Guest blogged by Ernest A. Canning
The City of New York and the NYPD are engaging in a deliberate campaign of “mass arrests, illegally arresting protesters, including bank customers, and needlessly detaining them for excessively long periods…in order to facilitate and promote the CITY OF NEW YORK’s desired reputation as corporate friendly and pro-bank.”
So says a federal complaint filed by a woman and her fiancée who allege that they were inappropriately detained by New York City police last month inside a branch of Citibank in downtown Manhattan. [Video of the extraordinary arrest is posted at the end of this article.]
The civil rights suit, Carpenter vs. City of New York, has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Heather Carpenter, a 23 year old student and direct care counselor for the mentally disabled, and her fiancé, Julio Jimenez-Artunga.
The complaint arises out of an Oct. 15 mass arrest at a Greenwich Village branch of Citibank during which Carpenter closed her account, quietly exited the bank and even offered a receipt to prove she was a customer, only to be physically accosted by the NYPD, dragged back inside the bank, arrested and charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest. According to the complaint, the DA subsequently has said that the charges would be dismissed for lack of evidence…
Substantive allegations
The complaint alleges that on Oct. 15, “Occupy Wall Street activists assembled in Washington Square Park with a plan to peacefully protest against the predatory lending practices and excessive fees of big banks by marching to local branches of Citibank and Chase and closing their accounts.” Heather, who took part in the assembly, had received a letter from Citibank about a month earlier, which informed her she would be charged a “monthly maintenance fee unless she maintained a minimum balance of $6,000.”
Carpenter, accompanied by her fiancé, joined protesters in marching to the Greenwich Village branch of Citibank.
“Upon entering the bank,” the complaint alleges, “some of the protesters participated in a teach-in, announcing the amount of their debt, discussing their student loan experiences, and reciting sobering statistics related to the debt of college graduates.”
As the teach-in was in progress, Carpenter “approached a Citibank teller” seeking to close her accounts. “Julio heard a bank representative request that the protestors take their protest outside…Julio exited the bank and waited [outside for Carpenter].”
As she was completing her transaction, “police officers began barricading the doors of the bank,” the complaint continues. As seen on the video below, and as written in the complaint, “Heather informed the officers that she was a customer, showed them the receipt and she was permitted to leave.” Other protesters who were seeking to comply with the request that they take their demonstration outside were imprisoned inside the bank when police locked the doors. NYPD’s Chief of Department, Joseph Esposito, then ordered officers to arrest everyone inside the bank and charge them with criminal trespass, according to the suit.
Outside the bank, Carpenter is seen being accosted by an undercover officer identified in the suit only as DOE 1. He said she would have to come inside with him because she had been “inside with everyone else.” When she protested that she was a bank customer and pulled out a receipt to prove it, DOE 1 “grabbed her from behind. Cupping the bottom of her breasts with two hands, DOE 1 lifted Heather off the ground and began carrying her toward the bank entrance,” reads the complaint.
When her fiancée Jimenez-Artunga raised both hands in the air, motioning “why?”, two officers grabbed him and dragged him inside the vestibule of the bank as well, where he was surrounded by 7 officers pulling him “in conflicting directions.”
“One,” the complaint charges, “kicked Julio in the back of the knee…DOE 3 responded to Julio’s cry of pain by grasping his left arm, pulling behind Julio’s back, and forcefully lifted it upward into a hyper-extended position…In severe pain, Julio screamed once more, but DOE 3 pulled harder.”
Meanwhile, Carpenter was “shoved face-first into the corner” of the front of the bank doors “and swarmed by other officers” who pressed her face against the glass. Both Carpenter and Jimenez-Artunga were then arrested, charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest. They were kept in police custody for 30 and 32 hours respectively before appearing in court and being released on their own recognizance.
The complaint alleges that, on Nov. 14, the New York County DA announced he intended “to dismiss the charges…on the grounds the People* could not carry its burden of proof.”
*How Orwellian! An oligarchic plutocracy that carries out lawless assaults upon and indiscriminate arrests of its citizens claims to be acting as “the People.”
Complaint seeks damages, but what about an injunction?
The federal complaint seeks damages for false arrest and excess force that caused “serious physical and emotional pain” in violation of the couple’s rights under the 4th & 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but the federal statute under which the complaint was filed, 42 USC 1983, permits a suit in equity against every “person who, under color of [law, deprives another person] of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.”
While the couple appear to have a solid claim for damages, the broader context is the allegation that a city, with a Mayor who is among the “0.01 percent” (Michael Bloomberg, personal net worth: $19.5 billion), is deliberately violating the constitutional rights of its citizens in order to advance the privileges of the giant Wall Street banks who had been the driving force behind the 2008 financial meltdown. If that allegation is true, then this couple, or others subjected to the city’s storm trooper tactics, should seriously consider seeking injunctive relief, which is available under Section 1983.
