It’s about the stupidest thing anyone could claim in defense of an unlawful detention and search, but Waterbury, CT police office Nicholas Andrzejewski did it anyway. He actually told a court (twice!) that someone respecting every single law applicable to them at the point of this unwelcome interaction was at least reasonable suspicion for a search, if not actual probable cause.

Here’s how this started, taken from the Second Circuit Appeals Court’s rejection [PDF] of the officer’s attempt to walk away from this civil rights suit:

At approximately 8:43 p.m. on November 12, 2018, Basel Soukaneh stopped his car with the engine running on the side of a street in Waterbury, Connecticut. Soukaneh’s iPhone GPS, located in a holder mounted to the car’s dashboard, was frozen, and he stopped his car to fix it. The area “was dark and [known as] a high crime area well known for prostitution, drug transactions and other criminal activity.”

Ah. The old boilerplate. These assertions about dark, high crime, drug area, blah blah blah presumably autofill whenever a cop starts a sentence explaining their reasonable suspicions on their incident report. It’s so overused and so devoid of actual facts that it’s become a parody of itself. Here’s Scott Greenfield’s take on this part of the officer’s narrative:

Was there articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed because Souhaneh stopped his car on the street? It was dark, as nights tend to be. It was in a high crime area, as is every area in pretty much any city anywhere. And yet, the court saw no problem with Andrzejewski demanding his license, for doing exactly what drivers are instructed to do by pulling over rather than driving while their attention is focused elsewhere. 

Any reasonable person will read this and realize that this self-proclaimed reasonable cop’s narrative has at least a couple of strikes against it. And that’s well before Officer Andrzejewski decided to convert this truly unnecessary non-stop into a full blown invasion of the interior of Soukaneh’s car and a constantly escalating series of rights violations.

Within seconds after Soukaneh stopped his car, Officer Nicholas Andrzejewski approached the vehicle, knocked on the driver’s side window, and according to Soukaneh, loudly demanded Soukaneh’s driver’s license. The interior vehicle light was on, so although the area was dark, Andrzejewski could see the activity inside of the car when he approached the window. As Soukaneh complied and handed his license over, he also provided Andrzejewski with a facially valid firearms permit. While doing so, Soukaneh also disclosed to Andrzejewski that, per the permit, he was in lawful possession of a pistol that was located in the driver’s side door compartment.

That this is being recounted in a court decision means the officer didn’t just take a look at the permit and wish Soukaneh a good evening. No, it went the other way. And it’s the sort of thing you need to shove directly in the eyeballs of every bootlicking person, police union rep, politician, and law enforcement official who claims police brutality only exists because people “don’t comply” and should just stop “breaking the law.” All laws were followed. Soukaneh did better than simply comply, he volunteered information. And this is what he got for being a model law-abiding citizen.

Following that exchange, Andrzejewski ordered Soukaneh out of the vehicle. According to Soukaneh’s description, Andrzejewski then violently “dragged [him] out of the car,” pushed him to the ground, yelled and screamed at him, handcuffed him, and pat-searched his person, recovering neither a weapon nor contraband. Andrzejewski then “shoved [Soukaneh] into the rear area of [Andrzejewski’s police] cruiser,” and left Soukaneh “bent over and partially on the floor of the vehicle.” Soukaneh remained “in that position, facing down and unable to see, until another police officer came along several minutes later and helped him sit up.”

Once the other officer repositioned Soukaneh in the cruiser, Soukaneh saw Andrzejewski search his “entire car, both front and rear,” as well as the car’s trunk. After the search, Andrzejewski returned to the cruiser and kept Soukaneh handcuffed and detained in it for an additional half hour, during which time “a group of seven to ten police officers gathered.” Id. At one point, Andrzejewski began writing on his onboard computer and turned to a fellow officer who had arrived at the scene and asked, “What should I write him up for?” The other officer laughed and the sergeant, who had also since arrived, told Andrzejewski what to write.

Unsurprisingly, the lower court rejected the officer’s request for immunity, pointing out that while the initial encounter may have been justified, nothing that followed that (pulling Soukaneh from the car, handcuffing him, searching his vehicle, detaining him for another half-hour while trying to figure out what to cite him with) was supported by probable cause.

The Second Circuit comes to the same conclusion. Simply being made aware Soukaneh possessed an item millions of Americans also own legally is not probable cause for anything the officer did past that point.

On the facts before us, Andrzejewski does not provide an articulable reason why he, or any
other reasonable officer, could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Soukaneh possessed his firearm unlawfully in violation of Section 29-38(a). To find otherwise would consign those validly carrying firearms pursuant to a license to automatic detention because it would effectively presume that gun permits are invalid until proven valid, or that lawfully owned guns are per se contraband until proven otherwise. Such a finding would effectively render armed individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights meaningless when they are lawfully carrying firearms.

The same goes for the officer’s attempt to invoke qualified immunity by claiming no case on point would have made him aware he was not allowed to so thoroughly and lengthily violate this person’s rights. The Second Circuit says it’s not even sure why it’s spending so much time discussing this because it’s blatantly clear what happened here isn’t permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

This is not a close case, about which reasonable officers could differ. The law as it stood at the time of the events in question left no doubt that a person in possession of a firearm and a facially valid permit for that firearm had a clearly established right to be free from the kind of forcible and prolonged detention to which Soukaneh was subjected, absent any objective reason to suspect that the permit was forged or otherwise invalid.

That covers the forcible removal of Soukaneh from his car, his handcuffing, the search of his car, and his extended detention while the officer tried to come up with something to justify his actions after the fact.

