mean much and their are all sorts of exclusions like law enforcement can look up (w/o a warrant) that time I was prescribed 12 hydrocodones for an abscessed tooth that was root-canaled/crowned or extracted 12+ years ago.
A friend and colleague was working in Buffalo, NY and was detained and temporarily denied entry into Canada to see the Falls over an electronic database record that he received a misdemeanor citation for possession of marijuana 35+ years before. He and about 6 others were cited by police after they were spotted sharing a joint at a backyard keg party in the early 1970s.
The joint disappeared before the cops hopped the fence and one of the miscreant's fathers, a lawyer, showed up on the court date, said he was defending them all, and the judge dismissed all charges because the cop didn't show and the police report said no evidence was recovered. Canadian Customs/Border guards had instant access to the citation.
oops, deleted, wrong thread.
One plaintiff says that after she was stopped by an NYPD officer in a Brooklyn subway station, her sealed juvenile arrest record showed up on a search on the officer's mobile device. The officer allegedly questioned her about her arrest.
So, this is a little confusing the way you describe it. (And since this is an Emma Camp article, I'm going to accept that's intentionally deceptive.) Here's what she doesn't clarify: Are they actually accessing the sealed record itself? Or are they just accessing information that shows the existence a sealed record?
Because the former is a problem, but the latter definitely is not (and I'll bet my bottom dollar we're talking about the latter). Nor is it a problem if the cop questions the suspect about it. "So I see here you have a prior arrest record. Want to tell me about that?"
That question isn't coloring outside the lines. If the suspect volunteers that information, that's their problem. For the record, the correct answer to that question is: "I don't have to answer that." And if the cop persists, "Am I under arrest?" And if so, "I want to speak to my lawyer immediately."
AND if it's the latter, and you STILL have a problem with them being able to access the mere existence of a sealed record, then your position is ludicrous. I mean, by extension, you'd have to also argue that a cop should completely forget any memory of anyone he arrested who later had his record sealed. Like, with a MiB flashy thing on their brain or something.
That's not in keeping with reality. If a cop busts a 19yr old punk that he remembers from the time he busted him when the punk was 17 - they're allowed to base decisions off that. Including whether to arrest or treat them as a recidivist or gang member. That's not "accessing their sealed record" to use it against them, try as you might to spin it that way.
Illegally accessing and disclosing sealed court records should be a felony and anyone how commits this crime should be charged and convicted. The fact that the police are doing this is even worse as there should be a higher expectation of following the law by people who are entrusted to enforce the law.
are these court records, or police records? it sounds like they're police records.
Emma obfuscated that on purpose.