PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Sergio De La Pava, Legal Director of New York County Defender Services
3:33:41
·
4 min
Sergio De La Pava testifies about the current state of surveillance in New York City, highlighting concerns about transparency, accountability, and potential abuses of surveillance technology by the NYPD. He shares a specific case of his client, Derek Ingram, to illustrate actual abuse of these technologies during a Black Lives Matter protest.
- De La Pava argues that we now live in a surveillance state, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability.
- He criticizes the NYPD's desire for more secrecy and their non-compliance with discovery statutes in the Ingram case.
- The testimony urges the City Council to remain vigilant and continue fighting for greater transparency in surveillance technology use.
Sergio De La Pava
3:33:41
afternoon.
3:33:41
Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.
3:33:43
I am Sergio Della Pava, legal director of New York County Defender Services.
3:33:48
Sitting here all morning and and early afternoon listening to this testimony, it's abundantly clear to me that we now live in a surveillance state, of the kind that envisioned not too long ago by, like, dystopian science fiction.
3:34:03
This is an inalterable fact, and I think what most signifies now is how entities like this one are going to respond to that.
3:34:12
Importance of transparency and accountability are extreme at this particular moment in our history, but what we get from from the NLPD repeatedly, especially today, is a desire for more secrecy.
3:34:25
And we know what secrecy gives rise to the potential for abuse.
3:34:32
We've submitted, extensive written testimony.
3:34:34
I wanna highlight one aspect where it's not about potential abuse, it's about actual abuse of these technologies.
3:34:42
Our client was an individual by the name of Derek Ingram, activist who was attending in a leadership capacity of Black Lives Matter protest.
3:34:53
NYPD was there, members of the force, apparently.
3:34:57
Everything was being recorded.
3:35:00
And the protest ended, and mister Ingram was not arrested for any conduct at that protest.
3:35:05
But at some point, the NYPD decided that they wanted to arrest him for supposedly yelling into a bullhorn too closely to a member of the NYPD.
3:35:16
They used facial recognition.
3:35:18
I've heard the testimony today that they claim facial recognition is not used to constitute probable cause.
3:35:24
So I'm not sure what else they did, but they fixated on mister Ingram and decided that they were going to arrest him.
3:35:30
The way the way they went about this is to descend on his home.
3:35:33
They knew his address now.
3:35:35
About 24 vehicles closed off the street.
3:35:37
A helicopter was used, drones.
3:35:40
And they lied to him and told him that they had a warrant for his arrest.
3:35:44
They did not.
3:35:45
The police rarely have an arrest warrant for an individual because an arrest warrant requires going to a judge and demonstrating to that judge that there's probable cause to believe this person has committed a crime.
3:35:56
They did not want to do this here because they would have had to disclose to a judge exactly what led them to conclude, that mister Ingram had yelled loudly a bullhorn.
3:36:07
So they they for they forsook that entire procedure and instead, as I said, 24 vehicles, tactical gear being employed by officers.
3:36:16
They surround his home.
3:36:16
They lie to him, say, we have an arrest warrant.
3:36:20
Please step out of your apartment.
3:36:21
He doesn't step out of his apartment.
3:36:23
He speaks to a lawyer who tells him in New York, they cannot arrest you in your home without an arrest warrant.
3:36:28
They truly had an arrest warrant.
3:36:29
They would arrest you in your apartment.
3:36:31
They must not have one.
3:36:33
This went on for hours until it was called off.
3:36:38
And, you know, tellingly, when asked about the heavy handedness of this and the just kind of offensive nature of all this, both the mayor and the commissioner of the NYPD said this was kinda done without our knowledge.
3:36:51
This was all organized without us knowing about it, and we don't approve of it.
3:36:55
So I when we talk about the potential for abuse, I think this case is a perfect example of that.
3:37:00
Now it'll result in a criminal case.
3:37:02
We represented them.
3:37:03
Their discovery statutes went into effect.
3:37:05
The police really refused to kind of give us any insight into what was done in this case.
3:37:11
The discovery statutes were not complied with, ultimately resulting in dismissal of the case.
3:37:17
To this day, we're not sure exactly what technology was used, what technology was not used.
3:37:21
If you can And I tell you the scary part that was Wrap up.
3:37:24
Almost five years ago.
3:37:26
As we know, in the use of technology five years is a lifetime.
3:37:30
So I applaud the post act.
3:37:31
I applaud these introductions and and these proposed beefing beefing up of the of the act, but I urge this body to remain vigilant.
3:37:41
We don't know what we don't know and to constantly be fighting for greater transparency in this area.
3:37:48
Thank you.
Yusef Salaam
3:37:49
Thank