Justice Department reviewing NYPD over monitoring of Muslims
Legal panel weighs in on the case
- Duration 5:28
- Date Feb 29, 2012
Legal panel weighs in on the case
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- -- back in session on the docket today is it's buying or just good old fashioned due diligence to keep our country safe.
New York city's police department now could be facing review by the justice department for gathering information.
And YPD has databases filled with information on where Muslims in the New York area live shot pray and socialize.
The Justice Department apparently knew about the practiced for months but just yesterday attorney general Eric Holder told congress his department is now reviewing.
Whether to investigate the police for civil rights violations.
We have received letters from members of congress.
Sources as well and we're in the process of reviewing those letters to determine.
What action if any.
We should take as a general matter.
Before one takes investigative action there could be -- should be a credit of some sort some basis for belief that.
That action is necessary.
Turning now Mercedes Colwin Fox News legal analyst and jobs billboard with a former prosecutor now defense attorney -- and also.
He he's not saying that they are investigating he is saying.
That they are beginning a review to decide whether to investigate civil rights violations.
By the NYPD.
John -- of the Department of Justice do exactly that this is so interesting yes they should clearly I think this is a Fourth Amendment issue and with the NYPD is accused of doing is basically violate the Fourth Amendment right.
Of anybody who happens to be but my -- with out with out any probable cause to suspect that they're doing something wrong.
Now the Justice Department it could be explained how what -- -- NYPD doing for our viewers -- down now and -- Justice Department interest it sure they're conducting surveillance and and comprising dossier on people who are simply college students who live in certain areas who go to certain places of worship.
And that's the -- basis not that -- accused of doing anything wrong conspiring with anybody else to do something -- against people the United States.
Jeff because there mud but so obviously that violates the Fourth Amendment -- you look at what the DOJ the -- days this is like yeah well.
People get around to its own us then if -- can don't get that's the.
Who is not apologetic for this saying look he's you know that the feds have to do what they have to do but -- my job is to keep the city safe -- on don't think.
Because the commission commissioner came -- that we have to tighten up we have to have that that the surveillance.
By the way these terrorist -- where I think -- they've been hit Internet -- they have been at hospitals they have been at hotels they had been -- month.
Yeah -- definitive proof that they need it -- -- PD has them.
It these type of their self hating this -- it is very -- unlawful search and seizure.
There is reasonable suspicion to go into these particular place -- -- -- it to hold.
No wants wiretapping they're going to public places there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to that is it.
-- do you Jon and that there is a constitutional violation in monitoring these folks at their mosques and otherwise.
At public places as opposed to in their homes -- -- points out.
Public places in your -- I see no difference if you're not accused of doing a darn -- negative you're walking down the -- I don't think anybody has the right to follow you around -- -- -- -- your every move when you have not been accused or engage in any activity that's what so ever suspicious -- -- would just gonna put a big text of the Fourth Amendment of the constitution and -- -- because that's what's happening here is the government either the federal -- the state allowed to keep tabs on you as long as it's done in a public setting.
There is in -- police can even put it surveillance cameras if they're in a public that they don't even more for that they don't have to go to court.
And get permission to do that it's all about the expectation of privacy end.
Whether there's a security issue at risk which of course there enough.
That's why they have these but is there are all Muslims I mean that's you.
-- -- -- -- Awfully broad brush but you know honestly Megan if they were if -- -- Hispanic Americans that did 9/11 then they would be the Hispanics and the focus if not race it's not it's not nationality and it has nothing to do with religion.
I know that and how are -- saying about John I mean you can find it I I realized that it was radical extremists they attacked us on 9/11 but -- you can find it among any race group.
Or religious group somebody who had committed attack in the past -- could that be used to just keep tabs on us Big Brother.
Where we shop where we go to church keep files on -- what we say online Internet chat groups -- do we really want the feds doing that or the locals I should say.
And according to the civil liberties union there is a federal court order in place that says you cannot do that unless you have a reasonable suspicion the Fourth Amendment that you can't do that unless you have a reasonable suspicion and this is another classic slippery slope argument mega I don't want anybody not that might work papers please.
Because they have no basis to base anything on except that they they think.
That there is is that security at risk John and that's what we're talking about it's actually pretty different than -- -- -- constitution out the window.
-- -- but it becomes it but you know the individual rights are trapped when it comes -- -- -- the security issue at risk and in many -- -- -- a lot of it unless.
Less so -- less and less so according to the court decisions now you know all these years after 9/11 it's gotten.
A little bit more on the favor of the side of civil liberties guys gotta go but thank you both so much thing.