It goes back to the lower court. But I imagine it will only be there briefly before Soukaneh is offered a settlement. Hopefully, that settlement will come hand-in-hand with the firing of Officer Andrzejewski. If this is the one time he got caught, just imagine what he’s gotten away with.

When school students are tested, those overseeing the tests seemingly are willing to do whatever it takes to prevent cheating, even if it means utilizing extremely intrusive spyware to lower the risk of dishonesty. Students are just supposed to take this in stride, but the lessons they’ll often learn of just how little respect school administrators have for them.

But when it comes to cops taking tests, no one even bothers to do the bare minimum. Here’s Jonathan Bailey of Plagarism Today describing the far-from-sterile testing environment afforded to NYPD officers taking a sergeants exam:

The city did just about everything possible wrong when administering this test: It did not enforce cell phone rules, it allowed ineligible people to sit for it, it did not change the questions between sessions/days, and it did not adequately follow up on allegations of cheating.

That’s the upshot of the detailed report [PDF] on this cheating scandal compiled by the city’s Department of Investigation. Somewhat ironically, this came to light thanks to the complaints made by honest cops who apparently didn’t appreciate the massive amount of dishonesty they had witnessed.

In the days and weeks following the Exam, which consisted of 100 multiple choice questions, DOI received approximately 80 complaints from NYPD police officers alleging widespread cheating, involving candidates who took the Exam on Day 1 and passed questions and answers to candidates taking the Exam on Day 2. It was reported that officers used their cell phones in the waiting room and received communications or disseminated information to other test-takers, and that officers who took the Exam on Day 2 received answers to the Exam through social media posts and text messages

Of course, the ratio of honest cops to dishonest cops was still pretty low. Even if we generously assume the 80 complaints came from 80 different officers, the total number of officers who participated in this test was 10,300. Sure, not all of them cheated and obviously not every officer was privy to cheating by others, but that’s still a pretty low number given the total number of test takers.

The large number of test takers was due to the COVID pandemic, which delayed the annual testing for two years. So, there was obviously pressure on the department to get as many officers through the testing as possible, which probably contributed to the nearly nonexistent efforts made to deter cheating.

Not every officer had a chance to cheat. But a whole lot of officers were provided with the opportunity by other officers who were even more ethically compromised than the people they helped cheat.

DOI found that after that first session, 35% of the test questions and answers were disseminated via social media to more than 1,200 Exam candidates.

Given the opportunity for cheating and the lax testing room standards, the real surprise here is how many officers failed to pass the test.

Of the 10,399 candidates taking the exam, only 1,730 of the test takers candidates (17%) achieved a passing score.

While the DOI report notes that some test takers are not eligible for a promotion to sergeant, many officers still take tests like these to polish their test-taking skills, something the department allows. And while that may have contributed to this very low percentage of passing scores, it doesn’t explain why so many officers who desire this promotion are so ill-prepared for a test like this, especially when (at least in this case) some were given questions and answers by other test takers. (Then again, as noted elsewhere in the report, about half of the answers shared on social media by NYPD officers were wrong.)

Then there’s whatever the hell this is:

DOI discussed with IAB the candidate who received a score of 3%. IAB identified that candidate as a retired NYPD captain who was not eligible for the exam because he had retired more than three years prior to taking the exam. The retired captain currently runs a promotional exam school which charges approximately $800 per student for a 20-week course; while still at NYPD he cofounded an NYPD promotional exam training academy. He explained in his interview with IAB that he scored 3% because he intentionally chooses the wrong answers to be able to protest any questions he believes to be unfair. It is unclear how the selection of incorrect answers would support a “protest” of test questions because, according to DCAS, protests are deemed valid only if a candidate can establish that the answer they selected is as accurate — or more accurate — than the answer in the test’s answer key.

In any event, the retired captain registered for 19 exams from 2002 to the present, and was ineligible for all of them. According to the Sergeant’s Exam requirements, applicants must maintain the title of NYPD Police Officer for at least three years preceding the date of the Exam. DOI reviewed the retired captain’s NYPD employment record and DCAS exam history and found that he was promoted to NYPD captain in September 1999 and retired from the NYPD in October 2013. Since 2002, the retired captain has registered for 19 NYPD promotional exams, 11 of which were from 2002 to 2012 while he was employed as an NYPD captain. DOI reviewed the Exam application, which outlines eligibility requirements, and found that the retired captain was not eligible to take any of the 19 exams for which he registered. While DOI did not establish that the captain took any exam for an improper purpose, allowing ineligible candidates to sit for exams plainly poses a risk to exam integrity.

Great stuff, that. Some cop boss who thinks he’s better than the tests was allowed to take tests he wasn’t permitted to take, perform some sort of performative failure during testing, and take all the info he had gathered and use it to run a for-profit test-taking class for other NYPD officers.

And what’s come out of this other than a bit of temporary embarrassment for the NYPD? Not much. According to Bailey’s write-up at Plagiarism Today, only seven officers were lightly wrist-slapped for receiving test answers from others via text messages or social media. 103 officers were declared ineligible to take the test and their tests were thrown out. But no effort was made to perform a do-over in a more sterile testing environment and the two government contractors who combined forces to deliver this test-taking farce are apparently still considered valid options for future testing.

While this may show police officers are, above all else, human beings just as prone to temptation as the rest of us, they’re supposed to hold themselves to higher standards. But only about 80 of them did. The department they work for apparently isn’t willing to hold them to a higher standard either. And if NYPD brass doesn’t give a fuck, why should they?