You have to read between the lines a bit, but this decision by a NY appeals court from this week seems to reveal police misconduct & perjury. There won't be any consequences for the cop, but here's what seems to have happened in case anyone's interested: http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_04776.htm

A Brooklyn cop got a search warrant for an apartment, supposedly based on an informant's claim that he'd bought drugs there twice. As usual it was a no-knock warrant, & cops burst in at 6:20am to find a man asleep in bed. Here's what these raids look like. https://twitter.com/srfeld/status/1271489499583963137?s=20

The cops (allegedly) expected to find evidence of a drug business: "cocaine, vials, caps, glassine envelopes, small ziplock bags, currency, and financial records." Instead, after tearing the place up, they found 1 single baggy of drugs, a couple pipes, a gun, & nothing else.

The cops hadn't found their cocaine business, but the man they found in bed was hit with 2 gun charges. At the first trial, he was acquitted of 1 charge & the jury couldn't reach a verdict on the other. It seems the man maybe didn't live there, he just slept there occasionally.

Prosecutors retried & convicted the man. On appeal, the court held that the trial judge should have brought in the informant to make sure he actually existed & was reliable. If not, the search warrant was no good & the evidence should be suppressed. http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_03816.htm

The appeals court sent the case back, & the trial judge heard from the supposed informant. Because the police wanted his identity kept secret, defense counsel wasn't allowed to be present or argue he wasn't credible. Needless to say, the judge found him entirely credible.

But the supposed informant's testimony was so full of problems that the appeals court overruled the trial judge. It's extremely rare for an appeals court to overturn a trial judge on an issue of credibility, so that alone is a sign that something seriously shady happened here.

First of all, in his sworn affidavit to get the search warrant, the cop had said the informant had previously given information to the NYPD "on one occasion." But now the informant told the judge he'd informed for this particular cop *100 times* before. That's a big difference!

Second & more damningly, the cop's sworn affidavit claimed the informant made 2 controlled buys at this apartment, first from a woman & later from a man. But now the informant testified he made only one buy there, from a man, & he'd never been to the apartment before that.

Neither the prosecutor nor the cop offered any explanation for these discrepancies. Someone was clearly lying under oath here: there's no innocent explanation for this set of facts. The 2 conservative judges who dissented grumbled that it might have somehow been a typo.

Especially given the lack of a drug business at this address, it seems like the cop may have simply made up an informant & then dragged someone else in to cover his ass when the appeals court started asking for proof. But if that's what happened he didn't even coach him well!

Whatever happened here cries out for the cop to be investigated & the credulous trial judge (William Harrington) to resign, but that won't happen. The appeals court chose not to name the cop in its decision, helping him avoid accountability. Just another day in the war on drugs.

You'll be shocked to learn that this trial judge, William Harrington, spent most of his legal career as a prosecutor. His term is up in 2022, so it will be up to the next mayor whether to reappoint him or not.