Peace officers vs. Wall Street mercenaries
The second video (below), recorded on Oct. 7, provides a textbook example of how police can and should handle a peaceful disagreement between a bank manager and a protester/customer. (Watch and learn, NYPD).
In that case, protesters entered the Santa Cruz, CA branch of Bank of America. They were told by the bank’s manager that they had to leave. When one woman complained that she was a customer seeking to close her account, the bank manager responded: “You can’t be a protester and a customer at the same time” — a silly remark since a customer’s decision to withdraw all funds and close an account is, of itself, a form of protest.
The manager locked the door and told them they would “be arrested.”
The manager was wrong.
When the police arrived they were polite to all. “I’m a peace officer,” one officer said. “Not a cop.” No arrests were made for the obvious reason that no laws were broken.
There’s no valid reason why the NYPD could not have handled the Greenwich Village Citibank incident in the same fashion. Instead of rushing to trap protesters inside the bank, they could have simply declared the gathering inside the bank an unlawful assembly and directed them to leave. No arrests would have been necessary unless they refused to leave.
That would be how peace officers handle a crowd. But, time and again, in cities and on campuses, citizens have been confronted not by peace officers seeking to protect and serve, but by unprovoked violence and repression meted out by heavily armored storm troopers who act as mercenaries for a criminal oligarchy masquerading as a democracy.
Video of Heather Carpenter’s arrest at the Greenwich Village branch of Citibank on 10/15/11…
Video depicting Santa Cruz PD as a model of decorum at similar “Move Your Money” incident, this one at Bank of America on 10/7/11 (the video is mis-dated as 2012)…
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968). Follow him on Twitter: @Cann4ing.
The Sec. 1983 claim against the city or municipality must show an illegal pattern of practice or policy, but the case against the individual officers only has to get past “qualified immunity”.
Sounds like a good case.
Are the New York police insane? Is it a show of elite powers deliberately showing naked fascism to see if they can get away with it? Is the general US population so docile as to accept that?
As if I needed more reasons to keep my money in a local bank where they care if I live or die. Throughout my life, whenever my bank has been taken over by a big bank, I have moved my money, often loudly and publicly. I also have my mortgage at a local bank. The one time I broke that rule, I was very sorry.
FWIW, I suppose I should note that that specific Greenwich Village branch of Citibank is where I opened my first account when I moved to NYC as an NYU student back in 1983!
Had I known what they would do in 2011, I would have protested back in ’83! Sadly, I hadn’t yet invented the time machine I own now…Oops…guess I should keep that to myself…
Where is the ACLU and the pro-bono lawyers to clog the courts with suits against the perpetrators. A rash of huge settlements from jurys made up of the 99% would go a long way.
Hmm.
She admits she marched there with protestors whom she knew had intended to trespass on private property.
They had every right to arrest her and then drop teh charges when they could determine her story was true.
She will lose this case.
Re Honest Rob #6:
The bank is open to the public. There would be no criminal “trespass” unless and until the protestors refused to leave after being asked to do so.
Heather Carpenter’s political views and her having “marched there with protestors” did not eliminate her contractual right, as a Citibank customer, to enter the bank for the purpose of closing her account.
She completed that lawful transaction and left the establishment. At the time DOE 1 accosted her, he lacked probable cause to believe that Ms. Carpenter had committed a crime, period!
Likewise, Carpenter’s fiancé, Julio Jimenez-Artunga, had a lawful right to accompany her while she conducted that lawful transaction. The fact that he marched with the protestors did not make his lawful act, unlawful.
At the time Julio was accosted by NYPD officers outside the bank, those officers lacked probable cause to believe he committed a criminal trespass.
Perhaps you should change your handle from “Honest Rob” to “Uninformed Rob.”
The amount of force the police used and the overall treatment of these two people is ridiculous and criminal. The police who abused them physically should be barred from ever serving as police in this country ever again, and do jail time for abusing their position of power. This is why people hate and fear police. These police are scum.
OUTRAGEOUS! Peacefully conducting bank business gets a customer treated like this? The case should not only be dismissed, the cops should be prosecuted. This indiscriminate and violent harassment is beyond the pale of justice!
I’m thinking about taking Citi to court because I was told after I was calling to inquiry about my account being late and I told them that I was late paying because I had a miscarriage and I was dealing with that and surgery I needed a bit after.
I was then told a miscarriage doesn’t matter and having a miscarriage doesn’t give you an excuse for paying your bills late and that he didn’t care.
The cops are Bloomberg’s private army protecting the hardworking and morally superior financial class. I don’t see what the problem is other than that someone from one of the lesser classes dared to question the fundamentals of the system, which automatically makes that person an enemy.