http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 018/NEWS02

Village of Mamaroneck defends police policy toward day laborers
By CANDICE FERRETTE
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: September 14, 2006)

If a Mamaroneck police officer ever told a day laborer to move from where he was standing, it was probably because that laborer was blocking the sidewalk, not because he was soliciting work, the village's police chief testified yesterday.

Chief Edward Flynn and three other high-ranking village police officials were among the first witnesses called by lawyers defending the village against allegations that it used police officers to selectively enforce the law to harass the Latino workers, preventing them from finding daily employment on village streets.

"We hope that this makes a clear statement that the Police Department is doing its job and enforcing the laws of the village," Kevin Plunkett of Thatcher, Profitt and Wood, one of the village's attorneys, said after the third day of trial yesterday in White Plains.

The federal trial, which may affect the interaction of local police and day laborers in suburbs across the country, is expected to continue this morning with the testimony of police officers, village trustees and the mayor.

Contrary to the testimony of the unnamed day laborers who said they were scared to walk village streets, Flynn said the police presence in and around the village's former hiring site was not intended to impede laborers from soliciting work. Rather, Flynn said, he directed police officers not to take action that might prevent either day laborers or contractors in trucks from entering the site at Columbus Park after the village adopted a resolution to close it Feb. 1.

The Police Department received numerous quality-of-life complaints from village residents concerning drug use, child molestation, public urination and defecation in and around the park. There also had been reports of prostitution, bathing in the local rivers and sleeping on public and private property, testified Sgt. Gerard Ferraro, supervisor of the area's bicycle unit.

The plaintiffs in the case, John Doe Nos. 1-4 and 6-8, testified to having been victims of selective enforcement by the police, resulting in intimidation and harassment. The laborers' names and whether they are in the country legally have been withheld from the court. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Eduction Fund, a national advocacy organization based in New York City, filed the case on behalf of the day laborers.

Laborers and other witnesses, including a contractor and a waitress at a local restaurant, have depicted a scene in which laborers and their potential employers often are closely watched by police on bicycles, in patrol cars and on foot.

"We have witnesses who describe a certain kind of harassment by these police officers based on the fact that these laborers are Latino and the court will see that," said Alan Levine, one of the laborers' lawyers.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon has said their names and immigration status is irrelevant to the case because the laborers are seeking protection under the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Constitution offers equal protection to individuals regardless of their status, as long as they are in the country. However, she would not permit anonymous testimonies in the original lawsuit, which alleged that the village also violated the laborers' freedoms of speech and assembly.




http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 023/NEWS07


Day laborers testify on Mamaroneck police tactics
By CANDICE FERRETTE
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: September 13, 2006)


Mamaroneck police officers have monitored Hispanic day laborers so closely in the past year that the laborers have often felt too intimidated to walk the streets, four of them testified yesterday in federal court in White Plains.

But on cross-examination, none could answer "yes" to having been ticketed, arrested or ever taken into custody.

Each worker took the stand anonymously in U.S. District Court as a "John Doe" on the second day of trial in a case accusing Mamaroneck officials and the village's Police Department of using subtle tactics to intimidate and harass the laborers because they are Hispanic. Judge Colleen McMahon will decide if the village harassed the Hispanic laborers and violated their 14th Amendment rights by closing the village-designated hiring site at Columbus Park in February and closely monitoring them and their potential employers on the street.

The outcome of the case could have a significant impact on the relationship between municipal governments and the laborers who have in recent years become the cornerstone of the debate on immigration. The trial is expected to continue today with testimony from a contractor and two day laborers who were unable to get to court yesterday.

"We want the court to determine that whether you are a documented or undocumented laborer, you have certain basic rights that cannot be violated by the government," said Cesar Perales, president of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Hispanic advocacy organization that filed the suit on behalf of six unnamed Mamaroneck day laborers. "This is an undercurrent that will go through many other suburbs. What you have is local governments employing different tactics to drive out the day laborers."

The laborers were not asked in court about their immigration status. However, their lawyers have disclosed that some of them are in the country legally and others are not. One part of the case accusing the village of violating rights of freedom of speech and assembly was dropped so they would not have to disclose their immigration status.

The men addressed incidents in which they had felt intimidated by the police, either by hand gestures — such as a shooing-away, get-out-of-here gesture — or an exchange of words.

One laborer told a story of feeling afraid when an officer had been staring at him from 5 or 6 feet away with his hand on his revolver. But the laborer answered no when asked if the officer had said anything or drawn his gun.

All of the men said under cross-examination that no formal police action, such as a ticket or arrest, had been taken against them — answers that pleased defense lawyers yesterday.

"When I hear police officers have asked them (the day laborers) to move, that doesn't hit me as a violation of anybody's constitutional rights," said the village's attorney, Kevin Plunkett of Thatcher, Profitt and Wood.

Each of the four laborers testified about the effect of the sudden police presence as they gathered to wait for contractors to drive by and hire them. They said they were afraid and worried they would not be able to get work to support their families.

A contractor, Esteban Garcia of New Rochelle, testified about his experiences in picking up day laborers over five or six years. He estimated he hired in Mamaroneck about 10 times during that period. Garcia echoed the day laborers' testimony, saying he had seen a very strong police presence this year.

Plunkett, the village's lawyer, asked: "You say that police surround the men?"

Said Garcia, "I see them all the time. It's like six, eight cops, you know. They keep (the laborers) like cows in a corral." Garcia said the police had never given him a ticket until last month, and until getting the ticket he had never contacted anyone to complain about the police presence.