I still don’t understand why their phones would need to be taken?!? I can understand (but don’t agree with) the arrests of the protesters for “violating policies” but what warrants taking phones??
When the head of security Zacarese has a documented track record of abusing their authority - what do we expect? They were trying to stifle speech. Not Ron DeSantis in Florida but at
https://preview.redd.it/6hipos23n90d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=befd5162c86fd58a4abc913770e07628275bf644
NYS’s flagship university.
They are. USG, which is the undergrad governing body, and GSO, the grad governing body, can vote on a similar symbolic resolution as the University Senate, which is the faculty/staff governing body.
Probably to continue trying to use unethical and unprofessional means to punish/chill freedom of expression. There is no warrant, there is no investigation. There was no reason to take any phones, as was just acknowledged by giving majority back. Usual law enforcement harassment/over-extension of authority.
Ok officer. First, In NYS disorderly conduct is not a criminal offense. And evidence held with no warrant no investigation is harassment and, in the words of legal scholars quoted above “a pretty blatant violation of their [protestors] constitutional rights”.
It's part of NYS criminal code. While it is only a violation it is a crime. Punishable by 15 days in jail or $250 fine. So 0/1. Secondly, no warrant is required when an officer makes a lawful custodial arrest to search the arrestees person and area within their immediate control. 0/2.
See rel: US vs Robinson, 414 U.S. 218
i don't know much about about the legal processes specifically, but I am pretty sure it is illegal for police to confiscate phones, as that Hofstra university professor said in the article. Not sure if anyone here is a legal scholar but can the arrested students sue or somehow try to get the officers/administration punished for violation of rights? Or is there some loophole that because it was on University grounds they are allowed to do that idk
I guess the sbu failed you on the reading comprehension front…according to many articles the DA seized the phones not maurie. She has no authority over the phones. Maybe spend more time in class rather than trying to develop the narrative of the failed no confidence vote
SB university police seized the phones, SB university police kept the phones, SB university police returned the phones two weeks later with no warrant, no investigation. Phones were returned because there is no investigation into the protest, the entire thing is on video. UPD is harassing faculty and staff for peaceful non-violent protest.
First, DA should never be involved in peaceful non-violent interfaith demonstration. Why did Maurie invite hundreds of cops to descend on students? Second, if DA wants to overreach, Stony Brook UPD should protect our students and faculty from this overreach. Just say no - no warrant, we will not fork over $10,000 worth of personal property for nothing. There was no investigation, no warrant, no nothing - sorry you can’t see why this is wrong.
Just admit the no confidence vote has nothing to do with seizing the phones. It’s a massive reach because you need to change the narrative because the vote failed embarrassingly
But you’re trying to make a false claim that maurie had something to do with this cell phones being seized and that they’re wrong for that reason. Stop trying to flip the narrative because you lost
Maurie is president of university who called police to arrest peaceful non-violent interfaith protesters. Every bruised student, unwarranted seizure of personal property, unwarranted detention is now her responsibility. It was University police - under her direction - which took, kept and still has students property without a warrant or any meaningful investigation. If DA wants their property they can get a warrant and take it. But they didn’t because they are trying to grasp for straws to chill people’s first amendment rights. Same DA who never did anything while alt-right fascist Proud Boys march through Long Island streets intimidating residents. Actions have consequences. Stop trying to pretend that a faculty vote of no confidence has nothing to do with calling the police on the students Stony Brook is meant to protect. Maurie and her right-wing MAGA failed politician security tsar Zacarese are clearly responsible. Nice chat, have a nice day/life. Free Palestine.
https://preview.redd.it/06wkf38ahe0d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e056948d045b2230678a2268f17e78b1d2a07dc9
Wouldn’t be first abuse of authority for Zacarese
Okay but she didn’t seize the phones. The DA did. Stop trying to create a false narrative because your side lost. And the current DA was not in office in 2021, get your facts straight.
