Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Witness the Discussion

Just as I finished my attempt to summarize and synthesize the discussion that went on last night about the "sanctuary city" resolution, Dan Udell informed me that his video of the proceedings was now available on YouTube. Click here to watch the entire fifty minutes.



  1. on the resolution

    get an opinion in writing from the attorney general -- rather than "he said she said "

    hudson is a tough town to police. tons of drugs, lots of guns.

    the police need the written explicit support of the AG of NYS.

    lets defer to the chief and the police department.

    1. Agreed, but you should factor in what Alderman Friedman said which is spot on: "To pretend that the attorney general's guidelines are some kind of protection or panacea is a mistake."

    2. i think he was implying that the AG would not "put it in writing"!!

    3. I understood him to say that, whether it's written or not, the A.G.'s word is not gospel.

      To the Alderman's assessment, I'd add that Schneiderman is an ambitious man who's prone to miscalculation. Above all else, he craves an opportunity to appear before SCOTUS even if he must use a few municipalities to get there.

      I doubt that the Alderman was saying as much as that, but I know there are people in positions of leadership in Hudson - very irresponsible people - who'd be gleeful to put Hudson on the map by allowing it to be used by the ambitious and undependable Schneiderman.

      Hudson should resist its seemingly incorrigible exhibitionism, though in the meantime obtain whatever assurance the HPD needs, even if it's Schneiderman's flimsy opinion.

      The sooner we get on with it, the better.

  2. The issue is not so much what is in the text of the Resolution, or for that matter the Executive Order (both of which carve out an exemption for any police conduct required to comport with the law), but rather that the police department have adequate guidance in specific situations as to what is legally required. To the extent the law is ambiguous as to a specific detainer situation for example, because it is in dispute, or has not been litigated, or whatever, I would hope and trust that city policy would permit the police to not take an action that puts the department, or its officers, into the legal twilight zone. The police should not be required to take an action that may potentially put it in legal jeopardy, even if it is not certain that it would do so.

    1. In your opinion, is that something we can work out within the City, and in a way that would satisfy the concerns of the HPD?

      Put another way, because these scenarios may not have been litigated before, is it possible to come up with our own rules of thumb, perhaps framed around avoidance of situations rather than engagement?

      Probably that's naive, or doesn't account for the real world in some way. But is there any way to simplify the policy on our won which would be to everyone's satisfaction?

      I hope the HPD has been asked for suggestions.

    2. With good and patient counsel working through this with the Police Chief, and we avoid subjecting the police force to ambiguous legal situations, we can (and must) work through this. How complicated that is, I don't know. This is one area of the law where I am do not have any particular expertise. Hopefully our city attorney, Ken Dow, and Chief Moore, have been chatting, with perhaps Ken needing to do some research on some particular matters. We shall see. I would very much prefer that at the end of the day, that this matter does not leave bitter or divisive feelings among our City's stakeholders, and I think that can be done if this is sensitively handled.

  3. the police in hudson conduct themselves with care and courage. as i said it is a tough town to police. and they do it well.

    the mayor and some citizens may want to tell the police what to do with respect to illegal aliens, but it is a grandstanding gesture that the police do not need to have added to their already large burden.
    the decree does seem to cloud the future. so what is the point ?

    1. Not sure if you can tell, but I agree with you.

      Still, people want to grandstand. As long as it's harmless, then, which it appears to be, then let's reach the solution our neighbors desire so desperately in the fastest, easiest, and most painless way possible.