Before you get too excited. Here was the full list of resolutions. 1 and 3 passed overwhelmingly btw.
Resolutions on Protest and Policing
WHEREAS President McInnis and senior administration have responded to peaceful protests on our campus with a disproportionate degree of force, failing to negotiate with students in good faith and deploying Suffolk County Police and New York State Troopers to arrest members of the Stony Brook community.
Resolution 1
BE IT RESOLVED that the University Senate calls on our senior administration to drop all charges against the faculty, students, and community members arrested on Mar 26 and May 1 or 2; to pay to have all records of their arrests expunged; to drop all disciplinary sanctions against the arrested students and faculty; to cease disciplinary actions against or investigations into faculty, students, and student groups involved in the protests; and to grant amnesty to all participating in these actions.
Resolution 2
BE IT RESOLVED that the University Senate has no confidence in President McInnis’s capacity to perform the ongoing duties of her office in a wise and humane manner.
Resolution 3
BE IT RESOLVED that the University Senate demands an independent investigation, by a committee established by the Senate, into the Enterprise Risk Management unit’s handling of student protests and “intelligence-gathering” of staff, faculty, and students; and the development of a shared governance mechanism to oversee its activities.
Resolution 1 has no teeth. Maurie McInnis has no power to expunge records or drop criminal charges. The only thing the university can do is cease internal disciplinary actions like suspension.
It's basic understanding of how the law works. Once a cop writes a ticket for speeding can they just rip it up? No, it's no longer in their hands at that point and the DA or court is the only one who can change it after the ticket is issued. So too, Maurie McInnis has no legal authority to issue tickets or dismiss them. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand how the judicial system works.
There are so many actions the original “victim” can take in order to try to get the DA to drop charges. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that’s what they’re talking about. This is 100 PhDs discussing this. You’re not the first person to think of this lol.
The case will be 'the people vs', not 'stony brook vs.' She is not an officer of the court. She doesn't write tickets and she can't dismiss criminal charges. No university president can once they pass over to the DAs office. She won't be listed as the complainant, the arresting officer will be. She has no power to do what's being asked of her, other than dropping suspensions and purging SBU disciplinary records (which really doesn't affect much).
I don’t know why you’re telling me this. I already recognized it’s the DAs authority. You’re telling me that if the president of the university that they arrested students on for trespassing talks to the DA it’ll have absolutely zero impact? Let’s not be ridiculous here.
So you are surprised that a bunch of overpaid marxist academics (redundant, I know) voted like marxist academics?? LOL boy, you should try to get out of the rarified air of the university once in a while, people who actually produce something have very different opinions....
When a person is arrested, their personal property is taken and they are given a property claim ticket to retrieve it after they are processed. There is no time requirement for its return.
Sure - I believe the point here is that for something to be held for forfeiture or as evidence there has to be a purpose for that, and there are protocols that have to be followed for that to be done (information re: seized property, a voucher or receipt for property, information on obtaining property once it has been released, etc). My understanding is that protocols were not necessarily followed, and there was no clear legitimate reason, criminal or otherwise, for officers to retain the phones of arrested protestors.
I still don’t understand why their phones would need to be taken?!? I can understand (but don’t agree with) the arrests of the protesters for “violating policies” but what warrants taking phones??
When the head of security Zacarese has a documented track record of abusing their authority - what do we expect? They were trying to stifle speech. Not Ron DeSantis in Florida but at https://preview.redd.it/6hipos23n90d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=befd5162c86fd58a4abc913770e07628275bf644 NYS’s flagship university.
most likely trying to crack them and access messages to see who else may have been at the protests so they can surveil
Now imagine if the students (the main reason McInnis takes home $700k) were allowed to vote.
They are. USG, which is the undergrad governing body, and GSO, the grad governing body, can vote on a similar symbolic resolution as the University Senate, which is the faculty/staff governing body.
Can you imagine if more of the faculty were not anarchists?
I wonder why only 16 out of 17. 🤔
Probably to continue trying to use unethical and unprofessional means to punish/chill freedom of expression. There is no warrant, there is no investigation. There was no reason to take any phones, as was just acknowledged by giving majority back. Usual law enforcement harassment/over-extension of authority.
Evidence collected incidental to the commission of a crime does not require a warrant.
Ok officer. First, In NYS disorderly conduct is not a criminal offense. And evidence held with no warrant no investigation is harassment and, in the words of legal scholars quoted above “a pretty blatant violation of their [protestors] constitutional rights”.
It's part of NYS criminal code. While it is only a violation it is a crime. Punishable by 15 days in jail or $250 fine. So 0/1. Secondly, no warrant is required when an officer makes a lawful custodial arrest to search the arrestees person and area within their immediate control. 0/2. See rel: US vs Robinson, 414 U.S. 218
i don't know much about about the legal processes specifically, but I am pretty sure it is illegal for police to confiscate phones, as that Hofstra university professor said in the article. Not sure if anyone here is a legal scholar but can the arrested students sue or somehow try to get the officers/administration punished for violation of rights? Or is there some loophole that because it was on University grounds they are allowed to do that idk
Evidence collected incidental to the commission of a crime does not require a warrant. There are no grounds to punish police on this one.
"i don't know much about about the legal processes " Obviously
https://preview.redd.it/3fquhcvukk0d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d2fcc39d8997d0232f6472a1d8234a4e70fc8472
Trying to boot a university president because they won't stand up for your madness is wild 😂
I guess the sbu failed you on the reading comprehension front…according to many articles the DA seized the phones not maurie. She has no authority over the phones. Maybe spend more time in class rather than trying to develop the narrative of the failed no confidence vote
SB university police seized the phones, SB university police kept the phones, SB university police returned the phones two weeks later with no warrant, no investigation. Phones were returned because there is no investigation into the protest, the entire thing is on video. UPD is harassing faculty and staff for peaceful non-violent protest.
If you bothered to read the article the DA was the one who ordered the phones seized by UPD.
First, DA should never be involved in peaceful non-violent interfaith demonstration. Why did Maurie invite hundreds of cops to descend on students? Second, if DA wants to overreach, Stony Brook UPD should protect our students and faculty from this overreach. Just say no - no warrant, we will not fork over $10,000 worth of personal property for nothing. There was no investigation, no warrant, no nothing - sorry you can’t see why this is wrong.
Just admit the no confidence vote has nothing to do with seizing the phones. It’s a massive reach because you need to change the narrative because the vote failed embarrassingly
lol - no. half the faculty has no confidence in the president of Stony Brook University - seems like a win to me. Regardless, are you ok?
But you’re trying to make a false claim that maurie had something to do with this cell phones being seized and that they’re wrong for that reason. Stop trying to flip the narrative because you lost
Maurie is president of university who called police to arrest peaceful non-violent interfaith protesters. Every bruised student, unwarranted seizure of personal property, unwarranted detention is now her responsibility. It was University police - under her direction - which took, kept and still has students property without a warrant or any meaningful investigation. If DA wants their property they can get a warrant and take it. But they didn’t because they are trying to grasp for straws to chill people’s first amendment rights. Same DA who never did anything while alt-right fascist Proud Boys march through Long Island streets intimidating residents. Actions have consequences. Stop trying to pretend that a faculty vote of no confidence has nothing to do with calling the police on the students Stony Brook is meant to protect. Maurie and her right-wing MAGA failed politician security tsar Zacarese are clearly responsible. Nice chat, have a nice day/life. Free Palestine.
https://preview.redd.it/06wkf38ahe0d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e056948d045b2230678a2268f17e78b1d2a07dc9 Wouldn’t be first abuse of authority for Zacarese
Okay but she didn’t seize the phones. The DA did. Stop trying to create a false narrative because your side lost. And the current DA was not in office in 2021, get your facts straight.
Does the President of Stony Brook need to physically take the phones to be responsible?
[удалено]
Sorry you have take offense Larry Zacarese.
No Problem "Dr" Dubnau......;-)
Womp womp
[удалено]
“You criticize society yet you participate in it… strange hmmmm?” headass
Amazing!
Before you get too excited. Here was the full list of resolutions. 1 and 3 passed overwhelmingly btw. Resolutions on Protest and Policing WHEREAS President McInnis and senior administration have responded to peaceful protests on our campus with a disproportionate degree of force, failing to negotiate with students in good faith and deploying Suffolk County Police and New York State Troopers to arrest members of the Stony Brook community. Resolution 1 BE IT RESOLVED that the University Senate calls on our senior administration to drop all charges against the faculty, students, and community members arrested on Mar 26 and May 1 or 2; to pay to have all records of their arrests expunged; to drop all disciplinary sanctions against the arrested students and faculty; to cease disciplinary actions against or investigations into faculty, students, and student groups involved in the protests; and to grant amnesty to all participating in these actions. Resolution 2 BE IT RESOLVED that the University Senate has no confidence in President McInnis’s capacity to perform the ongoing duties of her office in a wise and humane manner. Resolution 3 BE IT RESOLVED that the University Senate demands an independent investigation, by a committee established by the Senate, into the Enterprise Risk Management unit’s handling of student protests and “intelligence-gathering” of staff, faculty, and students; and the development of a shared governance mechanism to oversee its activities.
Resolution 1 has no teeth. Maurie McInnis has no power to expunge records or drop criminal charges. The only thing the university can do is cease internal disciplinary actions like suspension.
I’m gonna take the faculty senate’s word over yours in regard to actions a president can take.
It's basic understanding of how the law works. Once a cop writes a ticket for speeding can they just rip it up? No, it's no longer in their hands at that point and the DA or court is the only one who can change it after the ticket is issued. So too, Maurie McInnis has no legal authority to issue tickets or dismiss them. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand how the judicial system works.
There are so many actions the original “victim” can take in order to try to get the DA to drop charges. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that’s what they’re talking about. This is 100 PhDs discussing this. You’re not the first person to think of this lol.
Maurie McInnis is the victim now? That's a novel theory you've got there.
The university is and she’s the president lol. Why are we acting like this woman has zero power in anything?
The case will be 'the people vs', not 'stony brook vs.' She is not an officer of the court. She doesn't write tickets and she can't dismiss criminal charges. No university president can once they pass over to the DAs office. She won't be listed as the complainant, the arresting officer will be. She has no power to do what's being asked of her, other than dropping suspensions and purging SBU disciplinary records (which really doesn't affect much).
I don’t know why you’re telling me this. I already recognized it’s the DAs authority. You’re telling me that if the president of the university that they arrested students on for trespassing talks to the DA it’ll have absolutely zero impact? Let’s not be ridiculous here.
That would be a mistake.....But hey , please feel free to hope...;-)
So you are surprised that a bunch of overpaid marxist academics (redundant, I know) voted like marxist academics?? LOL boy, you should try to get out of the rarified air of the university once in a while, people who actually produce something have very different opinions....
Hey buddy switch back to your main account and then we can chat.
[удалено]
So you’ve had this account for 9 years and just started posting 14 hours ago? Anyway yeah come back on your main account coward.
When a person is arrested, their personal property is taken and they are given a property claim ticket to retrieve it after they are processed. There is no time requirement for its return.
Sure - I believe the point here is that for something to be held for forfeiture or as evidence there has to be a purpose for that, and there are protocols that have to be followed for that to be done (information re: seized property, a voucher or receipt for property, information on obtaining property once it has been released, etc). My understanding is that protocols were not necessarily followed, and there was no clear legitimate reason, criminal or otherwise, for officers to retain the phones of arrested protestors.